2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In this House, we have continued second reading of Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016; and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continuing estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

H. Bains: We were on Bill 12. We talked about some parts of it, and there are some more that we need to talk about. As I said before, there are some good things in the bill, and we’re going to support that. But there are things that the minister should be doing and paying attention to when it comes to the forest industry. That’s what I was trying to explain in this House before the break.

We talked about a number of things. We talked about firefighting, fire suppression and where the government is failing. We talked about the professional reliance model, where the government is failing, and I want to talk a bit more about that.

We talked about log exports, the utilization of our fibre that is available to us. I might say — many say — that it is a scarce resource that we have now, considering our capacity to mill it. On the coast, we have more fibre available than the milling capacity.

[1335]

You look at the numbers. Our annual allowable cut on the coast is close to 20 million cubic metres, but our milling capacity, the utilization capacity, is only about 12 million cubic metres. So there are about eight million cubic metres of excess fibre to our needs — of the current milling capacity. I think that’s where the government is failing — eight million cubic metres. I reported earlier that 6.7 million cubic metres in 2013 was exported of that excess timber. Can you imagine if we were able to utilize all of the timber here?

Now, knowing and having worked in the sawmills on the coast, every size of mill…. Because of the size of the logs, we use about half a million cubic metres on a two-shift basis. That would employ about 200 workers year-round on a two-shift basis. Can you imagine, if you multiply that, how many mills that would have supported and how many jobs that 6.7 million cubic metres would have supported? You’re talking about almost 14 mills running full-time, year-round, employing about 3,000 workers. Those would be good, family-supporting jobs. But because of a lack of leadership, because of a lack of, I would say, foresight by the government….

When I say “government,” it’s largely the west wing where the Premier sits. The decision and direction come from that office. It’s all politics all the time, rather than having put some good minds together to say: “How do we utilize that almost seven million cubic metres to create jobs right here in British Columbia for British Columbians?” It would make sense. But her decision is all politically motivated, not what the good policy is to have good-paying jobs grow the economy utilizing our local workers. We have the fibre, but we’re not utilizing it because of the policies of this government.

Now, our processors, our sawmillers, are not required to process those logs here in British Columbia, as it used to be — the requirement under the previous act, before 2003. That was due to the appurtenancy clause that I talked about earlier — that you must use the equivalent volume that you harvest within your own mills. That requirement is no longer there, part of the social contract that we had between the government, on behalf of the people of the province, and the industry. That is completely gone.

What they do, what they want to do — I’m talking about the industry — is they would take the easy route: cut the logs and make quick money by shipping them out of the country. That is not the way to run our economy. That is not a way to create jobs. Those are about 3,000 direct jobs. I’m talking about direct jobs in the sawmills. I’m not even talking about indirect jobs that they would create. In the forest industry, it’s like one to four. You’re talking about another 10,000 or 12,000 jobs in the forest industry, if we were able to work with the industry to have those logs processed here in B.C.

Because of no vision and because we put all our economic eggs in one LNG basket for the last four years, every other sector that built this province has been ignored, including the forest industry. That is the reason that B.C. companies are leaving British Columbia, investing in the United States. I mentioned those names: Canfor, Interfor, West Fraser. Forty sawmills have been purchased in the United States compared to, when this government took power, perhaps one or two.

[1340]

That is the result, and as a result of that, as well, we have, like I said, 30,000 fewer forestry workers working in the mills compared to when they took power. Two hundred mills have been shut down. That’s the result. That is the legacy of this government. That is a serious problem.

Then we take a look: how do we manage our forests that we have here? I talked about professional reliance. This government, rather than…. When they cut all of the
[ Page 11778 ]
forestry services, the staff, so they could tell the world that they had balanced the budget, they cut the staff to a level where there is hardly any enforcement. They say it should be self-reliant and self-policing.

Here is what’s happening. It’s not only with the trees. What else is out there that is related to our trees? Wildlife, for example. Here’s a bit of a scene of that. I will read to you what different people in the industry are saying. It’s on the professional reliance model.

“The B.C. Liberals launched an internal review of how its laws and oversight of resource development affects wildlife habitat. The review, headed by Prince George MLA” — he’s here now; he’s the minister of law enforcement — “is a response, in part, to concern that was raised by different stakeholders, by wildlife user groups. The 43,000-member B.C. Wildlife Federation, B.C. Trappers Association and Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. called on the government to retake control of resource extraction practices, planning and oversight.” That’s what they said.

These are the people that represent almost everyone in those areas. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, B.C. Trappers Association and the Guide Outfitters Association said: “Retake control of resource extraction practices, planning and oversight.” They went on to say: “Government’s move in the past decade to rely on professionals hired by industry to make decisions on the land base with little government oversight has failed.”

This is not the opposition saying. This is not me saying. This is not just anybody saying. These are the people that know the ins and outs of that industry. They live, they breathe and they work in the forest industry. They care about our wildlife habitat. They are the ones who are recommending to the government to retake control of enforcement and that their model of self-reliance has failed.

These are the facts, and do you think the government would listen? No. They did nothing. The report came, it sat there, and they did nothing. What does that say about the government’s reaction to the public’s request to make things better in the forest industry?

Their attitude is contemptuous towards the public by not listening, by saying: “We know best.” Here is an example that I just gave you, and I’ve given you many examples before. The contempt that is shown by this government toward the public and toward the stakeholders in every sector of this economy is horrendous. And then they try to fix a little here, a little there and say: “We are actually working on it.” They’re tweaking a bit here, a bit there, but the real foresight, the real leadership is not there. That’s a serious problem.

Let’s take a look at the fibre utilization, because that is part of this bill. We will talk about that. The waste I talked about, and I talked about the log export amounts.

[1345]

The other thing I want to touch on here is that every time there’s something else that goes on — for example, if there’s a transmission line that goes through our forest area — what happens to that forest? In most cases, that forest that comes out is wasted. They shove it aside, burn it or leave it there to rot. These are millions of cubic metres of logs that should be utilized when our mills are starving of timber.

Now let’s talk about what we are actually doing with our fibre. Let’s do some comparisons. The other two major jurisdictions that have major amounts of forest are Quebec and Ontario, in Canada. This is what they are doing with their fibre, fibre that is available to them.

For every forest sector job in B.C., we cut about 1,400 cubic metres of trees — 1,400 for every job in the forest sector. Ontario gets over four times the number of jobs from each tree that they cut. Quebec gets three times more. Here are the numbers. In Quebec, 476 cubic metres per job. Their AAC is about 29.2 million cubic metres, and they have 61,300 jobs. In Ontario, 328 cubic metres per job. With 12.6 million cubic metres, they are employing with 38,400 jobs.

Now here is the number in B.C. For those who are paying attention, 476 cubic metres per job in Quebec, 328 cubic metres per job in Ontario. In B.C., we are using 1,469 cubic metres to create one job — 1,400. So three to four times more fibre is utilized in B.C. to create one job as compared to Quebec and Ontario. Something’s wrong with that picture.

Where is the leadership to sit down with the industry? Sit down with those who want to invest in the forest industry, to say: “How do we utilize our fibre more efficiently to create more jobs with the timber that is available?”

Let’s learn some lessons from Ontario, from Quebec, from other jurisdictions. You go outside of Canada — to Washington, you go to Sweden — and they are doing much, much better. There are some lessons to be learned from those jurisdictions. But because the decisions made in the west wing here — who I don’t think know much about the forest industry…. All politics all the time. Their decisions are sent down to the ministers: “This is what you do. Leave the industry alone.”

“We are only the spectators,” as the previous minister would say. “Let the industry run the industry.” We have seen the results. I have mentioned how many jobs have left this province.

Here are some other numbers. When you compare where we have been and where we are today, B.C.’s efficiency has gone down by 50 percent since the 1990s. In the 1990s, we needed to harvest just under 800 cubic metres per job — 800 in the 1990s. Since 2002, it has been about 1,200, so from 800 to 1,200 cubic metres per job. While B.C. got worse at that time, Ontario and Quebec were getting better and got more jobs out of each tree that they cut.

[1350]

You see the trend? You see why industry is leaving B.C.? You see why B.C. companies today are investing in the United States? Compare to the 1990s, 1980s, when the foreign companies were coming to invest in B.C.
[ Page 11779 ]

Remember Weyerhaeuser? They came in. They purchased MacMillan-Bloedel. You remember all the other companies that came in from the United States and invested in B.C.? They saw some future in B.C. Now it’s the other way around.

So here, when you compare to Ontario again, B.C. wood and paper manufacturing industries make just 1/5 of the sales revenue from each 1,000 cubic metres of trees. That is one-third compared to Quebec.

Here’s another number. Quebec — they are bringing in $467,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested. Ontario — $805,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested in 2012. Both of those jurisdictions — for 2012, those are the numbers. B.C. — $160,000 per 100 cubic metres harvested in 2012.

You measure it any different way, we’re not doing well in the forest industry — the industry that built the province; the industry that paid for the education of my children and everyone else’s children and generations before us; the industry that paid our health care and all other social programs, built roads and bridges. All the amenities that we enjoy today largely were supported by the forest industry.

The forest industry isn’t even on this government’s radar. It’s LNG all the way. LNG all the way.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Ah, the Minister of Health finally woke up. He finally woke up. He’s talking about LNG versus forest industry.

Let’s do some comparisons. The Premier said 100,000 jobs in LNG. Debt-free B.C. because of LNG — $1 trillion. Let’s look at the results now. That was the promise before the election. Let’s look at the results.

She said three operations in operation by 2015, right? Three. How many have you got today? I would ask the Minister of Health to stand up and say how many you have got today. Zero. During the same time, because the forest industry was being ignored, industry has left B.C. We lost forest industry jobs. No jobs in LNG, but we are losing jobs because all the other industries were ignored. That is the reality. They don’t like to hear it. That’s the reality. I’m waiting for them to stand up one day and say how many LNG plants are in operation today.

Prosperity fund. Remember? The prosperity fund will be there to look after all of our needs.

Interjection.

H. Bains: We’re against something that is not even there. How can you be for something that is not even there?

Show us. The people of the province are saying: “Show us. Don’t stand up and make all those bold statements. Show us.” There’s nothing to show. Nothing. In the meantime, we had the forest industry that was working. They have decimated it. We had the forest industry that was working, at least — decimated it.

Industry is leaving B.C. B.C. companies are leaving B.C. thanks to their misdirection and no leadership. They are going to blame everything, blame everyone else, except look in the mirror to see what wrong they have done.

[1355]

It was all LNG, all the way. Nothing to talk about forest industry. It wasn’t even on her radar when she was campaigning. Now they know that they screwed up royally, and people will be asking some questions on the LNG: “Premier, you promised us. ‘Debt-free B.C.’ on the bus, remember? Where are those LNG jobs?” The election is coming. People will be asking those questions. She had nothing to show for it.

Now, finally, they have realized: “We have to find some other message.” Again, no policy, but a message. Now they are talking about diversity in the economy. Everyone was asking them to diversify our economy. They said: “No, no, no. LNG will solve all of our problems.” Now they are starting…. For the first time in three years, I’m hearing them…. Diversity finally is the word in their vocabulary.

Now, I’ve just, so far, talked about the major industry, logging, and the primary manufacturing side. Let’s talk about the secondary manufacturing. They depend on these mills. Pulp mills depend on these mills for their residuals. If you talk to Russ Cameron, who’s the head of the remanufacturing association, he’ll tell you the state of affairs in his part of the industry.

He’s got some startling numbers. He said that our industry is decimated. There are some really good operators, excellent operators. They’re trying to do the best that they can to keep the secondary manufacturing going, but they are not getting any help from this government. They’re not getting any help from the majors. So they are left at the whim and decision of the major industry.

They look for fibre. They don’t get it. They look for some support in marketing. They don’t get it. He talked about category 2 licensing, which was a successful program that was brought in by the NDP, but this government is sitting quietly and not doing anything for them.

That industry is not doing well. Again, it’s a lack of vision and strategy to make the forestry industry work. I think in an ideal world, the vision should be around that we utilize our forest industry and the trees that we cut to the final product that we sell to consumers, to our customers — from tree to the final product. But that’s not happening, and that’s where those secondary manufacturers come in. That’s where the furniture factories and the cabinet makers come in. When they don’t get the material that they need, the fibre that they need, then they suffer, and the jobs go with it.

You know, you talk about anything. It always comes down to leadership, and we don’t see the leadership. We talk about how we invest in forest health — another ser-
[ Page 11780 ]
ious issue. Report after report, whether it’s the Auditor General’s report or the Forest Practices Board, continuously and regularly give them failing grades — that we’re not investing in forest health.

[1400]

There are thousands, millions — actually, there are three million hectares — of what they call NSR, not sufficiently restocked areas. The trees that should be growing in those areas — we don’t have enough. Those areas need to be replanted, and we’re not doing that. The fertilization program that is needed — we’re not doing that.

I talked about inventory. We don’t even know, according to the Auditor General, which is an independent body — not pulling any sides here. They came down with a report saying that the government doesn’t even know what is there. From replanting to cutting and utilization to nurturing them and caring for them to grow again so that our coming generations can utilize them again — they are failing in every one of those areas.

The stewardship plans. These are the only plans that the licence holders are supposed to put together that become public — only those reports, nothing else. The Forest Practices Board said, in 2005, when they did the first report…. I’m talking about 2005. The first report was done, and they felt there were serious problems with it.

Nine years later, they did another report — last year. They said they are disappointed to report that in nine years, nothing has changed. The government’s goals and objectives that are supposed to be part of those stewardship plans — how the licence holders are managing our forests…. The Forest Practices Board said they’re failing nine years later, after it was identified nine years earlier — the real problems that existed.

The government thought nothing of it. Do you think anything’s going to change? Looking at their history, again, nothing’s going to change. More reports are going to come in, I predict. They will give them failing reports, so we are in a very serious situation when it comes to the forest industry.

Of course, there are some outside forces beyond the control of anybody — in Canada or the ministry or the government here or the minister — such as the softwood lumber dispute, such as the market across the border. In 2008-2009, we saw some real slumps in the United States economy. Well, a real slump. It was a disaster. They weren’t buying very much from anybody, never mind our wood or our forest products, so we suffered.

I say this. The industry is doing what they are supposed to do: look after their shareholders. Workers are doing everything they can to make sure that our forests are looked after and tended to. They’re doing everything they can to nurture those forests — those who are working in the silviculture industry. They’re doing everything to utilize the fibre that is available to create as many jobs as possible.

The ministry staff. Again, I would say that the ministry staff is doing a good job, as well, with the resources that they’re given when there’s cutback after cutback after cutback. You are telling, through the policy, that you’re not allowed to enforce, or it’s going to be self-reliance, self-policing…. Then what are they supposed to do? They only have the tools that they’re given to work with. There are real good ministry staff that I came to know and work with over the years. And the stakeholders out there, community after community that we visited — they’re also worried.

The question always came back: “Who is looking after our forests? Who is looking after our natural resources, such as wildlife?” You can’t just leave it to the industry alone. Industry will do what they’re good at. They’ll manage their affairs. Their primary role is to meet the needs of their shareholders and look at their bottom line. That’s what businesses are for, and I don’t blame them.

[1405]

It’s the government’s responsibility to show leadership, set the policies, and then go out there and say to the industry: “These are our policies. We developed these policies through consultation with the industry, with communities, with workers at the table. We developed these, and now we expect you to live by them. If you don’t, there are consequences, and we will be enforcing them.”

So far, we haven’t seen that. It’s an industry and an operation by chance. We’re spectators. As the previous ministers have said: “We are spectators. There’s nothing we can do.” That’s not how you run any ministry. That’s not leadership.

I think I have touched on almost every part of the bill. There are parts that I said I like. There are some issues that are quite complex in the bill, such as AACs and how the partitions of different licence holders, or TSAs, are going to be managed. Those we will be talking about through the committee stage, when we have that opportunity. We will be able to ask questions line by line so that we get the answers to understand what the bill actually will do.

I would say that I’m happy to stand again. I think there are, in every area that I go, a number of other things that I can talk about, but because there are a number of other speakers who want to get on to speak on this bill, with that, I take my place. Again, it was a pleasure talking about a sector, an industry, that fed me, fed my family and fed thousands of families. They’re still feeding thousands of families today, but generations before us.

We’re hoping that if we can work together and if the government actually listens, we can put together some strategies so that the forest industry will be enjoyed and worked with for generations to come also. What we had, for us, and what generations had before us and what brought this British Columbia to a place where we all proudly say that this is the best province to live…. The forest industry was a major contributor to that.

We cannot ignore the forest industry. We need to bring in policies through leadership, through vision, so we can put the forest industry back on its feet again and can util-
[ Page 11781 ]
ize our fibres to create jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians, as we have done for the last 150 years.

With that, I say thanks to so many of those people who actually have passion, like the United Steelworkers and like Unifor, which was joined by CEP, which had so many workers who worked in the industry before PPWC.

There are many other union and non-union operations out there. Many large operators and many small operators are doing everything they can to continue to make this industry a good industry and a thriving industry. But only if you can get the government to get on side and work with our industry, with our workers, with those communities can we actually do it.

D. Barnett: It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in support of Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. Before I really start my speech, I’d like to make a couple of comments regarding some of the issues that the opposition member has brought forward about our forest industry.

I’ve been in the Cariboo-Chilcotin for almost 50 years. My livelihood was made because of others working in the forest industry. I’ve been involved in woodlot licences. I’ve been involved in community forests. I’ve been involved with the forest sector — all kinds of it.

[1410]

Our government really does care about the forest industry, because our communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin will only survive with a strong, stable forest industry. I take offence when the opposition attacks an industry so valuable and viable to the future of our rural communities. I listen to the opposition point fingers.

I also learned a lot from being a mayor of a small community when the pine beetle hit. We, as a coalition, went to the opposition and said: “Please let us mitigate. We know it won’t stop it, but let us mitigate.” But we had to lock up the parks. We locked up Tweedsmuir. We locked up Schoolhouse Park. But the opposition forgot to put the sign up telling the beetles not to move, and they moved. A lot of the issues within our forests in the Interior and this province were created because we could not mitigate and look after the health of our forest.

I was even invited to Alberta. Alberta wanted to talk to local communities because they knew that this little creature was flying. Some of us went to Alberta. We had the opportunity to talk to the Alberta people, to local governments, to forest industries. They learned from us what not to do. Mitigate — that is why their forestry looks a little better than ours.

The opposition shouldn’t be too proud of themselves and point too many fingers.

As you know, effective at noon today, a ban has been placed on category 2 and category 3 open fires throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin fire centre. A lower snowpack and an earlier than normal snow melt have resulted in drying conditions in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Since the beginning of March, the Cariboo Fire Centre has responded to more than 20 wildfires. Many of these wildfires in the Cariboo Fire Centre were the result of grass burning or pile burning when peoples’ fires got away from them due to winds and dry conditions.

There is no doubt and no question that human-caused fires have devastating impacts in our province. On average, 30 to 40 percent of wildfires in British Columbia each year are caused by people. I think both sides of the House can agree that this is simply unacceptable. Careless activities such as throwing a cigarette butt out of a car window or leaving a campfire unattended have the ability to cause large-scale devastation in our province.

Human-caused wildfires have resulted in the evacuation of communities, the hospitalization of residents and the destruction of precious natural resources and critical infrastructure. Furthermore, firefighting efforts in our province to combat human-caused forest fires cost B.C. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars per year.

The 2015 fire season was one of the busiest and most expensive in recent years, with over 283,400 hectares burnt and $278 million spent on wildfire management. The taxpayer money that is being spent on fighting human-caused fires, year after year, could certainly be put towards a multiple of other worthy services in our province.

Our government promised British Columbians that we would enact tougher penalties to discourage irresponsible behaviour that contributes to increased wildfires. Bill 12 delivers that promise by proposing some of the highest wildfire-related violation ticket fines in the country.

These proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act will discourage human activities that contribute to wildfires through the imposition of these stiff new penalties. Legislative changes will result in significantly increased ticket fines for 19 violations under the Wildfire Act and for seven violations under the Wildfire Regulation.

[1415]

For example, the fine for failing to comply with a fire restriction will more than triple under this act, from $375 to $1,150. This represents a 333 percent increase over the previous fine for that offence, which will cause people to think twice before violating fire restrictions in our province.

These increases mean that British Columbia now has some of the highest wildfire-related fines in the country, reaffirming our commitment to keeping our communities and our forests safe.

Bill 12 supports our dedicated B.C. Wildfire Service in their efforts to protect our communities, natural resources, infrastructure and wildfires. This bill discourages actions that could hinder firefighting efforts in the province to ensure that our hard-working firefighters are able to respond to wildfires as effectively and efficiently as possible.

The proposed amendments clarify that interference with firefighting activities or wildfire control measures
[ Page 11782 ]
does not have to be intentional to constitute a contravention of the Wildfire Act. Similarly, non-compliance with an official’s request does not have to be intentional in order to contravene the Wildfire Act. The proposed amendments will also clarify that it is a contravention of the legislation to interfere with government wildfire control activities or with government authorized personnel engaged in wildfire control activity.

Compliance and enforcement provisions will also be strengthened by Bill 12 by establishing an offence for failure to comply with a stop-work order. The Wildfire Act currently makes it an offence to not comply with an official requirement or request. However, the proposed amendments add a more direct and explicit offence for failing to comply with a stop-work order. Under Bill 12, failing to comply with a stop-work order could result in a maximum penalty of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

As we look toward another beautiful summer in British Columbia, we must keep in mind that wildfire prevention is a responsibility of every single person in our province. Government is doing our part to prevent interference with firefighting efforts in B.C. and to discourage human activities that contribute to increased wildfire risks. Through Bill 12, we are committing to spending taxpayer resources efficiently, we are committing to protecting B.C. forests and infrastructure from damage, and we are committing to keeping communities and residents safe.

Due to the reasons listed above and with my constituents in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in mind, I am proud to speak in support of this bill today.

B. Routley: I’m always finding it interesting to be taken down memory lane by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. While I do have great respect for her involvement here in the Legislature in many ways, I hasten to correct something that she’s said before. In the past, I’ve just kind of let it ride, but it’s just too outrageous, in my mind, to not be challenged. That is the notion of the pine beetle somehow not being mitigated by the NDP in the 1990s.

She should walk over and see the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource, and I’m sure he’ll correct her that there’s no way, at the end of the day, the pine beetle could have been mitigated. If it could have been done, your government failed. The government failed to mitigate because…. Do you know that it’s now 81 million hectares, five times the size of Vancouver Island?

This member is suggesting that it could have been mitigated by the NDP back in 1990. Since 2001, this government has had a chance to mitigate. That was probably back when it was less than one Vancouver Island, and there was no action. This government didn’t find a solution to mitigate the pine beetle.

[1420]

I’m going to rush to help. I was down in the stacks right here, the library of the Legislature of the province of British Columbia. I randomly happened to pick up a document from 1912. It was a report to the Legislature on — guess what — the pine beetle, 1912.

It was a few hundred hectares that the foresters had found, and they were happy to report to the Legislature that they’d found this small area of 400 hectares. They’d isolated the problem. They’d dealt with it dramatically. Somehow we went from that, back in 1912, to a government that clearly failed to mitigate the pine beetle.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

B. Routley: We are looking right across the aisle, and we can see the tragic reality that if there was anybody….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Member.

Members will wait for their turn when they want to speak. Please, let’s have one speech at a time. Thank you very much.

Carry on.

B. Routley: Anyway, it’s all very interesting, but it does relate to the history lesson that I want to go through. That is, let’s go back to the start of…. We’re now going to be dealing with Bill 12. You know, Bill 12 is amongst a series of bills that this government has introduced. Is it important? In fact, is it critical that we, as opposition, raise the track record of a government that says one thing and does another?

For example, let’s go back to the biggest change in the history of this Liberal government. Back in 2003, Bill 28, the revitalization act — heavy on the revitalization. Let’s remember that we were going to revitalize the economy of British Columbia. That’s what they said. They were going to revitalize the forest industry in British Columbia. Do you know that the word “revitalize” means breathe new life, bring it back to life, reinvigorate?

I want to read a quote from their revitalization document, which says “a brighter future is ahead.” Oh, really? “We’re going to be reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province’s number one industry, both at home and abroad. These changes will help revitalize the economy, generate jobs and spinoff benefits for communities and provide long-term contributions to the province’s standard of living.”

Well, how’s the report card doing on that? Let’s take a look at that. I say they failed. Why do I say that they failed? Why do I judge this so harshly? Because the reality is that throughout British Columbia, I experienced…. I used to represent forest workers at the time that this government took over. I watched the mills close. I went through the bankruptcies and mill closures that oc-
[ Page 11783 ]
curred throughout British Columbia, and 35,000 forest workers lost their jobs — more than 200 manufacturing mills gone.

I want to go through the history, the lessons that really should be learned. We were told that they were changing the social contract, if you like. There used to be talk a lot when there was a royal commission…. Any commission on forestry used to talk about the social contract in the province of British Columbia.

What was the social contract? Well, that was that we were providing the forests of British Columbia through tenure, the timber supply…. It’s something that the U.S., by the way, raises quite regularly. Timber licences were granted by the B.C. government, and the quid pro quo was these companies…. What were they getting for their piece of paper and their licence?

[1425]

Why would you just hand out a licence to anybody to go and harvest the timber in British Columbia? Well, the thought was that they ought to be providing a plan to build mills, to build sawmills, pulp mills, to have logging and manufacturing going on together. For a time here in British Columbia, we enjoyed what I would call integrated forest companies — big companies that I remember. In fact, I started out in the forest industry working for B.C. Forest Products. It was an integrated company. What do I mean by integrated? Well, they had the Crofton Pulp and Paper mill. They had not only the BCFP sawmill in Youbou where I worked….

It was actually three mills, by the way. There was the A-mill, the B-mill and the veneer plant all in that one site. Then there was the B.C. plywood…. Victoria Plywood was down here in Victoria in the Inner Harbour. They’re now building a bridge. You could never tow logs there ever again — not that they ever would.

There used to be a sawmill on the Gorge. I remember it well. I toured it as part of our safety committee way back in the day, back in the 1970s, when there were mills all over British Columbia that are now history and now closed. But we should remember that we were being told that we were going to make things so much better, oh so much better. It was going to be wonderful.

Then a year later, we even had the Minister of Forests at the time…. Another piece of wonderful legislation…. Well, it was wonderful from their point of view. If you happen to be a government that takes all kinds of money from major forest companies in corporate donations, then you would understand why, in 2004, there was the removal of private land from tree farm licences held by Weyerhaeuser, TimberWest, Rice Properties, Alcan, Western Forest Products right down here in Sooke. We all remember that — a big to-do.

Why would we give the companies that kind of right? What was in the public interest? In fact, aren’t the words “public interest…”? Doesn’t that sound like an auditor general that talked about the public interest? What exactly was the public interest? Who knows? If only these walls could speak to us and tell us what was really going on. However, that’s not to be. You look forward. I still remember Rick Jeffery and his statement, not to be outdone.

The forest industry workers were really getting brutalized, watching mill after mill close. I went through that corporate consolidation, and I just want to camp there for a minute before I get back to Rick Jeffery. Well, I should finish with Rick Jeffery and then carry on. What Rick Jeffery was saying is that….

This is back in 2005. Not to be outdone, we had the three amigos vision for British Columbia. They got all these concessions from the government, and they were going to make things bigger and better, and they were going to invest. But his vision says that B.C. companies should consider moving their wood product manufacturing to China to take advantage of lower wages and repressive laws.

Now, I know he’s a bit of a jokester. He actually thinks he’s being funny when he says this kind of stuff. But it was not funny. It certainly wasn’t funny to forest workers and their families to have him say they should go to China and take advantage of low wages, repressive laws.

The Chinese manufacturers have a financial advantage over B.C. companies. He observed they have access to a workforce at very low wages, and it’s a very motivated workforce. Well, a very motivated workforce in a country where workers aren’t free. They don’t have the freedom of association to belong to a union, for example. They don’t have the right to stand up and speak.

In fact, I still remember the pictures of a young student standing up against huge power. Nothing has changed, so who are we kidding to have a forest executive who was already…? The forest workers were already being beaten up.

[1430]

By the way, this new vision under the revitalization that I just read that said things were going to be rosy, don’t forget…. I’ll never forget it. I will never forget that this promise…. They stood right up in this very room and told the good people of British Columbia it was going to be wonderful. They were revitalizing the province. It was going to be good for us all, and the results were….

Communities all over British Columbia have been decimated — more than 204 mills and manufacturing plants closed. The number of value-added plants has been cut in half, and logging jobs have been decimated. I’m going to get more to how logging jobs got decimated in a minute.

I also want to give you the benefit, if you like, of what I went through. I started, in 1985, representing forest workers. Back in that time, not only did I have a total of 52 companies, I had…. The majors at the time were companies like Fletcher Challenge. We had MacMillan Bloedel, Pacific Forest Products, Doman Forest Products, CIPA lumber mill in Nanaimo. That’s just over here on Vancouver Island, where I was. We didn’t have any
[ Page 11784 ]
Interfor mills, but there were Interfor mills. There were Field Sawmills up-Island.

I remember all of the different manufacturing, both plywood and log manufacturing that we had all over British Columbia, some of them that were private, but guess what? All of those manufacturing plants…. It started when BCFP sold to Fletcher Challenge, and then Fletcher Challenge spun off, and they shut down all of their mills.

They used to have Youbou and the Elk Falls mill. They did away with their manufacturing as part of this forest revitalization that we’re talking about here — the plan that this government introduced legislation to make things better in British Columbia. Where have we heard that before? We have heard before that it’s going to make things so much better, so much better indeed.

Well, the consolidation continued. We’ve had corporate consolidation in the province of British Columbia to the point where all of the major forest companies like MacMillan Bloedel and Weyerhaeuser are gone. Now Western Forest Products…. Doman — all of their mills gone. All Western Forest Products.

The CIPA mill in Nanaimo…. I went out for lunch with the mill manager in the last week of operation of that mill. I remember the workers begged me to try and negotiate a deal to keep that mill alive. So I did something that I thought I’d never do. That is, I went in, and I said to the manager — in fact, I got approval from the crew, first, to say this: “Okay, what if we work for 25 percent less, with the understanding that we put that 25 percent in abeyance pending a future return to profitability of the company?”

They would open their books to our auditor, and if they had more than a 5 percent return on capital employed, we would start to get paid back, over time, the money that we had, in effect, lent them through this concession of 25 percent.

We tried it out, and do you know what the manager said to me? He said: “Thanks, Bill, but even if you cut the wages in half, it isn’t going to survive. This mill is not going to survive because of log exports.” I said: “Really? Why? You get a lot of your logs now from TimberWest and from MacMillan Bloedel. You buy some of your wood from each company.”

He pointed out to me…. That’s where I learned about this problem that we had, of companies saying: “Well, look. I gave you 100,000 cubic metres last year. If you’re going to start blocking my logs, I’m not going to be giving you 100,000 cubic metres next year. I won’t be selling it to you.”

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The same thing with both of those companies. They basically got these phone calls with, if you like, a veiled threat. I might go so far as to call it blackmail, to phone you up and say: “If you don’t take your block off our timber, we’re not going to sell you the wood that we’ve been selling, the 100,000 or the 200,000, to your mill.”

He had no timber supply, and they told us: “Well, look. Log exports is one of the major reasons this mill can’t survive.” That mill has been bulldozed. I’ve, sadly, seen the end of that — seen the end of the Doman mills. Many of them closed. Same thing with MacMillan Bloedel — all gone.

[1435]

What we have left is corporate consolidation. Where there used to be five to seven different companies, today we have one — one manufacturing company. One: Western Forest Products here on Vancouver Island. Not that we don’t think Western Forest Products is doing the best they can for the boys, the men and the women that work in the forest industry.

I’m sure they are, but corporate consolidation has not been good, in my mind, for British Columbia. It certainly didn’t bring the bonanza that we were promised by forestry revitalization. And by the way, shortly after forest revitalization, I saw the end of Munn’s logging down in Sooke. They’d been around since the 1980s, logging in the Sooke Forest Products area, and they went bankrupt.

I saw Madill logging equipment supply. I used to walk through there. I knew a lot of the machinists, the welders, the fine men and women that worked at Madill in Nanaimo, a wonderful plant. They’d built Madill equipment for all over North America, and I got to see the day where they announced to the crew: “Sorry. There’s been a crash.” It was a combination of the American dollar, but also, the forest industry was not buying equipment.

Oh, they weren’t buying equipment? This is the revitalized forest industry we’re experiencing? I got to see hundreds of good, family-supporting union jobs go the way of the dodo bird, and this government would have me wipe my mind clear like some kind of computer clear-out. You know, get in there and clear out the webs.

Interjection.

B. Routley: Triple delete. Yes, it was supposed to be triple-deleted, but it didn’t quite make it.

Then I saw Madill forest products. I remember warning Ted LeRoy. He’d been a small contractor on the coast for years and years, and suddenly he was going to take over for TimberWest, a huge, big logging…. He went out and leased a whole bunch of equipment so that he could log in Nanaimo Lakes and in Johnstone Strait.

I still remember the conversation I had with him when he said he got the phone call from the big corporate leader that said: “You know what? Things are tough in the industry. We don’t need any logging at all in the operation there at Johnstone Strait, that 300,000 cubic metres.” Here he was, stuck with all of this equipment that he had leased. The lease agreements for several years, and there was no clause in there to get out, no exit strategy.
[ Page 11785 ]

Pretty soon you saw Ritchie Bros. having sale after sale after sale. I’m sure the minister has driven by some of the equipment sales — harvesting, harvesters, feller-bunchers, logging equipment, miles and miles of it. If not, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin must have seen some of the Ritchie Bros. sales where they’re selling out stuff and getting rid of their logging equipment.

And then there’s Donald Hayes. Donald Hayes was in the B.C. Business Magazine for one of the best…. They called his one of the best-run logging firms on the coast of British Columbia. One of the best — front page. I had lunch with Donald Hayes when his company was going bankrupt. He got involved in helicopter logging. Same thing — the phone rang one day, and they just said: “Well, sorry. We don’t need you anymore. That’s just the way it is.”

It’s sad for me to go back and look, to read the fine words that were said — a bright future: we’re reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province’s number one industry…. These changes will help revitalize the economy, generate jobs and spinoff benefits for communities.”

[1440]

As the member that spoke before me pointed out, the result is that we lost not only manufacturing jobs, primary jobs; we lost the value-added sector as well. And the number of cubic metres per job here in British Columbia…. As he pointed out, Ontario does four times better. Quebec does three times better. For every job in British Columbia — 1,469 cubic metres per job.

Why? Why did it have to be? Well, a government that decided that it was okay to support log exports, sit down with the big forest companies and work out a deal where they wrote the amendments to the Forest Act…. Essentially, that’s what happened. They decided what they needed.

Meanwhile, here in 2007, after Western Forest Products announced the removal of 28,283 hectares of private lands from three tree farm licences on Vancouver Island, that decision helped pave the way for Western’s conditional sale to developer Ender Ilkay for more than 200 hectares of land and several parcels west of Victoria around Shirley, Jordan River, Jacob Creek Muir Creek and the Sooke Potholes. That created much controversy here in southern Vancouver Island.

Meanwhile, Brookfield, a 50 percent owner of Island Timberlands, was spinning off its timber and power assets to a Bermuda-based partnership to create an offshore investment vehicle. Did you know, hon. Speaker, that right here on Vancouver Island, what used to be MacMillan Bloedel forest land transferred into Island Timberlands? They’re based in a Bermuda company, and this Bermuda company, the new company, will have an international board of directors and is expected to be exempt from certain Canadian taxes and the enforcement of Canadian civil judgments.

So there you go. That’s how this government plans on making things better for British Columbians — as they put it, reshaping for a greater future, revitalizing the economy, generating jobs and spinoff benefits for communities. So 35,000 jobs lost. Have we come back a bit? Oh, a little bit. But those mills and those communities have been devastated all over British Columbia, and this government knows it.

They wake up in the morning with the new dream of LNG. As others have said…. Three years ago now, we heard the promises — 100,000 jobs, trillions of dollars in a prosperity fund. It was all going to be wonderful, and what have we got? A bag full of nothing, just like the good people of British Columbia were promised back with the revitalization plan. One needs to look no further than the truth of what actually happened with the revitalization plan.

Another one. There was this round table, the coastal forest action plan. Oh, there’s a winner. October 2007. What was promised there? Well, government had introduced a market-based forest policy designed to create a business client to attract new investments and to allow those new mills to be built. Well, as you will have heard by now, a lot of the companies right here in British Columbia took any investment that was put into their companies through the help they received from this B.C. government, and they invested in mills south of the border. They’re now owning 40 mills at last count. Companies that used to be primarily here in British Columbia, companies like West Fraser and Canfor and Interfor, have heavily invested across the line.

Why? You know, the American softwood lumber deal…. They would tell you: “Oh, isn’t it awful that the Canadians have this system?” I would argue that we have a right as democratic citizens in the province of British Columbia to determine our own forest policy. We don’t need a foreign government telling us how our forest policies should work. Is it broken? Yes. Yes, it is. I’ve just described how our forest policy is broken. It sure didn’t do what the manufacturer promised.

[1445]

If this was a car, you would say: “We got a clunker here. We got a lemon.” This is a bad deal all around because of what’s happened with the so-called new era, the heartland strategy, and then the revitalization act that have resulted in a catastrophic impact for communities all over British Columbia, including the community that my young family first worked in, in Youbou.

It’s gone. It’s a tourist town now. You know, you can drive up there. Nice place to visit, but there’s sure no economic strategy — unless you want to sit and watch the logging trucks roll through town and create dust on their way to the log export market. You could do that for an afternoon, if you had nothing else to do, but I wouldn’t recommend it. You could wave a little flag as the truck went by making dust and say: “There’s part of our revital-
[ Page 11786 ]
ization plan.” Maybe I’ll bring together a bunch of the forest workers that used to work in those mills, and we can stand on the side of the road with a little banner. Hmm, revitalization. Didn’t work for us. Sad.

I do want to finish up with Bill 12 and the wildfire, the mischief clause that intends to deal with people that are violating the provisions of the act. I support many of the changes. I certainly support the changes in definitions that are going to help the chief forester partition areas so that companies that are not cutting the dead pine beetle trees, or if they’re high-grading, the chief forester can partition an area. I understand that one of the new features is having the right to partition and to deal with residual fibre.

Is that a good thing? Yes. So are there good elements of this? Is it all bad? No, it’s not all bad. In fact, I would applaud any changes that are trying to finally get at the waste loss here in British Columbia, the amount of volume of wood that used to be just left on the side of the road or burned. In some cases, more than 20 percent of the volume would have been just left. If the pulp market was any good, they would have taken it as pulp logs. Now we need to be able to use that wood to create pellet operations and help pulp mills and provide waste for other types of remanufacturing.

I do see that as a move in the right direction. Again, I do applaud the improvements to the wildfire, but I would say that it would be nice to see our old Mars water bomber put back into action. Why do I say that? Not just for historical reasons. I talked to somebody that lives out in Renfrew, and when they had that two-week fire, they said that they knew that had the Mars water bomber arrived, it would have been a two-day fire.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

S. Gibson: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission, I rise today to speak on Bill 12. Of course, Abbotsford-Mission has its own share of beautiful forested vistas. It’s perhaps the first area east of Vancouver on the north side of the river that has significant forests — and beautiful vistas they are — and the Fraser River.

This legislation amends three acts: Wildfire Act, Forest Act and the Wildlife Act. Last year, we saw one of the busiest and most expensive wildfire seasons in recent memory. Wildfire prevention is everybody’s responsibility. However, we still see human-caused wildfires every year. In fact, on average about 30 to 40 percent of wildfires in B.C. are human caused — 283 hectares last year alone. We need to find ways to lower that figure dramatically. While public outreach is expanded, which emphasizes wildfire protection, with public education and enforcement we can do much more.

[1450]

With this legislation, we’re taking a tougher stance to discourage behaviour that contributes to increased wildfire risk and helps protect many communities throughout the province. This legislation includes provisions aimed specifically at people who interfere with firefighting efforts. This legislation clarifies what is considered interference in terms of actions that could hinder firefighters. This legislation also clarifies that interference does not have to be intentional to contribute to a contravention.

Compliance and enforcement provisions are strengthened by establishing offence penalties up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year for failing to comply with a stop-work order. As well, we are significantly increasing ticket fines for 19 violations under the Wildfire Act and for seven under the wildfire regulations.

These changes mean that B.C. will now have some of the highest wildfire-related violation tickets in the country. One example — the fine for failing to comply with a fire restriction under the Wildfire Act is increasing from $345 to $1,150, which includes a $45 and a $150 victims surcharge, respectively. This represents a 333 percent increase over the old fine for that offence. We believe this increase will deter people from walking away without completely putting out their campfires or just leaving a fire when a ban is in place.

This legislation also amends the Forest Act and the Wildlife Act. The proposed amendments to the Forest Act would continue to implement the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review. The amendments proposed will enable the minister to more effectively balance government objectives for communities and First Nations, while ensuring that B.C. Timber Sales have access to a sufficient supply of Crown timber to provide credible cost and price benchmarks for B.C.’s timber-pricing system.

Currently, the Forest Act does not provide the appropriate authority to expand the areas of all types of community forest agreements. As we know, many community forest agreements are held by First Nations. The ability to expand community forest agreements provides flexibility where expansion makes sense. Under the proposed legislation, an expansion to a community forest agreement would only be considered in timber supply areas where there is available volume apportioned to community forest agreements by the minister.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Forest Act will provide security to users of residual fibre, such as pellet producers in the Interior. This will allow for better planning and increased certainty for the use of residual fibres. This would also increase the term of the fibre supply licence while also providing the licence holder with more certainty. Increasing fibre use would help mitigate challenges with the mid-term timber supply and support the investments made in rural communities by the forest sector.

Finally, the proposed amendments to the Wildlife Act will facilitate the move to e-licensing for hunting licences, as well as compulsory reporting requirements and on-line payments. The on-line system will allow the govern-
[ Page 11787 ]
ment staff to indicate if a licence or permit is suspended or cancelled. As well, this legislation will include minor changes to group trapping–related provisions together in the act and to clarify who has authority to issue these permits. The general process won’t change, and regional managers will continue to issue permits in these cases when they are statutory decision-makers.

Changes are also being proposed to make the guide-outfitter reporting system much more fair and efficient. Under the existing system, the guide-outfitter must fill out a report immediately after a hunt is over and give a signed copy to each hunter. The proposed amendments will allow a guide-designate to file a report. These reports are hunter-specific and allow experienced assistance guides working for an outfitter to also file such a report.

[1455]

There are a number of important changes in this legislation. I’m happy, as the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission, to enthusiastically support them and speak in favour today.

D. Routley: I rise to speak to Bill 12, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016. The main feature, I would suggest, to this bill, as has been indicated and focused upon by speakers from both sides of the House, is the apparent crackdown on people disrupting wildfire suppression efforts — that penalties are being increased and that enforcement will, hopefully, reduce the interference with wildfire suppression.

Along that vein, I suggest that the first group that should endure these increased fines should be the B.C. Liberal government, which has most assuredly stood in the way of the suppression efforts of wildfires in B.C. This government has — in so many ways, in so many different areas of public policy — blamed others for what has largely been their own failure.

Yes, there was interference by a drone in a fire in B.C., and that needed to be dealt with. But the bigger question of interference with the suppression of wildfires in B.C. is the B.C. Liberal government itself and its failure of public policy, its failure to guard the public interest and its failure to live up to its obligations under the Filmon report, which was issued after the 2002-2003 Kelowna wildfires.

This report came out in 2004 and recommended that some 680,000 hectares of interface lands — that’s the land directly between community and forest — needed to be treated. Treated would mean either preventively burned or having slash removed, dead trees removed, fallen trees removed, in order to protect communities, buildings and businesses from the devastation of wildfires that make the jump between the forest and the community.

That was a significant report by former Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon. It made these recommendations. The government accepted these recommendations, and then the government did virtually nothing to fulfil these recommendations. After more than ten years, less than 8 percent of that land has been treated. In these ensuing years, of course, the interface areas have grown as communities have expanded. The interface areas have become more in need of treatment as the forest cycle of life and death proceeds.

I think it’s a little bit tragic. I think it’s irresponsible of the government to stand and claim that they are taking steps to mitigate wildfires or they’re taking steps to control the interference with wildfire fighting. Of course, we don’t want to see people flying drones into the paths of wildfire fighting aircraft, as happened in the past fire season. But it really begs of every British Columbian that we collectively remember that this government has so bitterly failed our forests — our forest health, our forest industry, our forest communities.

In terms of forest health, what could be more obvious than the replanting of forest areas that have been harvested? In that area, the government has fallen down quite severely. There are over two million hectares of not sufficiently restocked lands in this province.

The government will play games with that designation and try to recognize only the minimum that they must, but even at that, the government admits that there are over 600,000 hectares of not sufficiently restocked lands. This is a failure of the government to guard and protect the future health of our forests, and we will pay a price in B.C. for a very long time for that failure.

[1500]

The Filmon report came out in 2004. What do you think the government did in 2005 when it came to wood waste and slash left behind in the forests? Well, one might expect that the government would have tightened up regulations and reduced the slash and waste that was left in the woods. Instead, one year after the Filmon report, in 2005, the B.C. Liberal government increased the amount of slash and waste that could be left in the forest to either burn or rot and contribute to the negative effects of climate change as well as waste a B.C. resource.

The number one challenge in our forest industry currently and over the past decade has been access to fibre, access to fibre at a time when the B.C. Liberal government has overseen an increase in log exports from this province — from around 800,000 cubic metres at their peak during the 1990s to more than eight million cubic metres today. A cubic metre of wood is, essentially, a telephone pole. So you had 800,000 telephone poles of wood being exported as raw logs, at the maximum level, in the 1990s. That has increased to eight million today, more than eight million telephone poles’ worth of wood, more than eight million cubic metres being exported without providing jobs beyond their harvest in British Columbia — no value-added.

This is all the result of failed public policy, failed forest policy, from this government in answer to its major contributors, its major donors, the major forest companies. We were promised, as a province, when these chan-
[ Page 11788 ]
ges were brought about in the 2002-2003 period, that the forest policy changes the government was entertaining at the behest of their large donors would, in fact, result in a revitalized industry with massive investment in new mills and new production value-added jobs in the province. What it, in fact, led to was the loss of more than 200 value-added plants.

So 200 mills that process wood, that provide jobs and that make the best use of our fibre were lost since the disintegration of the forest industry under the B.C. Liberal government. Those 200 closures represent 50 percent of the value-added plants in this province. So 50 percent of the value-added plants in this province have been closed, resulting in the loss of 60 percent of the value-added jobs in British Columbia.

As has been pointed out by a previous speaker, in Ontario, the forest industry produces five times more jobs per cubic metre than the B.C. forest industry. In Quebec, the other major player in the forest industry in Canada, their forest industry provides four times as many jobs per cubic metre as the forest industry does here in British Columbia. The largest contributing factor to that was this change in policy, in the 2002-2003 period, that led to the disintegration of our industry.

An integrated industry, as was described by the member for Cowichan Valley earlier, was an industry where a company would have logging and rights to log, rights to use the resources of the province. In return, they would provide, through appurtenancy, the provision that they must process the wood in B.C., in their region. They would own sawmills. Then the derivative waste, the chips and sawdust, from the sawmills would move on that integrated chain to their pulp mills, their pulp and paper industry.

This was a model that, although it had its difficulties and its quirks and its problems…. It maybe required renovation. It did not require that we tear down the house. That’s what the B.C. Liberals did. They tore down the house, and we ended up with the loss of more than 200 sawmills.

[1505]

Often when we bring up these numbers, the government will say, “Well, we had an international economic crisis in 2008,” which is true. But this government were such marvellous wizards of management of the forest industry that during the largest postwar housing boom in the United States, in the period leading up to 2008, this government oversaw the loss of 50,000 forestry jobs.

There has been some comeback so that we’re only down 30,000 forestry jobs now, but they lost 50,000 forest sector jobs during the biggest postwar housing boom in the United States since the Second World War. That’s really quite a feat, I would suggest. That was clearly a result of the policy changes that this government brought about and the resulting increase in raw log exports and decrease in forest industry jobs.

The member for Cowichan Valley also described the pressure that’s put on independent companies who process wood not to block the export of wood from B.C. in order to preserve their access. They’re essentially blackmailed into not blocking wood from being exported, logs from being exported, in order to maintain their access to any fibre at all. This is an absolute mismanagement and failure to guard the public interest of this province.

The role of government has to be to balance the forces in our society in the public interest. When they absolutely surrender that role to themselves being held hostage by major donors and their interests, then our government, the B.C. Liberal government, has failed the people of B.C., failed the forest industry, failed the future of forests in British Columbia and failed the interests of our forest-dependent economy as a whole.

People can easily see that the major donors to the B.C. Liberal Party have had their prayers answered when it comes to forest policy. They had their prayers answered when the private lands on Vancouver Island were removed from tree farm licence management — a $200 million gift to these companies with nothing in return to the people of B.C. except more lost jobs, more failure in the forest industry.

The Auditor General at the time described it as, indeed, a failure to guard the public interest. That’s the way the Auditor General described that decision — also an answer to the donors of the B.C. Liberal Party.

If you look at the cynicism that has developed in this province around public process…. People have become cynical because they can easily draw a conclusion from the following equation: donations equal policy change, equals profit, equals lost public interest. That’s been the story, as minimally reduced as possible. Donations equal policy change, equals profit, equals lost public interest.

The people of B.C., our forests and our environment will pay for that for generations to come, because this isn’t simply a light switch that you can turn on and off. Once there’s a gap in the cycle of life in our forests, we don’t just simply plant more trees quicker and have them grow faster. It takes just as long to grow a tree, if not longer, in an unhealthy forest, and those lost years will never be recovered.

With this government deciding now, as its latest tinkering at the edges of forest policy, to do such things as specify portions of an annual allowable cut that would create greater certainty for those companies that are busy processing and using the residual fibre, the surplus fibre, the waste in the woods — pellet companies and companies that make chips for the pulp and paper industry…. Well, that’s something that we can support, but as a tiny measure.

[1510]

The bigger picture is not being dealt with. We’ve had a series of forest-related legislation come through this House, none of which has dealt with the fundamentals
[ Page 11789 ]
that are dysfunctioning as a result of the forest policy changes that were made some 13, 14 years ago.

This is something that…. I don’t know if people are quite aware of the direct connection between what happened in those days and what’s happening now. The government, in a way, had the fortunate cover of the 2008 financial crisis.

As I said before, that was not responsible for the losses of jobs in the forest industry. This government oversaw the loss of 50,000 jobs, as I said, during the largest post-war housing boom in the United States, the loss of now over 200 mills, the loss of 50 percent of our value-added industry, the loss of 60 percent of the jobs in the value-added industry in B.C. at a time when we should be focusing on ever-greater job creation out of each and every cubic metre that is harvested in this province.

If we’re going to have a responsible approach to managing our forests, if we’re going to have a responsible approach to keeping our forests healthy in order to have a greater, more positive impact on climate change, in order to have a global contribution to the fight against climate change, we need to have healthy forests — and millions of hectares of unplanted forest lands that have been logged.

We have hundreds of thousands of hectares of land that is still covered with dead trees that former Premier Filmon recommended in his report needed to be removed. All of these things have not been done, so we find ourselves now in such a desperate place.

At the current pace of fulfilment of the Filmon report recommendations on treating interface lands, it will take more than 100 years to complete the task. It’s a little bit like painting a bridge. You start at one end, you get to the other end, and you go and start at the end again. It needs to be done again. It’s the same thing with forests. They grow again. In the interface areas that have been treated, the brush grows again, and they need to be treated again.

We have no idea at this point where this province stands, but it stands in a bad place when it comes to the recommendations and provisions of the Filmon report. It’s hard to believe that a government could do a worse job if they set out intending to do a worse job.

You look at the resiliency of the forest industry. Even though we’ve seen the loss of 50,000, now 30,000, jobs and even though we’ve seen the loss of half of our value-added industry, forest products still account for $12.7 billion worth of exports from this province. That compares to natural gas exports of less than $1 billion — I think around $600 million, at the last reliable count.

In which industry should the B.C. government place the economic eggs in the basket of hope? The industry that is absolutely fully 100 percent renewable if it’s taken care of — the forest, which we all depend on for our ecology, for the beauty of our province, for wildlife, for healthy communities and to resist climate change?

No, the B.C. government didn’t want to focus on that industry because it had done such a desperately poor job. Instead, they wanted to float a balloon. They had the province and all of its public policy decisions obsessively focused on one industry, represented by three letters, LNG.

[1515]

While we support the development of the liquefied natural gas industry in B.C. — in fact, the Oil and Gas Commission that the NDP brought into effect in the ’90s was responsible for the development of that industry — we are not foolish enough to forget that a $12.7 billion, absolutely 100 percent renewable industry requires maintenance, management and care. Something that has absolutely been abysmally failed by the B.C. Liberal government over the past 13, 14 years.

At the time of the loss of appurtenancy in the woods and the change in the way the charges to forest companies were calculated for the wood that they take out of the forest, we saw an increase in high-grading of the forest. That means we saw companies increase their dependence, their removal of the highest grade of fibre in the forest. We saw the government, at the same time, allow these companies to leave more and more wood waste behind. On the private lands in Vancouver Island even six or seven years ago, there was a 100 percent increase in the amount of fibre left as slash to rot or burn and damage the climate rather than help repair the climate — and waste fibre that could have produced jobs in British Columbia.

Their decisions have had such perverse outcomes. At a time when every British Columbian realizes that we must make the most productive use of the natural resources that we take from this province in order to be environmentally responsible and economically successful — at that very time — we now see the result being over eight million cubic metres of logs being exported.

To add salt to that wound, injury to that insult, currently companies cut the logs into 40-foot sections in order that they fit into a shipping container. When they do that, they cut off the butt of the tree. Sometimes it’s six or eight feet at the thickest, most productive point in the tree — at its butt — and they leave it. They leave it to rot or be burned because it won’t fit in a container. Now, how does that sound? It sounds absolutely, unfathomably ridiculous.

Interjection.

D. Routley: It makes no sense. The member for Stikine knows that it makes no sense. Every British Columbian knows that it makes no sense. We’re tired, in our communities, of watching truckload after truckload of logs be hauled to the shore to be floated to freighters, loaded and carried away without contributing a single value-added job.

Don’t allow the B.C. Liberal government to tell you that it can’t be done. In Ontario, they get five jobs for every one that we get from every cubic metre of wood harvested. In Quebec, they get four times as many jobs.
[ Page 11790 ]
Now, if that isn’t an indictment, a conviction, an absolute description of failure, I don’t know what is.

In the end, there are some elements of this bill that deserve support — definitely. We don’t want to see people flying drones into the path of aircraft that are fighting wildfires. But for that to be what this government offers up as mitigation for wildfire when they each year budget $60 million…. It doesn’t matter what the expectation is; it’s $60 million for wildfire fighting every year. Well, for the last ten years the average has been $180 million. If you look at these past ten years, there’s been just shy of $2 billion spent on fighting wildfires and approximately 1/10 of that put into mitigating them.

[1520]

I think it begs any thinking British Columbian to arrive at the conclusion that the B.C. Liberal government has abandoned the public interest, has abandoned the forest industry, has essentially answered the call of its donors and is proving the cynical equation that British Columbians make about politics: that donations equal policy change equals profit for the donors equals lost public interest for them. And that contributes to a failure of process in the minds of British Columbians.

We hear it all the time. If the B.C. Liberal members are listening to people in their communities, in their constituency offices, they’ll hear the same thing we’re hearing. We’re hearing that people have arrived at this cynical conclusion in British Columbia, the Wild West of campaign and political party funding — that if you have enough money, you can buy your ticket. And you can buy your ticket through public policy changes from a government that is beholden to major, large-scale donors and has forgotten its obligation to public interests.

I don’t enjoy saying that. There’s one of these things. We’re in opposition, so we watch the government send the environment and economy and society of B.C. to hell in a handbasket, right? That hurts the government — or it should, if people haven’t become so totally cynical. In fact, it encourages the opposition to fight harder because we love the province. We hope that people will thrive. We hope that the economy will thrive.

When a government makes a series of decisions — like this government did with forest policy — that essentially surrender their role in setting public policy to their largest donors and forfeits to them an opportunity to simply pursue policy changes that increase their shareholder value and increase their dividend payouts at the expense of public interest, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of the future of the forest industry, at the expense of forest health, at the expense of respect for First Nations — all of those things — then we all fail.

The long-term view, if you look out from this, is not encouraging. When you forget that you have to replant the garden, you don’t have a product the next fall. The B.C. Liberal government has forgotten that it needs to replant and tend the garden — the forests of our province. They’ve forgotten that this is their primary obligation to forests, to the environment and to the economy in British Columbia, when it comes to this industry and this ministry.

I do think that the party that should be targeted with these fines for having stood in the way of the suppression of wildfires is the B.C. Liberal government and its members, who have failed to respond with public policy that will encourage forest health, job creation, a stronger economy and a more sustainable environment. That’s the legacy.

I’d like to say something nicer than that: “Glad there are not going to be drones flying into the way of helicopters.” That’s probably good. But the fact that the government has bitterly, abysmally failed to deal with the source, the cause of the wildfire epidemics in B.C., is simply pointing that way: “Next window, please. It’s not our problem. Somebody flew a drone in the way of a helicopter.

“It’s not the fact that we’ve only completed 8 percent of the Filmon report’s recommendations in ten years. That’s got nothing to do with it. It’s not the fault of us for loading up the forest land base with slash and waste that will rot or burn. No, that’s not the problem. It’s not the fault of the government for not having planted millions of hectares of lands that should have been planted, or seeing that they were. No, it’s an individual who flew a drone into a fire area.”

[1525]

That is serious, but it pales in comparison to the public policy hazard that is represented by the government.

M. Dalton: I’m happy to speak in favour of Bill 12. We, as British Columbians, are really blessed by an abundance of beautiful forests across our province. It certainly is true in my riding of Maple Ridge–Mission. Every year countless families, both local and from out of the province, throng to them to enjoy their splendour and the unparalleled recreation opportunities they offer. Visitors are just amazed by how green and forested our province is. It’s a real draw.

Indeed, camping, hiking and exploring in the forests of our province are ingrained in our spirit as British Columbians and are an important part of our way of life. Our province is home to a quarter of the world’s coastal temperate rainforests and one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. They are a global treasure and one that must be protected and carefully managed by our provincial government.

We’re doing that. Last month we passed the Great Bear Rainforest Act, unanimously, protecting a good portion of the rainforest and still allowing logging in specified areas, which is so important to our economy. Our forests cover some 55 million hectares. That’s larger than France. We need to show responsible forest management, and we’re doing that. As a matter of fact, just 1 percent of our forests are logged each year.
[ Page 11791 ]

British Columbia has a proven track record of stewardship over its forests, which is why we brought forward Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016. Bill 12 addresses a number of important shortcomings in the current regulatory regime to ensure that our province’s forestry management professionals have the resources they need to protect our global treasures.

Most importantly, these proposed amendments will strengthen the capacity of the B.C. Wildfire Service in their efforts to protect our forests and communities from wildfires. Penalties will be raised to discourage interference with firefighting activities or wildfire control measures. A case in point, which I believe may have been mentioned by other members, is drones.

It’s starting to be a real problem in jurisdictions across North America. The drones are seen as a hazard to the planes, so the airspace must be closed to fixed-wing aircraft if they’re seen in the air. It can kill firefighters in the air if there is a collision.

If you can’t support our firefighters in the air, then what’s going to happen on the ground is that the fires will certainly get bigger. It’s significant. It’s a huge issue, and it does interfere with fire operations. I think of California. Last year in Osoyoos, there was a fire with drones. What’s happening — the reason for this — is that the number of drones is increasing as the cost is decreasing.

I believe that sales in the U.S. alone last year, in 2015, were 700,000 drones, from 430,000 the year before and 128,000 in 2013. So it’s going up astronomically. It’s important that our legislation reflects what’s happening with technology.

The industry group estimates that this year’s average sale price is approximately $200, which is down from last year and the year before. It’s going down significantly. Most operators of drones who go near wildfires are probably unaware of the dangers. Some are just reckless, perhaps motivated to get images that no one else can get, maybe to sell them.

With these amendments, British Columbia will have some of the highest wildfire-related fines in the country. It demonstrates the seriousness with which we take the protection of our forests and will send a clear message that we will not tolerate reckless behaviour which threatens their health.

Last year we had one of the busiest and most expensive wildfire seasons in recent memory. And while we continually remind people about how dry our province gets in the summer, we still see many human-caused wildfires.

[1530]

Hopefully, by tripling the fine amount from $345 to $1,150, we may see even less human-caused wildfires in the coming season. We all play a part in making sure that we are monitoring or even watching over our neighbours, campers, to make sure that they extinguish their campfires. It’s important.

This legislation will also serve to strengthen business certainty for the forestry sector, a key part of our province’s growing economy and a source of livelihood for many families across British Columbia for generations. Forestry is an essential element in wealth generation, employment and way of living in British Columbia, and it’s been like this for generations in most B.C. communities.

In Maple Ridge, we have the Hammond Cedar mill, which has been the biggest producer of cedar products in the world. We have a number of mills in Ruskin, which is part of Maple Ridge, but it’s close to Mission. Mission has a number of mills. We also have logging in the Mission tree farms. All throughout the province we have so many communities, and jobs are dependent on the forestry sector.

I know that the previous member was talking about job decline. But we have actually seen…. One of the factors with the decline in jobs is automation and technology. That has impacted all the different resource sectors, agriculture. When I had a tour of Hammond mill with the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows about a year or so ago, just the automation and the involvement of computers and x-rays and cuts — everything….

All this does increase productivity, but there’s a lot of technology and automation, and B.C. leads the field in this. That certainly does have an impact upon employment, but on the flip side, B.C. is also, as far as compared to the rest of the country, seeing significant growth in employment in other fields, whether it be the tech sector or aerospace or other fields. That’s important.

Bill 12 will update legislation pertaining to B.C. Timber Sales, which provides the cost and price benchmarks for all timber harvested from public land in British Columbia. Under these proposed amendments, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will have the ability to ensure that communities and First Nations continue to benefit from our forests while also ensuring that B.C. Timber Sales has access to an acceptable supply of Crown timber.

It’s an effective measure to balance the prosperity of the forestry sector with the duty we have as British Columbians to protect and preserve our forests for our children and grandchildren.

This bill also addresses a number of administrative housekeeping items, updating and modernizing relevant forestry legislation. For example, changes will be made to improve the use of residual fibre, expand the areas of community forest agreements and allow the minister to put binding restrictions on those that are not abiding by the allowable annual cut partitions.

It’s hard to overstate how important our forests are. They are vital to our economy, to our health and to our way of life as British Columbians. Bill 12 will strengthen the already world-class measures we have in place to protect our forests. In doing so, we will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy a benefit from this
[ Page 11792 ]
great treasure we’ve been so blessed with. That’s why I’m happy to speak in favour of Bill 12 today.

K. Conroy: I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill 12. I’m not going to repeat all the things my colleagues have said about forestry. I agree with them, and I think that they’ve spoken really well.

I just wanted to put on the record some of the questions around the Wildlife Act, which I’m sure will come up in committee stage. I just thought I’d give the minister a heads-up that there are some questions that come around this.

The interesting one is facilitating e-licensing. Of course, I know it’s 2016, and this is the way that people are moving towards — accessing on line to register for licences and to complete compulsory reporting requirements and making payments on line. I just wonder…. I hope that the ministry has considered provisions for people that don’t actually have emails and computers, and how we’re going to deal with that.

[1535]

Is that going to be through Access B.C., or are there going to be places in the community? I know that when the Ministry of Social Development put applying for social assistance on line, it created huge consternation for people — I know in our area — that had to suddenly go on line to apply for social assistance. There were a lot of people coming into our office and trying to get help to suddenly do this.

I’m hoping that there is something that the ministry has so that they can have this initial transition period to help people. I was thinking of someone like my father-in-law, who is no longer with us, but who was an avid hunter and certainly was not an avid user of computers. He would be at a loss with trying to do this and quite upset about it. Hopefully, the ministry has thought this one through, and there are ways to support people to access it somehow.

I hope that the system that the government uses, that this ministry uses, has been tested and isn’t going to end up like some of the systems that have been used in other ministries, like Education and Health, that haven’t worked out. I think that would be a horrific situation.

I also notice the “An agent of a guide-outfitter is allowed to submit a guide report.” That begs the question: does that agent have to be part of the hunt? Does that agent have to be involved with whatever is being reported? What kind of parameters are around the agent of the guide-outfitter?

I see that this bill — or legislation, actually; it’s going to be introduced as regulation — would allow for fines and tickets for first-time offenders without going to court. I’m curious at how this would happen. I know that our conservation officers in this province are greatly overworked and have considerable issues with trying to ensure that they’re taking care of all the different regulations as they exist now on the books. I’m wondering if there is going to be some support for them to ensure that they can…?

If they go up to give somebody a fine, are we talking about a conservation officer walking up to someone in the bush that’s poaching or has done something and being able to say: “Okay, you owe me X number of dollars for how you’ve just contravened the act”? Is it as simple as that? How is that going to work? I’m sure conservation officers aren’t going to be crazy about the idea of suddenly having to collect fines and tickets. I’m just wondering where, and if, there are going to be more boots on the ground, so to speak.

We know now that there are issues in the field where conservation officers aren’t able to answer the call-outs that they get as it is, because they cover — especially in rural B.C. — such huge geographic areas. I know, in our area, if they get a call-out north of Nakusp and someone has to come up from Castlegar, it can take them two, three hours to get up there. Sometimes by the time they get there the issue has disappeared.

So it’s one that I just want to also mark for the minister, which I’m sure will come up at committee stage.

I was looking through the actual changes in the act. It’s talking about how the regional manager can issue trapping licences to a person who is a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident of Canada. I’m wondering if, in this act, there is anywhere where B.C. residents will actually have a priority over licences issued in B.C. Is it all one big happy bunch of people applying for licences, or do B.C. residents have priority?

Also, in section 59, too, that was repealed, around guiding outfitters and guiding territories…. I’m wondering, again, with this section…. Are these licences, these certificates for the guiding territory being issued, again, for priority to B.C. guides? Or does this continue to allow foreign guides to come into B.C. and have the right to guide in B.C.? Is there actually legislation — or there’s wording in here, regulation somewhere — that will ensure that B.C. guides actually have priority over other provinces in Canada or foreign guides? As we know, now there is regulation that allows foreign guides to actually come in and hold guiding licences within B.C.

Those are just some of the issues that, when I’m reading through this bill and thinking what are…? What do these actually mean? I’m sure we’ll have an opportunity to canvass this thoroughly in committee stage.

[1540]

I wanted to just respond to the wildfire section of the act. I thoroughly understand the issues around that. Anybody that’s driven through Rock Creek this year — after the devastating fire in that region — on your way to Kelowna would see the effects of a wildfire.

A lot of conversation was that this fire was, in fact, human-caused. I think that if we can work to ensure that people who do cause this mass destruction like what happened in the Rock Creek–Westbridge area would actually
[ Page 11793 ]
be held accountable for it, I applaud that. I think that’s something that we need to move forward with. Even to this day, when people drive through it, they’re shocked by the destruction and the number of homes that were lost and how you can still see it to this day.

I thank the minister for the opportunity. Hopefully, we can canvass this further at committee stage.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I’m pleased today to speak on Bill 12, and that is the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016.

Last year we had one of the busiest and most expensive fire seasons in recent years. We saw over 283,000 hectares burned and over $280 million spent on wildfire management. Unfortunately, each year we see human-caused wildfires. On average, 30 to 40 percent of wildfires in British Columbia are human-caused. Last summer, of the 1,805 wildfires, 545 of them were caused by humans, and that’s 545 too many. Despite constant reinforcement about the dangers of making sure your campfire is out — that is, you don’t throw the cigarette butt out the window — we still see human-caused wildfires.

A new problem we saw last year that interferes with firefighting activities was the danger of drones flying over wildfires. Twice last August, firefighting operations had to be shut down because of a drone flying in a restricted airspace. When firefighting operations need to be shut down to wait for drones to leave the area, that is valuable time wasted, and it puts the public at risk. As more and more people own drones and this technology becomes more popular, we may see more interference with firefighting efforts, as people want a bird’s-eye view of wildfires.

To help discourage human activities that could interfere with firefighting activities, we are introducing amendments to the Wildfire Act. We are increasing the fines. Last year the member for Prince George–Mackenzie undertook a review of fines and penalty structures related to human-caused fires and to consider recommendations for a number of penalties.

The good news is that this legislation will increase the range of ticket violation fines from about 33 percent to 333 percent. For example, the fine for failing to comply with a fire restriction under the Wildfire Act is increasing from $345 to $1,150. Nineteen fines for violations under the Wildfire Act would be affected through this proposed legislation.

The proposed amendments would clarify that interference with firefighting activities or wildfire control measures does not have to be intentional to constitute a contravention of the Wildfire Act. Similarly, non-compliance with an official’s request would not have to be intentional in order to contravene the Wildfire Act.

As well, the proposed amendments would clarify that it’s a contravention of the legislation to interfere with government wildfire control activities or with government-authorized personnel engaged in wildfire control activities. The proposed amendments would provide a compliance and enforcement mechanism to address non-compliance with a stop-work order.

The Wildfire Act currently makes it an offence to not comply with an official requirement or request, but the proposed amendments add a more direct and explicit offence for failing to comply with a stop-work order.

[1545]

A maximum penalty, upon prosecution, of $100,000 would apply to the new offence of “non-compliance with a stop-work order and/or imprisonment for up to one year.”

This legislation also proposes amendments to the Forest Act and Wildlife Act. The proposed amendments to the Forest Act will continue to implement the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effective review.

This legislation also makes changes to boundaries or areas of a community forest agreement. Currently, the Forest Act does not provide the appropriate authority to expand the areas of all types of community forest agreements. Many community forest agreements are held by First Nations. The ability to expand community forest agreements is meant for flexibility where expansion makes sense.

As well, as part of any decision-making process on expanding community forests, the appropriate First Nations would be consulted before a final decision is made. Under the proposed legislation, an expansion to a community forest agreement would only be considered in a timber supply area where there is available volume appropriated to community forest agreements by the minister.

As well, this legislation improves the allowable annual cut proportions. A partition directs that a proportion of the allowable annual cut associated with a management unit be directed to a particular timber type, geographic area or terrain type. The Forest Act allows for an allowable cut determination to be in place for up to 15 years. The chief forester will only set or amend a partition after a determination where there are emerging stewardship or timber supply issues that are significant. If the chief forester cancels a partition, any order relating to that partition is automatically cancelled.

Currently, the legislation only allows the minister to issue an order that applies to all licences in a timber supply area. However, there are many situations where there are several licences operating in a timber supply area and all are adhering to the partition except for one or two. This proposed change will allow the minister to put binding restrictions only on those that are not abiding by the partition.

Additionally, the proposed amendments to the Forest Act will provide security to users of residual fibre, such as pellet producers in the Interior.
[ Page 11794 ]

Finally, this legislation proposes amendments to the Wildlife Act. The amendments will facilitate the movement to e-licensing for hunting licences as well as compulsory reporting requirements for on-line payments. The on-line system will allow staff to indicate if a licence or permit is suspended or cancelled. As well, the proposed legislation will include minor changes to group trapping-related provisions together in the Wildlife Act and to clarify who has the authority to issue these permits.

Proposed amendments will change the rules to allow a guide’s designate to file a report. These reports are hunt-specific and allow experienced assistant guides working for an outfitter to file a report. The proposed system changes mean the reports will still get done but in a manner more fair and efficient for guides.

There are a number of amendments in this legislation. As we approach this year’s wildfire season, I hope the increased fines will remind people that their actions do cause fires. Make sure your campfire is put out, don’t throw your cigarette butt out the window, and don’t interfere with firefighting activities.

J. Rice: I rise today to speak for a few minutes on Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016.

[1550]

This bill is essentially a miscellaneous bill. I think it was driven by the desire to crack down on people disrupting wildfire suppression efforts. Primarily, it makes a wide variety of technical, complex and housekeeping amendments to several acts. The bill clarifies the definitions of and increases the penalties for interfering with wildfire suppression. I think this was instigated by the reports of drones last year flying over wildfires. In the summer of 2015, it resulted in the grounding of water bombers and other aircraft.

This bill proposes penalties for ignoring fire bans that will rise to $1,150 from the current $345, while the fine for failing to report a fire increases to $383 from the current $115. The bill also makes several amendments to the Forest Act, making changes to definitions of annual allowable cut available and gives the chief forester additional leeway to specify portions of the annual allowable cut. It requires the ministry to make payments to some holders of non–B.C. Timber Sales licences under certain circumstances.

It makes changes to the community forest agreements. It makes changes to First Nations woodland licences. It gives the minister the authority to set limits and amend limits of harvested volumes and to take partition timber into account when setting limits. It sets out a process for preserving and making agreements for harvesting residual fibre. The bill, further, makes amendments to the Great Bear Rainforest Act, which has not yet passed in this House, and the bill makes changes to the Wildlife Act.

At this point, I think we’ll be voting in favour of this bill. We had, as many other people mentioned earlier in the House today, a record number of forest fires last summer. We had the new situation of drones actually interfering with firefighting of fires, which posed problems of actually grounding the firefighting equipment or aircraft from doing their job. That was a big problem. With the increased use and affordability and availability of drones, I think this could possibly pose future problems, expanding of future problems, in our province. So informing the public of the risks and how their recreational activities may impede forest fighting is a good thing to do.

I would like to take the opportunity to mention that the amount budgeted annually for firefighting has been wholly inadequate. It’s interesting to note that each subsequent year the amount spent and the amount budgeted are hugely…. There are huge discrepancies in between. We can essentially plan for implementing more resources to fight fires. However, this government doesn’t do so in their budget.

Again, just mentioning the record number of forest fires last year. I live in one of the rainiest or wettest communities in the province, in Prince Rupert, in the constituency of North Coast. I was pretty blown away, in my almost 20 years of living in this area, experiencing a local forest fire in the coastal temperate rainforest.

We had phenomenal firefighting services deployed. I must congratulate all our local firefighters and local people who stepped up to mitigate this problem just within Port Edward’s boundaries. I don’t recall ever experiencing a forest fire in such proximity to my local constituents, so I was very pleased that this was mitigated very quickly and effectively.

[1555]

I think I’ll leave it at that. I think that we’ll be voting in favour of this bill. I’m particularly interested in the changes to the Great Bear Rainforest Act. The initial bill has not yet passed, so it will be interesting to see what changes are going on there. But with the more forefront issue of interfering with fire suppression measures, I think that is a step in the right direction.

D. Donaldson: I’m pleased to take my place at second reading of Bill 12, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act. There are a number of general comments I’d like to make in relation to the act. On some of those comments, I’m sure we can get some specific answers from the minister during committee stage, when I have more specific questions.

The act deals with a number of topic areas, and the one that’s getting the highest profile is the ability to increase penalties for and clarify definitions around interfering with wildfire suppression.

We know this is from an instance last year, when we had a really terrible wildfire year, that involved drones interfering with firefighting activities in the Kelowna area, in the Okanagan. I was through the Okanagan during those times the fires were burning and was also back
[ Page 11795 ]
home earlier in the year last year, in the early part of the fire season, when there were large fires burning south of Vanderhoof.

We know that the activities of firefighters…. In fact, my own son, at one point, was part of the firefighting team that the province employs, and I have many friends who are still part of that work. We know that they put their lives on the line often when fighting the fires. They do it to protect our forests and our ecosystems but also to protect communities. I know that that is the main focus when a fire occurs — to protect communities and structures. That’s a good thing.

We have had fires in Stikine where, basically, they are left to burn, as long as they’re not impacting infrastructure, although sometimes that can be a counterproductive strategy. It is a concern when decisions are made, perhaps, with budgets at the top of mind.

I know that that is not what the minister has said, but when a budget is set for a certain amount and a fire manager has to try to work within that, still, it does potentially represent some constriction of what the strategies might be.

I recall one fire in Stikine recently. It could have been hit early with firefighting activity, and it wasn’t. It ended up burning across Highway 37, and Highway 37 had to be closed.

That was in the summer season, of course, and that really impacted the people along Highway 37 who were dependent on tourism traffic in order for their livelihoods. Especially, I was contacted by many people who owned RV parks along Highway 37, all the way from Kitwanga right up to the Yukon border, who were really, really concerned that this one particular fire hadn’t been dealt with in the early stages, because it ended up burning across Highway 37.

In fact, some people who drove along Highway 37 before the road was closed and when the fire was raging were saying that the asphalt, or the chip seal in that case, was so hot that tires on the vehicles were heating up.

I appreciate the strategy to let wildfires burn. They’re actually part of the natural ecosystem, and many plants and animals are fire-adapted. In other words, their life cycle has been adapted over evolution and over thousands of years to be part of the fire system.

[1600]

But there is a caution that when budgets might be a part of a decision-making process, that can impact the infrastructure that other parts of the economy depend on, including tourism.

As far as the bill addressing the interfering with wildfire suppression, what I was saying is that the people that put their lives on the line to do this for the rest of us need to be protected.

The situation of drones for a sort of vicarious viewing of a natural disaster is not something that can be tolerated, and I’m happy to see that part of the bill. That part of the bill has been highlighted very much by the Premier, and, of course, it’s a small part of the bill. It’s significant in its nature, but it’s a small part of the bill. It’s also something that one could have seen coming. Although this is in reaction to what happened, drones have been around a while, so we could have dealt with this earlier before it became such an issue.

Having said that, there are other parts of the bill that are of interest to me and are of concern to me.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think about some of the legacy in the northwest. Our communities in the northwest are communities that grew out of and became dependent upon the local forests, and unfortunately, much of the good timber has now been harvested.

The proportion of pulp timber to sawlog timber is now quite high, so that makes…. Under the current industrial model, harvesting activities are uneconomical for most of the major companies, anyway. There are many smaller sawmills that are able to make a go, and they don’t necessarily benefit as much from legislation that we’ve seen in the last number of years as the majors. But nonetheless, the history and the legacy of the lumber and timber and forests supporting local communities has been strong, and it’s not very strong anymore.

I also think of not only the high grading of the profile so that most of the sawlogs and the easier-to-get timber was harvested first but also the fact that the pine beetle epidemic has led to a real run on forestry activities. Now that is coming to an end, as the pine beetle–affected trees are only harvestable and usable in industrial forestry mills for a couple of years before they become too old and they become checked and hardened. It really presents some difficulties in sawmills, not only from a lumber quality perspective but, as we’ve seen, from a safety perspective as well because that dried-out timber ends up causing a lot of dust in mills.

So in connection to Bill 12, when I see some of the initiatives, I have quite a few questions. One of them is around fibre usage. It appears in the bill that there are going to be some new amendments around fibre usage. It reminds me of — I believe it’s back to 2005, over 11 years ago — when fibre usage was brought to this government’s attention. The minister who eventually ended up attempting to address it was Pat Bell, the Minister of Forests then, and it was around access to fibre in the forests. That issue has still not been resolved.

What the problem was, and I know the minister is very familiar with this, is that there are some entrepreneurs who believe that they can extract further value from what’s called, apparently, the “waste wood” left behind. I get a laugh out of that because when…. We have many Europeans come through the northwest part of the province, Stikine especially, when it’s steelhead season and
[ Page 11796 ]
other vacations, and they shake their heads when they see the piles of wood that we’re burning in B.C., because what we call waste wood is actually very valuable wood in places where that kind of timber isn’t available anymore.

[1605]

There are some mentions of amendments around fibre and fibre allocation, so I’m very interested, in committee stage, in getting into the details of that to see if it’s actually addressing what has been an issue for quite a number of years around access to fibre and access to those slash piles. Most of them are controlled by the major licensees, and it’s difficult for entrepreneurs and small business owners in the smaller communities in the north to get access to that fibre. We’ll see if this bill is tackling that kind of tough nut that needs to be addressed to create more jobs out of our forests, which we know from….

Previous speakers on this side of the House have been pointing out that we aren’t getting the jobs per cubic metre of wood out of our forests that other provinces in this country are able to get. In fact, we are very far behind other provinces. Accessing those fibre piles that are actually burned at the moment could be a place to do that. We’ll see if, in these amendments, that is being made easier for local small business owners.

As another note on the fibre issue, if we were able to use these piles and access was easier and some of the considerations that the major licensees get were also given to small business owners and local businesses, then perhaps we wouldn’t have the situation that recently occurred in Prince George when — and this was just last week — the air quality alerts were off the map because a major inversion had occurred.

Prince George has that lower bowl area where, when there is an inversion, the cold air suppresses the warm air in the lower bowl, and there was a very high air quality alert because of waste-wood piles being built in the direction of the wind.

Likewise, in the Bulkley Valley, the area I represent, air quality can be a major issue because of inversions. When there is wood waste being burnt, there are times when air quality alerts are issued by the Ministry of Environment. That’s not a good thing, and it’s especially not a good thing when there could be other uses for this wood.

I’m not saying all wood is suitable for this, and I’m not saying that there are times when there is wood waste that can’t be burnt. But certainly, we need more attention focused on getting all the value out of the forest that we can. Currently, the access to that fibre is limited. I hope this bill…. I look forward to committee stage, and I look forward to finding out if this bill addresses that.

I’m also concerned about another section of this bill on page 13, I believe it is — 13, 14. No, sorry. On page 4 and 5, it talks about the community forest agreements that may require a reduction of timber depending on if B.C. timber sale licences are required in that community forest area.

That’s the way I read it, anyway. We’ll see during committee stage if that’s accurate, but if it is accurate, then I think of the very successful Wetzin’kwa Community Forest in the Smithers area. That’s a joint community forest between the Wet’suwet’en and the town of Smithers.

It’s been a very, very successful adventure, but community forests, as the minister knows, have a different set of priorities. That’s part of the legislation around community forests — that they can look at a wide variety of values, not just maximizing return for the licensee as the major industrial businesses do.

[1610]

I’m curious, during committee stage, as to how the fact that a community forest agreement may end up having a reduction, based on the need for a B.C. timber sales licence, will play out with the priorities.

I’m getting some nods and shakes from the minister, so I’m sure, maybe even in the closing comments, he’ll be able to clarify that, or at least when we get to the committee stage.

As I said, this amendment bill, Bill 12, covers a lot of different ground. Most of the attention is on the issue of interfering with wildfires and the drone issue. Again, that’s a fairly simple one to deal with. It’s a needed amendment, but it’s straightforward.

There are a lot of other areas that this bill, 12, covers, and a lot of it has to do with how we’ve managed our forests. As I said, fibre is one part of it, and community forests and woodlots are other parts of what’s being addressed here, and also licensing. There’s a part of this bill that deals with the ability to issue…. The actual words are “facilitates electronic administration” of licences. That’s to do with hunting licences and fishing licences.

My concern here is that…. I know where I get my local fishing licence. It’s at a small retail business that does repairs on small engines. When you go into the business, you can often meet up with others buying their fishing licences or get some real firsthand knowledge from the people who are running the business but also selling the fishing licences on the side as part of their agreement with the provincial government. And you can find out a little bit more about the rules and regulations, not just reading them in the rules and regulations book. It’s all part of sharing the knowledge in small, rural communities.

As well, many have limited or no access to the Internet in remote and rural communities, and if they do have access, it’s often on dial-up. I’m not sure how well the electronic licensing system that is going to be developed as a result of this act deals with that. We have many people, as well, who don’t even participate with the Internet. They either have limited means to pay for it or to buy a computer and also Internet access, or they have no fibre optic cable, or they can’t afford one of the dishes either.

What I would hope that this bill will not result in is a decrease in the ability, in rural areas, for people to actually go and purchase their licences from a local business, or
[ Page 11797 ]
sometimes it’s a municipality that also offers that service. Because if that’s the case, then we’re really cutting out a large section of the population who’d like to participate in these great activities on the land — hunting and fishing.

The final area that I’d like to address in the bill, Bill 12, is around the issuing of trapping licences. What the bill does is authorize, it says, “regional managers to issue trapping licences.” This made me think of a presentation I was able to take in when I was the Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. It was around the issue of trapping and trapping licences, and Bill 12 addresses that.

[1615]

The trouble is that Bill 12 is talking just about the ability to issue a trapping licence and giving that authority to a regional manager, but that’s not really what the issue is around trapping.

In the presentation that I recall to the Select Standing Committee on Finance that I was Deputy Chair of, it was that there are only about 900 of the 2,600 traplines available actually being trapped on in this province.

That’s not simply because people aren’t interested in trapping. As the presenter said, the issue was the ability of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to actually have some resources dedicated to administering traplines — in other words, determining which ones were no longer being trapped, which ones weren’t actually being used in the proper manner.

There was an issue raised by the presenter that some traplines had been allocated to people who simply just ended up using them as recreational properties. Many of these traplines have cabins on them and are very beautiful places. For many people I know in Stikine, trapping is part of their livelihood. It’s not simply a recreational activity; it’s a lifestyle, for sure. But the fact that these traplines weren’t being put out for availability was being pointed out by the presenter.

The issue there was that the provincial government wasn’t adequately funding the wildlife branch so that they could properly administer trapping in the province. This was presented by the then head of the B.C. Trappers Association, who is now currently the Solicitor General for the province. At the time, he was presenting this to the Finance Committee and was pointing out the lack of resources put towards trapping in the province. The wildlife branch was actually being underfunded, and they weren’t in a position to administer traplines properly.

The bill makes an amendment to the Wildlife Act in order to allow regional managers to issue traplines, but again, as the minister, the Solicitor General, pointed out when he was head of the trapping association, the government is not properly or adequately funding the wildlife branch so that they can actually get these trapping licences in place to be put out to public auction.

It means a lot in remote and small communities around the local economy. We’re definitely not trapping as much as we used to in B.C. There are people eager to take up that activity and who make it part of their lifestyle, as the Solicitor General used to. So I think his comments about lack of adequate funding rang true then, when he presented in 2011 to the Finance Committee, and they ring true now.

We’ll see if there are any additional resources behind the amendment in this bill that will apparently allow the issuing of trapping licences by a regional manager. Yet if the people in the background aren’t adequately resourced in the wildlife branch to do the work, then it doesn’t matter if you’ve authorized somebody to issue the licences. Those licences won’t be coming down the pipe in order to get out to the public auction. That was well pointed out by the Solicitor General.

Those are my comments at this point on Bill 12. As I said, I’ll be happy to hear from the minister when he wraps up this second reading and also to get into more detail at the committee stage on some of the points I’ve raised.

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

Hon. S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to provide a few comments to close the debate on second reading. Just before, I’ll….

[1620]

With the previous speaker, the MLA for Stikine, I’ll just give him the assurances, so that he can sleep at night, that the scenario that he was trying to portray around impact on community forests is actually completely the opposite. We can deal with that in the committee stage, but the amendments are designed to actually enhance opportunities for community forests, when you take the ability to expand in those areas.

Those agreements would only be with the agreement of the existing licence holder, and the changes to the BCTS disposition processes that are in the legislation are actually designed to enhance the opportunities. When we’re trying to land community forests of a viable size, in many cases, the only available volume…. Sometimes it becomes BCTS that’s a bit of the factor. If they could help make a viable opportunity….

That’s what this legislation is designed to do. It’s actually enhancing the opportunities, as opposed to taking anything away from community forests. We can get into that in more detail in the committee stage about how that works. But just so he can sleep at night, it’s not the scenario that he started out to portray.

I’ve listened very carefully to all of the input and will look forward to committee stage. If you listened, you heard, at some points, the references to the positive pieces in the bill and the fact that members opposite support the bill and the changes that are in the elements of the bill.
[ Page 11798 ]

You would have had to listen very carefully to hear that, because most of it was a lot of the issues we dealt with in estimates — a litany of woes about the industry, creating an impression of doom and gloom about the industry. I guess that’s what the opposition gets to do — gets to be negative, gets to raise those issues.

They talked about a sunset industry. If you’d actually listened to them and believed everything that they said, you would probably share that impression. And that’s not the case, as we know. This is an industry that has certainly many challenges but lots of great opportunity. We’ve seen job increases in the industry — a 20 percent increase since 2009, with 61,000 direct jobs and 150,000 indirect jobs in the industry. A 68 percent increase in value and export value, $12.9 billion in export value to the province, 35 percent of B.C.’s export value.

We’ve got First Nations opportunities and participation in the industry. Some 14 to 15 percent now of the annual allowable cut in the industry is in First Nations hands in terms of opportunities and First Nations woodland licences, which we’ve moved forward with. We’re continuing to work on how we increase participation and involvement and partnership with First Nations in the forest sector. Lots of opportunities.

This is an industry that’s going to continue to contribute significantly to the economic future of the province. Members opposite referenced lots of plans and things. One that they very conveniently didn’t reference was the last great plan that the members opposite had for the forest sector, the jobs and timber accord.

Just to refresh the members opposite’s memory on that, what was the promise on that plan? The promise was 21,000 new jobs as a result of the jobs and timber accord. What was the actual result of that plan? Well, 13,000 jobs lost under that plan. So 21,000 new promised and 13,000 lost. When was that? That was during a time of very robust economic activity in the U.S. market and the U.S. housing market.

The members opposite can reference all the plans and all of those things. They very conveniently don’t comment about a period of time when they had a plan that promised job increases and actually resulted in significant job losses and, at the same time, loaded up the industry with a prescriptive, restrictive set of regulations that added costs, and operating costs, to the industry.

We’ve worked with the industry to build a competitive industry in the province, a globally competitive industry, that is increasing jobs and is adding to export activity in the province, export value. We’re going to continue to work with the industry to do that.

[1625]

The amendments in this bill around the Forest Act, while technical, are important steps to help increase those opportunities. Improve the competitiveness in the industry. Increase that opportunity for residual fibre supply for the industry. Increase the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales, providing more certainty for the industry and providing those opportunities. Important steps around the Wildfire Act amendments and some important steps around the wildlife amendment piece as well.

I appreciate the member for Kootenay West providing a set of questions around elements of that part of the legislation that we’ll certainly address in committee stage. I’m sure when we get to that, we’ll be able to answer the questions and the concerns that she raised in her submission and comments on the bill. I look forward to committee stage of the bill.

With that, I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I now call second reading debate on Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016.

BILL 19 — GREENHOUSE GAS
INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak: These amendments are proposed to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act which we passed in November of 2014 and came into force on January 1 of this year.

These amendments would implement three specific changes: first, creating new entrant provisions; secondly, expanding who can participate in the B.C. carbon registry and purchase and transfer funded units; and thirdly, transitioning emission offsets purchased by government under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to offset units under this act.

The new entrant provisions create a framework that takes into account an industry reality that greenhouse gas emissions are usually higher and production is usually lower during the testing and start-up phases of an operation in comparison to greenhouse gas emissions levels during regular operations. These provisions recognize the importance of a robust and rational approach to fostering economic development while maintaining environmental accountability.

The amendments will allow for the definition of a new entrant compliance period, which can be up to
[ Page 11799 ]
18 months with a subsequent transitional compliance period. The transitional compliance period transfers operators from the new entrant to the regular annual compliance period effectively, without increasing the administrative burden of the operator or government.

The amendments also establish statutory start date criteria for the compliance period of regulated operations under the act. The start date will be either the date of the first shipment of commercial product or six months after a prescribed date, such as leave to operate, whichever date is earlier.

Regulation-making powers are also created to enable the implementation of new entrant periods. This includes powers to set the length of new entrant compliance periods up to 18 months, application criteria and methodology related to the new entrant periods.

The emission limit provided by the act for regulated operations, including LNG, will not change.

The amendments allow any legal entity, including those with voluntary targets, to hold an account and conduct transactions on the B.C. carbon registry. Currently the act only enables regulated operations, such as LNG operators, offset proponents and government, to hold accounts on the registry. The amendments also allow any legal entity, including those with voluntary targets, to buy and transfer funded units.

The amendments permit offsets purchased by government under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to be transitioned to offset units under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and used for government’s carbon-neutral operations purposes.

These are the provisions in Bill 19 which, if approved by the Legislature, will provide flexibility for new regulated operations to optimize their performance at the start of production while maintaining the standard of LNG facilities in B.C. being the cleanest in the world.

With that, I look forward to members’ comments during second reading debate.

[1630]

G. Heyman: I will be the designated speaker for the opposition on this bill.

If we go back to Bill 2, an amendment to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act…. We can’t look at this bill, in Bill 19 debate today, without looking at Bill 2, the original bill, that came in, in 2014. Therefore, as I make my remarks with respect to Bill 19, I think it’s important that we reference Bill 2 as well as reference the reasons that the opposition opposed Bill 2 when it was originally introduced.

In opposing Bill 2, we made a significant number of points with respect to our concern about what the bill did do and what it failed to do. We suggested at the time that if there were changes to the bill, if the bill covered a number of things that were notably absent in terms of actually controlling greenhouse gas emissions from the LNG industry or setting in place a period of time in which controls would tighten, perhaps we would have a different point of view.

Here we have an amendment to Bill 2. Perhaps if this bill before us today addressed some of the issues that were deficiencies in the original act, we might be having a different discussion, but that’s not what we’re faced with today. Today we’re faced with Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, that in fact weakens the controls that were in the original bill, Bill 2. It makes it worse. I’ll talk in a moment or two about the ways in which it makes it worse.

At a period of time immediately following the Paris climate talks, following a very, very significant international agreement in which the government of this country actually upped the ante by saying that not only was our goal to hold climate change to no more than two degrees, our aspiration — because even two degrees is recognized as dangerous — was to meet 1.5, you would think this government would take the opportunity, especially because the minister was present in Paris, spoke at length about measures being taken in British Columbia….

The Premier was in Paris and did her best to portray British Columbia and this government as a climate leader, set up a climate leadership team and asked it for recommendations in order to bring forward a renewed climate action plan, at least in part because some of the goals and targets of the original climate action plan clearly won’t be met.

You would think that in tabling Bill 19, we might actually see from this government some attempt to move toward some of the goals that the federal government has said it wishes to meet, that the Premier and the Environment Minister have said we would like to meet. Instead, what we have is a disconnect. We have a logical disconnect.

We have a government that on the one hand talks about a climate action plan and being a climate leader and, on the other hand, brings in legislation to govern an industry as if that industry would operate in complete and total isolation from an overall provincial climate plan, from commitments made by this government to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall. It fails to situate the liquid natural gas industry, which, of course, has yet to materialize in B.C…. Despite many promises of prosperity, of eliminating debt, of 100,000 jobs, of billions of dollars, we have yet to see a single investment commitment.

What we do see from this government is a series of steps to do everything it can before the next election to convince someone, anyone — any proponent, any company — to come to the table with a solid commitment.

[1635]

In doing so, we’ve seen a continual rolling back of conditions, rolling back of benefits, rolling back of…. Well, there were never any job guarantees for British
[ Page 11800 ]
Columbians. But on that, this government is doing its best to deliver the absolute minimum — and rolling back of promises of benefits to British Columbia through revenues and royalties.

Now we see a rolling back of what began and still are very, very paltry standards in terms of developing what this government has characterized as the cleanest LNG in the world but what should be more accurately characterized as the cleanest contained LNG compression plants in the world, assuming they can meet that target. And let’s just forget about the 75 percent of emissions that exist in the upstream extraction and transportation process, as if, somehow, that will have no impact on British Columbia, no impact on British Columbian targets, no impact on our role within Canada to meet our national GHG emission reduction goals and as if it would have no impact on what the minister has said on numerous occasions is a clear and significant issue for future generations that we must act to respond to in good faith — climate change.

The government likes to portray anyone, whether it’s an environmental group, whether it’s an independent member of the Legislature or whether it’s the opposition, the opposition leader, myself, somebody who has ever expressed an opinion about climate change and how LNG can be situated within a climate action plan, as somebody who simply says no.

Climate change and greenhouse gas reduction are complex issues. Developing new sectors of the economy and attracting investment are complex issues. Reassuring British Columbians that we’re acting in their best long-term interests in every facet: revenue to the province; benefits for British Columbians; respect and involvement of First Nations; meeting environmental concerns with respect to air, land and water; and ensuring that we don’t leave an unpaid debt of damaging, damaging climate change to our children, to our grandchildren….

These are complex issues. To simplify them by saying that anyone who talks about these issues and suggests that we have to find a way to combine a response to these issues in a holistic manner — that if we’re going to develop an LNG industry, we have clear conditions and we have clear statements about what our parameters for development are, about what our conditions are….

We in the opposition have done that. We’ve done it and been doing it for a year and a half. Apparently, the government missed that point. They missed the point that we have said that there must be clear benefits for British Columbians. Bill 19, just like Bill 2, does nothing to guarantee those clear benefits to British Columbians.

We’ve said that we need express guarantees of jobs and training opportunities for British Columbians in an LNG industry. Bill 19 and Bill 2, which it amends, have done nothing to meet this condition.

We’ve said that First Nations must be consulted, must be involved, must have their rights and title and concerns addressed, must be involved in the process and must be partners in this process. Bill 19 and Bill 2, which it amends, does nothing to meet this condition.

[1640]

Finally, we have said that if we’re going to develop — and clearly that’s the goal of the government, and we have said we are open to this goal — an LNG industry, it must be done in a way that guarantees protection of air, land and water. That includes acknowledging the reality of climate change and situating this industry within an overall plan that does a couple of things to address greenhouse gas emissions, and that does everything possible to control those emissions at every stage of the process, not just the compression process, not just the LNG plant. We must address that.

We also must address it within an overall greenhouse gas reduction plan that looks forward to 2030, that looks forward to 2050, for British Columbia. That plan is part of a pan-Canadian plan. We have to see how more emissions-intensive industries fit within a context where we are taking clear steps and have laid out clear requirements to reduce emissions in other sectors of the economy, of residential housing, of transportation — whether it’s personal or public — and in other forms of economic activity in British Columbia.

Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act — the amendment to Bill 2 from a year and a half ago — does nothing to address these issues. In fact, it makes it worse. I’ve listened to the minister outlining conditions for new entrants, the challenges that new entrants face, opening up the carbon registry.

In reality, when we voted against Bill 2 in the first place, we said clearly that we criticized the bill, as did independent members, mainly because it excluded upstream greenhouse gas emissions from the “world’s cleanest LNG benchmark” — which we said isn’t a world’s cleanest LNG benchmark at all. It’s a sham. It’s illusory. You can’t take an entire industry that depends on extraction, transportation, construction, power, export and ultimate burning of the fuel and pretend that, if you’re accounting for cleanliness in a mere 30 percent of it and ignoring another 70 percent, you’re developing the world’s cleanest LNG.

You’re actually admitting that you don’t have a clue how to do it, or worse, that you’re unwilling to make the hard decisions to go to proponents and say: “You have every right to make a proposal. We want you to make proposals. But we have conditions, and they’re conditions that actually are global, because everyone in the globe is concerned about greenhouse gases. We want to find ways to work with you to address these within a set of rules.”

Instead, we get a framework in the legislation that simply says that 70 percent doesn’t matter. “You can do whatever you want, because we’re not going to touch you on that front. We’re not going to add additional costs to you. Just go ahead and do it.” Now we have an amendment to Bill 2, which excluded those emissions.
[ Page 11801 ]

We now have this amendment in the form of Bill 19 that, at its fundamental core, is a GHG-regulation-free pass for new entrants to the industry for 18 months. We can pretty it up. We can say, as the minister has, that it’s complicated, that there are more emissions at the early stage and less production and we need time to transition, but the reality is that’s not new information. What is really going on here is: “Let’s see what else we can weaken, in the way of regulation of this industry, to get someone, anyone, to invest.”

[1645]

Let me reiterate again. British Columbians want to see development. They want to see responsible development. They want to address climate change. They want to know what the provincial plan is so they know where it fits. They want benefits to British Columbia — which, we’ve spoken about many times, have been minimized through a variety of bills and actions by this government. They want jobs for British Columbians as well as respect for First Nations.

Instead, what we see — in the wake of Paris, in the wake of statements from the minister and the Premier about B.C. being a climate leader — are major steps backward. So it’ll be no surprise that we will be opposing this bill, just as we opposed Bill 2. If we opposed Bill 2 because it wasn’t, in fact, an adequate bill to address greenhouse gas emissions, we’re certainly not going to support a bill that makes things worse.

This is at a time when government is talking tough about climate change. To water down already inadequate legislation kind of beggars belief. It’s astounding that this government can stand up and claim that this is somehow a benefit to British Columbians or that it will make us or keep us a climate leader — assuming that people believe, as this government apparently does, that they have been climate leaders when they’ve done essentially nothing on the file for five years.

Very specifically, this amendment allows for LNG facilities to apply for a longer initial compliance period of up to 18 months. The stated reason is to allow time for testing and other initial activities that may affect emissions and production levels. As I said, this is an 18-month free pass.

I can imagine the meetings where this was discussed with industry. Apparently, it wasn’t discussed with British Columbians or with concerned colleagues who came to the climate leadership team in good faith to make recommendations to this government about a climate action plan. We simply have a GHG-regulation-free pass for 18 months. Companies can do what they want for 18 months. Who knows what that will mean in terms of growing GHG emissions in British Columbia.

Let’s be clear. While this bill calls itself the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, it is actually a bill that is designed solely and completely to benefit LNG facilities and not take any of the steps that British Columbians have urged and want this government to take to reduce climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions — emissions that we know are rising, rising in British Columbia specifically, emissions that are slated to rise further, significantly, between now and 2030 under current government policies.

This government, whether in Bill 2 or Bill 19 or statements in the House or statements to the public, has done nothing to address and nothing to inform British Columbians about what B.C.’s climate action plan will look like. The minister and the government say that we’ll get answers to that in due time. The target date of that due time has crept continually forward.

I wish that I could say that Bill 2, Bill 19 or any other bill or statement of this government gave me some hope that we might see in the government’s eventual announcement a holistic plan. We could then assess the role of LNG development and greenhouse gas emissions within that plan. Nothing I’ve seen gives me any hope for that.

[1650]

Let me simply say that Bill 19, which amends Bill 2, is amending a bill that already excluded 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from the LNG life cycle by excluding upstream emissions from regulation. Not only are those 70 percent of emissions still excluded; we now have the so-called cleanest LNG facilities.

Let’s cast our minds back because, as we consider Bill 19, we should think about how the message of this government has changed over years and months. Originally, the Premier promised the cleanest LNG in the world. Then, when she realized that British Columbia was not in a position to deliver on that promise, she changed it. She added the word “facilities.”

“No, no, no, no, no. We will have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. We never promised the cleanest LNG in the world. Not only will the 70 percent of upstream emissions be excluded from counting; now we just have a free pass on the facilities themselves. So I guess we could say we will have the cleanest LNG…. Oops, we’d better add the word ‘facilities’ here. We will have the cleanest LNG facilities in the world in due time, when we get around to it, when we feel like it, after we give the industry a free pass for 18 months.”

That’s not good enough for a climate action plan. That’s not good enough for development of an LNG industry where British Columbians can say: “We recognize that in developing this resource, there will be emissions. That’s unavoidable. But are we doing everything we can to reduce those emissions? Are we requiring of industry that they do everything they can to reduce those emissions in every technological way available?

“Are we reducing emissions along the chain? Are we reducing emissions in the way we power the LNG plants themselves? Do we have an overall provincial plan that covers transportation, that covers housing, that covers forestry, that covers other sectors, that shows us exactly
[ Page 11802 ]
how we’re going to reduce our emissions to an agreed-upon target by 2030 and 2050 and develop LNG as part of that plan?”

Instead, we’re told: “We’re going to give industry a free pass for 18 months. We’re not going to count 70 percent of the emissions, and we’ll get around to a greenhouse gas reduction plan when we feel like it. Oh, and by the way, we can’t meet our own legislated targets for 2020. We just somehow failed do that.”

British Columbians deserve better. If we’re going to develop an economy that has good jobs, that has a long-term future and doesn’t have built-in ticking time bombs of costly economic damage from climate change, we need to do better. We need to have a provincewide context in which we can situate measures like Bill 19 and Bill 2 before it. And we simply don’t have that.

In talking a little further about our concerns with respect to Bill 19, I think it’s important to revisit some of the concerns in Bill 2, the bill and now the act, which it will amend. Let me look back at some of the reasons that we opposed the original bill, Bill 2, and are still opposing its amendment in Bill 19.

The minister at the time said: “Our government promised the cleanest LNG facilities in the world, and that is exactly what we are delivering today.” I guess the message today is: “Our government promised the cleanest LNG facilities” — not process, facilities — “in the world, and that is exactly what we may deliver in 18 months after the start-up of any given facility, unless we bring in another amendment or change things by regulation or change the schedule at the end of the bill. Just trust us.”

[1655]

That’s not much basis for having faith that we’re going to meet emission reduction targets, that we’re going to have the cleanest LNG in the world or, in fact, that we’re going to have a plan that actually, overall, benefits British Columbians with an economy that does our part in meeting the burgeoning clean-tech economy of the world, that takes advantage of those opportunities, while we utilize resources in a responsible manner — utilize resources that could include natural gas, if it’s in a context and if we meet clear and important conditions, which Bill 2 didn’t do and which Bill 19 doesn’t do.

According to the Pembina Institute, as I’ve said — and that’s who I referenced when I talked about the 70 percent of emissions — upstream emissions account for 70 percent of the emissions in the LNG life cycle. They’re simply not covered. They’re ignored. But further, Bill 2 actually provides LNG proponents with flexibility to meet the benchmark. If they can’t meet the benchmark of cleanest LNG, they can purchase offsets at market prices or contribute to a technology fund — the uses of which have never been clear — at a rate of $25 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent.

Let’s give the bill and the government and the minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that the technology fund would be to explore and implement ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the life cycle of a particular plant. If the option is to invest in B.C.-based offsets at market prices, those market prices are significantly below $25 a tonne.

I’m pretty clear what I would do if I were an LNG proponent. I would take the cheapest option. Offsets, as we know, are controversial. We’ve heard from the Auditor General of British Columbia about exactly how controversial and questionable some of the offsets that were purchased by the Pacific Carbon Trust were.

What this doesn’t do is actually require best practices, emission reductions, targeted levels, a sliding scale of even…. Let’s say you start an LNG facility today. By ten years from today, we expect you to have reduced emissions down to X level. We don’t see any of that, and that’s problematic.

We’re asked to, on this side of the House or as British Columbians, trust the Premier and the minister when they say that we will have the cleanest LNG in the world. “Don’t worry. We’re overall contributing to reduced emissions worldwide,” which many people with access to significant amounts of research contest. That’s a very arguable point and simply not accurate when stated in such a simplistic fashion.

We’re asked to trust the Premier and the minister that we will have clean LNG, that we will overall reduce emissions, and we don’t see the mechanisms by which we can do that. That’s why we opposed Bill 2. That’s why we’re opposing Bill 19, which is a weaker, less effective version of a bill that we already opposed, which masquerades as a way of controlling greenhouse gas emission reductions but really, quite simply, doesn’t.

The legislation of Bill 2 was short on details. Approximately 25 percent of the bill allows government to change various regulations at a later date, with the stroke of a pen, through cabinet regulation. So whatever is said in the bill, whatever is promised to British Columbians, can be changed without any debate in the Legislature. It can just simply be done by cabinet fiat.

[1700]

It sets an intensity level — the 0.16 GHG intensity level — which is the benchmark that the government states is key to their “cleanest LNG in the world.” But the level is in the schedule at the end of the bill — at the end of the bill that is now an act. The schedule can be changed or added to or subtracted from at any moment. In fact, LNG could, theoretically, be entirely exempted from the schedule, from the legislation, if the government chose to do so.

Does Bill 19 change this? No. Does Bill 19 make it tighter? Does Bill 19 make things more transparent? No. Does Bill 19 democratize this process in any way or give any assurance or guarantees to British Columbians? No, it does not.

Even columnists who support an LNG industry, like Vaughn Palmer, commented on just how much discretion
[ Page 11803 ]
was given to cabinet through this particular feature of Bill 2, which Bill 19 does nothing to change.

When we spoke to Bill 2 originally, over a year ago, we suggested that the section that gave cabinet the ability to exempt industries regulated by Bill 2 from the carbon tax be repealed. It’ll be no surprise to you, hon. Speaker, that the government didn’t do that.

We further said that the schedule of the act should be amended to include upstream emissions from LNG processing, about which I’ve spoken at some length today. It’ll be no surprise to you that the government didn’t do that, hasn’t done that. Bill 19 doesn’t do that. And there’s apparently no intention from this government to do it.

How can we talk about the cleanest LNG in the world if we’re not dealing with the significant emissions from extraction, from upstream combustion, from flaring, from fugitive emissions and from pipelines, all of which, combined together, form 70 percent of the emissions in the LNG life cycle?

This is interesting. Bill 2 is the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. Bill 19 is the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act. But we don’t see any controls in either act — no. We might have been interested if we saw an amendment to Bill 2 in Bill 19 that actually provided some control, but we don’t.

There’s no actual requirement for GHG reductions. There is no cap on emissions. In fact, it’s widely expected, if not accepted, that most LNG producers in B.C. are likely to opt for burning natural gas to power the LNG process, which would mean very high GHG emissions, instead of using electric drive.

That’s one, perhaps the most obvious, way in which the LNG industry in B.C. — if it ever gets off the ground — could be significantly cleaner than what we see proposed by the government and purportedly regulated by Bill 2 and now by Bill 19. But we don’t see that. We don’t see any requirement for that. In fact, most proponents have made it very clear that they don’t intend to do that.

If we’re going to have a liquid natural gas industry in British Columbia — I’ll say this again — it should be of benefit to British Columbians. It should have jobs for British Columbians first. It should have respect for First Nations’ values and title. It should benefit First Nations and include them in a meaningful way. And it must include assistance in living up to B.C.’s climate change commitments — commitments that are legislated and which the minister herself has already admitted, publicly, we cannot meet. I don’t think it’s impossible to do this.

[1705]

The climate leadership team made some recommendations about how we could have an LNG industry within the context of a climate action plan that helped us meet new targets, because we’re not meeting the original ones, for 2030 and new targets for 2050. It’s not impossible, but it requires hard work. It requires more regulation than we see in Bill 2 or Bill 19. It requires will. It requires a lot of things.

One of the foremost organizations commenting on energy across Canada and in British Columbia is well thought of enough that the minister and the Premier included Matt Horne from this institute, the Pembina Institute, on the climate leadership team. It’s well thought of enough that the minister has often referred to Mr. Horne as someone whom she respects and someone who makes contributions to policy discussion on climate and energy in British Columbia.

The Pembina Institute and Mr. Horne have also suggested there are some ways in which we could develop an LNG industry within British Columbia and within the context of a real climate action plan, a plan that sets and meets targets for emission reductions.

But Mr. Horne and others have also been very clear. Certain steps have to be taken to do that. Instead of introducing some of those steps in Bill 19, we just get more of the same. Or in fact, in this case, because Bill 19 amends Bill 2, we get less of the same. We get a free 18-month pass and nothing substantial or significant about how this industry is going to be managed in a responsible way to protect our air, land and water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the targets that we say we’re going to set.

Well, actually, I haven’t heard the government say they’re going to set any new targets. I haven’t heard them make any commitment whatsoever in response to the climate leadership team.

The government is currently bound by law to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions that were present in 2007 by 33 percent by 2020. Now, that may seem onerous to some. It may seem ambitious to others. But the government introduced the bill. The government said that was our target and that we would meet it, and now it’s the government who is calling into question our ability to meet it.

The Minister of Environment said as recently as a couple of years ago that the government will still meet the targets in that law. The minister isn’t saying that any longer. She has admitted, because she and the Premier have no choice but to admit…. The climate leadership team that they established states very clearly that those are impossible targets to meet by 2020 and we have to regroup, reload and set new ambitious targets. She is now saying we can’t meet those targets.

She has also said, and I’ll read some statements from the minister later, that we have to double down. We have to take new actions. We have to be committed to take the actions necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions because in fact, not only aren’t we meeting the 2020 targets; our emissions are actually going up.

You’d think there’d be some sense of urgency or crisis and we might see that reflected in Bill 19 or some other bill that addresses how we’re going to develop an LNG industry responsibly within a provincial context of a real
[ Page 11804 ]
climate action plan, with real targets, with real mechanisms to meet those targets, with commitments to action in housing, transportation and every sector of our economy to meet those targets, yet we don’t.

Instead, we get: “Here we have LNG. Here we have the LNG industry, which is going to save British Columbia, going to create 100,000 jobs, going to make billions of dollars for British Columbia, going to retire the provincial sales tax and the debt.” Well, wait a minute. Those claims aren’t ones we’ve heard recently, but certainly we heard them — and we may yet hear them again, because apparently we have another election coming up.

[1710]

We have a government that says, “Here we have this industry that will deliver everything for British Columbia” over here, and over here: “British Columbia has been a climate leader. We have demonstrated climate leadership, and we’re going to continue to demonstrate leadership and be at the head of the pack.”

There is no connection between these two statements, and Bill 19 does nothing to establish that connection. In fact, it widens and deepens the disconnect — whether it’s the failure to address 70 percent of the emissions from LNG, whether it’s legislation that allows cabinet at some future time to do essentially whatever it wants to exempt the industry from portions of the requirements to change the intensity guidelines in the schedule, to continue to ignore so much of the emissions.

We do not have in Bill 19 anything resembling a responsible road map to appropriate development of B.C. resources, whether they be liquid natural gas, natural gas in other forms or other resources, in a way that fits into a climate action plan and a clear greenhouse gas reduction strategy.

Let me simply reiterate some of the concerns that were raised by third parties on the original, Bill 2, which Bill 19 does absolutely nothing to address, and which are, frankly, quite fundamental to our reasoning for opposing this Bill 19 as we opposed Bill 2.

Clean Energy Canada’s comments on Bill 2…. I don’t imagine their comments on Bill 19 would change. It’s important to note that this government thought highly enough of the executive director of Clean Energy Canada, Merran Smith, to include her on the climate leadership team.

At the time that Bill 2 was introduced, the comment of Clean Energy Canada was: “Today’s legislation only addresses the last link in that chain” — they’re referring to the chain of production from wellhead to waterline — “the port facilities where companies would chill the gas to load it aboard ships. It allows companies to buy credits rather than actually build cleaner terminals.”

I referenced this earlier when I talked about the failure of the government to actually include measures in Bill 19 or Bill 2 that require emission reduction as opposed to simply buying your way out of them.

Let’s move on to the Pembina Institute. Pembina’s biggest concern was, as we’ve said many times today: “It does not cover the majority of GHG emissions that will be produced in the process. As we’ve said, that’s 70 percent of the emissions.” Pembina went on to say that “this failure to regulate in any way the 70 percent of emissions that are outside of the actual compression facilities does not address total carbon pollution from the industry.” It says that “the government has signalled an intent to deal with this at a later date, but given the level of LNG development targeted by the government, it remains unclear as to how the province will meet its legislated climate targets. More clarity on how it intends to achieve this imperative is needed.”

Well, we have an answer to both parts of the question posed by the Pembina Institute. The answer to the part of the question about how the province will meet its legislated climate targets — well, we have the answer. The Minister of Environment now admits that we will not meet those legislated targets. We’re going to miss them by a country mile because our emissions continue to rise instead of going down. There was a period of time, early in the original climate leadership plan, when emissions were dropping. That is not the case today, and I’ll speak about that more in a little while.

[1715]

The other part of the question, which is: the government has signalled its intent to deal with how it’s going to regulate further emissions at a later date…. Well, we now have Bill 19. Presumably, we’re at a later date. We have an amendment to the original bill, now an act.

One would think that perhaps, given that the government said it would signal how it’s going to address these emissions at a later date, we might see that in Bill 19, the amendment act. But no, we see nothing.

The Pembina Institute made a number of recommendations, and it made three key ones. It said that the potential carbon tax exemption in section 56 of Bill 2 should be eliminated. So I’ve looked carefully at Bill 19 to see if perhaps the government paid heed to the recommendations of the Pembina Institute, which it thought highly enough of to include in its climate leadership team. You know what? I can’t find that elimination of that exemption.

To regulate upstream carbon pollution was the second recommendation of the Pembina Institute. So I looked through Bill 19; others have looked through Bill 19. There’s no regulation of upstream emissions. There’s no promise to regulate upstream emissions. There’s no response to the climate leadership team recommendations. There’s no climate action plan. There’s no commitment to address all of the recommendations. There’s nothing.

There’s simply a claim by this government that it’s pressing ahead to develop an LNG industry, which it claims, without foundation, will contribute overall to greenhouse gas emission reductions — a claim that is contested by many. They are doing nothing to make this
[ Page 11805 ]
truly the cleanest LNG in the world, from wellhead to waterline. They have no obvious intention to do so. They have no commitment to adopt measures that would do so. They treat LNG as if it lives in a silo without any impact on B.C.’s overall commitment to greenhouse gas reduction — a commitment that is clearly not being met.

If anybody questions them on this, if anybody holds up their finger and says, “Wait a minute….” Shouldn’t we be talking about how we’re going to make LNG production cleaner at the wellhead, how we’re going to tax fugitive emissions, how we’re going to address flaring, how we’re going to invest clearly in technology to reduce emissions from LNG?

Perhaps we can see how gas production, transportation and compression can fit within a total British Columbia package, a total British Columbia climate action plan, a climate action plan that will tell us how we’re going meet our commitments — commitments that we’re not making to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to make ourselves feel good, or because we think we should do this so we’ll look good to the international community.

No, we’re doing it — if we do it at all, and this government isn’t doing it — because we know that if we don’t do it, we are creating significant environmental catastrophe, significant health issues, and we are going to cost the economy of this province, this nation and the world billions of unnecessary dollars in cleaning up a mess that we created because we didn’t have the courage to take the steps necessary to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Does this bill, Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, have anything in it, anything at all that would take us closer to this goal? The clear answer is no. The answer of the government is no.

[1720]

That’s why we will vote no, because British Columbians deserve to see what a responsible liquid natural gas industry looks like, an industry with jobs for British Columbians, an industry that minimizes environmental damage, that minimizes greenhouse gas emissions and that fits into an overall provincial climate action plan.

The final point of the Pembina Institute is that we should design the legislation so that carbon pollution levels drop over time. They say that, as presented, Bill 2 and the accompanying materials “will not require carbon pollution levels from LNG terminals…to drop over time,” and that’s a problem because we need to reach for climate progress. We need to set targets and meet them.

Again, a lost opportunity in Bill 19 to fix some of the shortcomings of Bill 2, to fix some of the shortcomings of the act, to fix some of the shortcomings of this government’s LNG development plan and truly make it one that could be supported because people see what, overall, as a province, we will do and what our contributions will be and that shows that we have the courage to say to proponents: “Yes, we’re setting tough rules, but those rules are important, because you’re operating within the context of an industry that is meant to be a transition to cleaner energy around the world and in a context in which we will be evolving and transitioning to different forms of energy in the not-very-distant future. We don’t want to make things worse. We want to make them better.”

We don’t see that in Bill 19. We see very little of consequence in Bill 19 except a further message to proponents: “We didn’t go far enough for you, so we’ll go a little further, because we’re desperate to have you come to the table. If you don’t like our minimal standards in Bill 2, then Bill 19 will exempt you from them for a further 18 months.”

Instead of seeing a schedule of increasingly stringent targets that could be phased in over time, plotted out to meet 2020, 2030 and 2050 climate targets, we see nothing. We don’t see an amendment in Bill 19 to get us there. We see nothing.

Economist Marc Lee of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called Bill 2 — and I’m sure I can be fairly safe in saying he would also say this about Bill 19 — “a small step for GHG emissions and a giant leap for greenwashing.”

We should be able to do better. We can do better. We can do a lot better. We can say yes to jobs for British Columbians.

Interjection.

G. Heyman: Despite the note of hilarity from the Jobs Minister, we can talk about jobs in every community in British Columbia that we can build.

We can talk about industrial development that doesn’t invite people from outside of British Columbia to take jobs that British Columbians are quite capable of doing. We could talk about agreements that guaranteed jobs for British Columbians, jobs for First Nations, proper consultation with First Nations, a fair return on our resource — whether it’s gas or anything else — for British Columbians.

[1725]

Most importantly, we could reassure British Columbians that when we develop a liquid natural gas industry, we will develop it in a responsible way that does not contribute to climate change but is part of an overall British Columbia plan that sees a steady, steep drop in greenhouse gas emissions. And when we’re developing a strategy for transition that can be accommodated in British Columbia because we’ve taken firm, strong steps in every part of the economy, including the gas sector, to reduce emissions as much as possible — to account for them, to have stringent requirements for proponents…. In those sectors of the economy — transportation, and residential and commercial buildings — we’re doing everything we can to eliminate emissions entirely.

It’s not impossible. The climate leadership team painted a road map for how we can get there, yet we have the “get out of jail free for 18 months” card in Bill 19 instead of
[ Page 11806 ]
a thoughtful, committed response to the climate leadership team.

I would love it if this government — whether it was this month, next month, June or any other month — came back with a comprehensive response, adopted the recommendations of the climate leadership team or, if it felt the need to amend some of them, gave a clear rationale for that and said how they were going to make up that deficit in some other way.

If that were to happen, I would be surprised but I would acknowledge it. I’m not seeing that. I’m not expecting it from this government. British Columbians, however, do. British Columbians, if they’re told by the Premier and the Minister of Environment that we are, in fact, going to recalibrate our climate action plan….

If we’re going to recalibrate our emission reduction targets and if we are going to be leaders in the world in emission reduction and climate action, British Columbians expect that we’re not going to get a piecemeal approach and not going to get hopeful, aspirational statements followed by concrete actions that do nothing to control real emissions — real emissions that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency have said would contribute to an 8½ percent increase in B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions from one single project alone.

It’s not good enough. Bill 19 is not good enough. Bill 19 doesn’t address this issue. Bill 19 has no context. The only context of Bill 19 is this government’s desperation to see some shovel, or promise of a shovel, in the ground so that they’re not revealed to have spoken to British Columbians in 2013 with what they called a vision but was really a complete fantasy.

Where is the responsible approach to greenhouse gas emission reduction and natural gas development? You can’t do one without the other. You can’t separate them. You can’t put them in silos. You just can’t do it.

In order to fully understand why we’re opposing Bill 19, it’s important to put it not just in the context of natural gas development but in the context of environmentally responsible development — of not just natural gas but the B.C. economy. To do that, we have to look at the climate leadership team recommendations, to some extent, and we also need to look at the only real actions this government has taken.

The climate action team brought forward a number of recommendations. I’m not going to talk about all of them, but I will talk about a couple of them. Recommendation 31 says: “British Columbia should take leadership in seeking alignment with Canada and other provincial jurisdictions regarding best practices for methane reduction from the oil and gas sector, including transparent reporting and carbon pricing and regulatory policies.”

[1730]

So when we say that we have a condition for LNG development that includes protecting air, land and water, and meeting our emission reduction targets and our climate responsibilities, we’re not alone in that. It’s the government, the Premier and the minister’s own climate leadership team that have called for exactly that in this recommendation.

Again, does Bill 19 contain anything that might look like a direct or even an oblique reference to this recommendation? No, it does not.

Recommendation 15 is very specific. It says that the government should take steps to reduce fugitive and vented methane emissions. It should establish a goal of a 40 percent reduction for fugitive and vented methane within five years. It should require industry, through regulation, to implement leak detection and repair programs in line with best practices in North America. It should develop best practices for methane reduction, including transparent reporting through collaborative initiatives involving the provincial government, industry and other stakeholders with expertise in the area — they point out that Colorado and Pennsylvania have done this; this is not groundbreaking, it’s not impossible, and it’s not without precedent; it’s been done — and seek alignment with Canada and other provincial jurisdictions in this regard.

It also says, in recommendation 15, that the government should provide that at the time of the first five-year review of the climate leadership plan, which they recommend, a new reduction goal for fugitive and vented methane emissions should be established.

I pored through Bill 19, and I went back to Bill 2. I could find nothing whatsoever remotely resembling something that the minister or the government could say showed that they understood the points that the climate leadership team were raising or that they had any intention of addressing this point with this legislation.

It’s called the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, Bill 19. I don’t see any amendments to actually increase controls of greenhouse gas emissions. I don’t see any amendments that would respond in any remote way to the recommendations of the climate leadership team. British Columbians deserve better. The world deserves better.

It can be done. The climate leadership team has pointed some directions. The climate leadership team has said it’s difficult but not impossible to develop LNG in a responsible way that can be part of a provincial greenhouse gas reduction strategy, a climate action plan, and meet very aggressive targets that are set.

I know there are people with expertise on that leadership team, and I trust them. I don’t think they’re saying that we can have unlimited unregulated development of LNG. They’re simply saying that if we’re serious about playing our part in climate change, let’s get serious about how we’re going to regulate emissions from an industry that’s based around a fossil fuel, whether it’s a cleaner fossil fuel than some others or not. Bill 19 just ignored that. It simply ignored it.
[ Page 11807 ]

It’s not good enough to try to dupe British Columbians into believing that you’re creating the cleanest LNG in the world when, in fact, you’re not. It’s not good enough to tell British Columbians that we’re going to be climate leaders when we’re blanketly exempting 70 percent of the emissions related to an industry and, on top of that, introducing a bill, Bill 2, and then another bill, Bill 19, to amend it. It has so many loopholes that the limited actions to control greenhouse gas emissions — and they’re very limited — or hold proponents accountable can be changed with a stroke of a pen.

The climate leadership team recommended that by 2030 we should have a new target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. They recommended 40 percent.

[1735]

We have policies in place in British Columbia, policies that this government purports to address through establishment of a climate leadership team and bills like Bill 2 and Bill 19. Yet in its report to the UN framework convention on climate change that Environment Canada submitted on February 10, they say, under current policies, that B.C.’s carbon pollution is projected to go from 63 megatonnes in 2013 to 72 in 2020 and 83 in 2030. That’s a 32 percent increase by 2030 — not a 40 percent reduction.

I’d hoped, in looking at Bill 19, in listening to any number of speeches from the Environment Minister, the Premier, any member of cabinet or any member on the benches opposite as they talk about their responsible development proposals for British Columbia, for some recognition that they had to do something in this industry — which they could have done through Bill 19 — and, overall, for B.C.’s transportation, residential, commercial and industrial sectors that would change this figure, that would show us a road map to a 40 percent reduction by 2030 — or any reduction by 2030, but not a 32 percent increase by 2030.

Where, in Bill 19, is there any recognition that we’re on the wrong track? That’s why we will oppose Bill 19 as we opposed Bill 2. That’s why we put forward four conditions for responsible LNG development, because we believe, on this side of the House, that British Columbians deserve honesty. They deserve a plan. They deserve an industrial development program that maximizes jobs for British Columbians without damaging our future by damaging our environment and damaging our climate.

Where, in Bill 19, is there a single word of acknowledgment of the crisis that the Premier and the minister claim this government is leading in addressing? There’s nothing. They’re not doing it. They’re making it up, hon. Speaker — 40 percent down or 32 percent up.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Any recognizable measure that we could have a reasoned debate around, whether it’s appropriate or sufficient to meet our responsibility and the expectations of British Columbians to have a climate action plan for British Columbia in which LNG development can be situated in a responsible manner? Instead, we have empty words on the one hand and empty regulations on the other hand in Bill 19.

I want to read some remarks from the Environment Minister that she made in estimates when I was questioning her about the activities of her ministry and her government with respect to LNG, to climate change and to greenhouse gas emission reductions. I did that earlier this year.

From the minister: “Insofar as actions to work on any reductions in the upstream, we certainly have an interest in that and are carefully considering what recommendations have been provided to us by the climate leadership team.” Apparently, those serious considerations, or considering actions to address upstream emissions, didn’t find their way into Bill 19. What a pity. They’re just not there.

Again, the minister: “In terms of the oil and natural gas sector, there are many opportunities there for reductions in emissions, some of which are going to be more challenging than others.… There’s no question, though, that in order to achieve our goals, we’re going to have to see emission reductions across all sectors. That includes oil and natural gas.”

[1740]

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for a year and a half. That’s exactly what’s at the nub of the fourth condition on our conditions for developing liquid natural gas in British Columbia — that we seize those opportunities for reductions, that we identify them, that we don’t pretend they don’t exist or they’re not part of the cleanest LNG.

Do we see any recognition of these opportunities, any direction to explore the opportunities, any opportunity to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector or, in fact, in any sector in B.C. in any piece of legislation this government has brought forward, including this one, Bill 19? The answer is a very clear, resounding, deafening and substantially insufficient no.

No, it’s not in Bill 19. No, you won’t see in any legislation from this government in this session of this parliament anything to give support to the minister’s words about looking for opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the upstream of natural gas development or in any other sector in B.C. There’s nothing. There’s nothing in any bill. There’s nothing in any concrete, detailed commitment from this government, and there’s nothing in Bill 19. Nothing. No. And that’s why we’re voting no.

Again from the minister: “We recognize that our emissions are going up, and that’s why we need to take action…. As I’ve said, and as the report” — she means the climate leadership team report — “outlines, we are not in line to make our 2020 targets. The team, of course, recommends establishing a new 2030 target.”
[ Page 11808 ]

Bill 19, to recap, amends Bill 2. At the time of Bill 2, the minister said this government will meet the 2020 legislated targets. This year, around the same time that Bill 19 was being introduced to amend Bill 2, she admits that we will not meet our 2020 targets, that we need a new target in 2030, that our emissions are going up. Not down. Up. As Environment Canada states, they’re slated to go up by 32 percent over the next 14 years. She says that’s why we need to take action.

It’s only natural that I might pick up Bill 19 with anticipation to see if there’s anything in that bill that would lead me to believe that this government is serious about taking action in the area of liquid natural gas. Guess what. I found nothing. No one else has found anything. It’s not there. Instead of action, we have empty words.

Again from the minister: “If we are truly going to be effective in reducing our GHG emissions, I think we have to start looking at the way we approach climate action planning in a similar way, holding ourselves to account to a plan that can realistically see us getting all the way to our 2050 target.”

I hope the minister means those words, because I know British Columbians do. I know British Columbians want to feel good when they go to work. They want to go to work, first of all, which means they have to have jobs. They can’t simply be standing on the sidelines counting Alberta licence plates.

When they are going to work, they want to understand where the work they do fits into a transition plan to a clean economy and to a nation and a world in which we’ve addressed the greenhouse gas emission issue and brought emissions down very aggressively, very steeply, to meet necessary targets to hold global warming to levels that, while maybe not ideal, aren’t catastrophic or dangerous.

That’s why workers in the oil and gas sector formed organizations like Iron and Earth to demand of governments that, even as they work in the sector, there be transition plans for those sectors and for them and their skills.

[1745]

If we have to start, as the minister says, looking at the way we approach climate action planning, holding ourselves to account to a plan that can realistically see us getting all the way to our 2050 target, we actually need to see a plan. We need to believe that this government is capable of bringing forward a plan, and Bill 19 would have been a fine place to start. It’s a missed opportunity. There’s nothing in Bill 19 to get us there. That’s why we are voting no.

Again from the minister, referring to the climate leadership team: “They have actually shown us a pathway where we could be developing liquefied natural gas as an industry here in British Columbia and, at the same time, meeting our 2050 targets.”

The minister recognizes that the climate leadership team, Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and others have said: “Of course developing fossil fuels are problematic in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but if you have a plan and if it’s in a context, you can do some.”

The minister says that they have shown us a pathway. There is nothing in Bill 19 that refers to that pathway, that points us to the pathway, that commits us to starting on the pathway, that addresses the pathway, that requires proponents to walk down that pathway in their plans to develop liquid natural gas. There’s nothing. There are empty words. It’s just not there.

Again from the minister: “There is all manner of opportunities in the upstream to see those emissions reduced, and we’re examining all the different opportunities that are there.”

If you lift the cover of Bill 19 in hopes of finding even a reference to bringing together industry, government, First Nations and stakeholders to discover what those opportunities of addressing upstream emissions might be, you will look in vain. You will look in vain, even if you put on reading glasses. You will not find it because it’s not there. I know the minister gets it, but she didn’t get it enough to put it in Bill 19.

Again from the minister: “In the last year — we have reports on 2013 — we’re seeing emissions start to tick up. I think the important piece, though, of what the member said” — referring to me — “is that emissions are going up again, and we are going to have to do more if we’re going to see them start to trend down.”

The minister is absolutely correct. We’re going to have to do a lot more. Bill 19 would have been a good place to start doing more. An approach to the climate leadership team’s recommendations and a climate action plan in which we could situate Bill 19, a responsible approach to natural gas and liquid natural gas development, would have been a good place to do more. But nothing is there — nothing.

The climate action plan that we were promised in response to the climate leadership team is nowhere to be found. No reference in Bill 19. No reference in any other bill. Perhaps the minister will surprise me and table a bill that addresses a climate action plan and responsible development of liquid natural gas in a way that minimizes upstream emissions and situates it in an overall climate action plan for British Columbia. I’ve waited for that before, and I’ve been disappointed. Like most British Columbians, I am getting awfully tired of being disappointed, and Bill 19 does nothing to address that disappointment.

With the right question put to her, the minister wouldn’t disagree with me. Again from the minister: “But the point the member makes is absolutely valid…. That is that emissions are now trending up in B.C…. There’s no disagreement that we have emissions going up. We know that we are not going to meet the 2020 targets.”

[1750]

With that kind of clarity, one would hope that Bill 19 would be at least a start, at least a signal, at least something on which British Columbians could rely and say
[ Page 11809 ]
that we may not have the details yet. But the minister says that we have to address emissions. The minister says there are ways to minimize emissions from liquid natural gas and natural gas extraction. The minister says we have to do more. The minister says we’re not going to meet our legislated targets — the law of British Columbia, introduced by a Liberal government.

When the minister says that, and when the minister says we have to have new targets and we have to take strong and clear action, British Columbians could be forgiven for hoping that somewhere in a review of some legislation from this government, there would be a clue that this government, in promoting a liquid natural gas industry, understands that it’s not a blank cheque.

It has to meet certain conditions. It has to be situated in a responsible approach to climate action and greenhouse gas reduction. British Columbians should not only be forgiven for being disappointed and angry when they see none; they should be applauded.

They should be applauded for demanding of this government that there be a clear commitment to greenhouse gas reduction, a clear commitment to responsible development of resources that are emissions-intensive and corresponding actions in other sectors of the economy, in transportation and housing, that will address greenhouse gas emissions — something, anything, that indicates that this government gets it more than just knowing that there are certain words that should be mouthed in order to get them off the hook when they’re in Paris surrounded by people who care about climate change, surrounded by representatives of a new federal government, surrounded by people from environmental organizations around the world who will look at them critically when they say: “We’ve shown climate leadership.”

The fact remains that they’ve done nothing for five years. Emissions are going up. Current plans will see emissions rise by a further 32 percent by 2030 instead of dropping by 40 percent — a whopping 72 percent difference.

British Columbians expect more. British Columbians deserve more. British Columbians should be given more, and this government gives us Bill 19, the “get out of jail for the next 18 months free card” bill. Really, it defies belief that this government could even say the words “climate leadership,” could spell the words “climate leadership.”

What one concrete action has this government done? What one concrete action has this government done in the wake of the report from Environment Canada that says our emissions are shooting up by 32 percent, that they’ve been rising recently?

Instead of giving us a plan to control emissions, giving us a plan to address upstream emissions in liquid natural gas, giving us a road map to the future, giving us a bill that amends their previous inadequate, irresponsible, not supportable Bill 2 with Bill 19…. Instead of amending Bill 19 to do something meaningful about greenhouse gas emissions, we get the “get out of jail free for 18 months” bill.

And what is the concrete action we get from this government? Let me close my remarks by pointing to the irony of this government’s actions in introducing Bill 19 claiming climate leadership and then saying that they’re going to bring us a climate action plan. Who did the Premier tap as the person to lead the creation of B.C.’s climate change plan? You can’t make this stuff up. Even if it was still April 1, you can’t make this stuff up. It’s outrageous: Fazil Mihlar.

Fazil Mihlar may well be a competent administrator, but a leader in the fight against climate change? Let’s take a moment to review Mr. Mihlar’s record in this regard. Let’s take a look at what this government gives us along with Bill 19.

We get a person who’s going to lead the government response to the climate leadership team who served as a director at the Fraser Institute, whose so-called experts question the science of climate change.

[1755]

The press release said that Mr. Mihlar will help lead “the creation of British Columbia’s new climate leadership plan.” What else has Mr. Mihlar led besides Fraser Institute research on union-busting laws? Perhaps that ties into the failure of this government to actually address the concerns of building trades and other unions — that they have a significant role in liquid natural gas.

After the Fraser Institute, Mr. Mihlar moved to the Vancouver Sun, where he encouraged readers to “think of coal to meet our future energy needs.” Now, he wasn’t talking about metallurgical coal to build windmills to meet our future energy needs, which we all admit is the current technology to build steel. He said we should “think of coal to meet our future energy needs.”

In 2008, Mr. Mihlar wrote that “global warming is the latest weapon in the west’s arsenal to subjugate and impoverish millions of people in the Third World.” Has this government no shame? Does this government not recognize that if we in the developed world don’t…?

With all of the resources we have to take action to reduce emissions — through responsible development of resources, through clean transit, through energy conservation, through any of the things we have the ability and money to do — we are, in fact, subjugating and impoverishing millions of people in the Third World whose homes will be wiped out by rising oceans, whose industries and own economic development will be impoverished.

Along with Bill 19, which does nothing to address emission reduction in the LNG industry or a climate action plan, we have an absence of a climate action plan and we have somebody tapped to lead a climate action plan who clearly has problems understanding the issues of climate change.
[ Page 11810 ]

Let me just add a couple of more things that Mr. Mihlar has suggested in the past. When he was editor of the Vancouver Sun and editor of the editorial page, the Sun published an editorial that argued that B.C. high school teachers should “not preach to students about the consequences of climate change” and suggested that schools that choose to show Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth should also show a documentary titled The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The editorial also asked really thoughtful questions, like: “Could the science be wrong or, more insidiously, doctored?” It closed by saying: “If the planet is doomed no matter what we do, should we do nothing?”

Let me close my remarks on Bill 19 by saying we have an amendment to an inadequate greenhouse gas emission reduction act. We have an amendment that makes it worse. We have this amendment and this act in a context in which we have no clear response to the recommendations of the climate leadership team, in a context where we have emissions slated to rise by 32 percent by 2030 instead of dropping by 40 percent as recommended by the climate leadership team.

We have Bill 19 in a context in which the minister admits that we’re going to fail to meet our legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets and that we have to do much more to reduce emissions, including addressing upstream emissions in gas extraction and improving on the emission record of liquid natural gas overall, and in a context where we need a climate action plan that will turn the corner and take us in the other way.

On the one hand, we have Bill 19, which does nothing to address any of these issues other than to make Bill 2 worse. On the other hand, we have yet no response to the climate leadership team and no climate action plan. But we do have one very important thing. We have a commitment by this government to put a deputy minister in charge of responding to the climate crisis in Canada, in the world and in British Columbia.

[1800]

We have a concrete action by this government. The concrete action is to put in place a person to lead this response to the climate crisis who has a track record of questioning climate science, of promoting the dirtiest fossil fuels and of overseeing editorials that suggest that young people in schools be taught that perhaps climate change is a hoax.

With actions like that from this government, we don’t really need a whole lot more information to make up our mind about Bill 19. We can open the page of Bill 19. We can flip the pages of Bill 19. We can look for some recognition that Bill 2 was filled with loopholes for government to relax what limited regulations are in place — regulations that will be established by cabinet, rather than by open debate in this Legislature.

We don’t see anything to make it better. We see things to make it worse. We see no mention of actions, of round tables or anything else that could be put into place to help us chart a path to responsible development of LNG within a climate action plan context for British Columbia. We see none of that.

Instead, we simply see a projection by Environment Canada of our emissions under current policies, policies on which we’ve heard nothing from this government about possible change. We’ve seen reports that emissions will continue to rise instead of go down. And to oversee the climate action plan, we see the appointment of a climate change denier, or at least somebody who supports the views of climate change deniers.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I await the day in this Legislature when we will see a bill related to greenhouse gases or LNG — call it Bill 19 or anything else — that we could support. But we don’t have that bill before us today. That’s why we will be voting against this bill.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

S. Gibson: It’s a real pleasure for me to once again rise in this House representing the people of the beautiful riding of Abbotsford-Mission. I’m pleased to speak to Bill 19, the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016.

This bill will support the creation of a strong LNG sector in B.C. and ensure that it’s the cleanest in the world. The changes in this bill will give regulated and non-regulated operations more choices and flexibility for a cleaner tomorrow. This act sets performance standards for regulated operations such as LNG facilities. We’re encouraging new, innovative approaches to managing emissions, while our greenhouse gas emission benchmark makes B.C.’s LNG the cleanest in the world. This act streamlines several aspects of existing greenhouse gas legislation and includes reporting offsets, tracking and compliance.

We are proposing three amendments stemming from ongoing negotiations with the LNG sector. This will give regulated and non-regulated operations more choice and flexibility for success. I’m going to take a moment to outline each of these three amendments and what they are about.

The first amendment will allow for a new entrant period. This is important because currently there are no allowances for new regulated operations, such as LNG facilities during start-up, when emissions may be higher and production may be lower than during the full state of production.

With this legislation, new LNG facilities can apply for a longer compliance period of up to 18 months before having to pay compliance costs. This is to allow for testing and other initial activities that may temporarily produce higher greenhouse gas emissions and lower production. After the first period, all facilities would be subject to a
[ Page 11811 ]
regular compliance period to meet the greenhouse gas emission intensity benchmark.

[1805]

The second amendment has to do with the additional holders of the B.C. carbon registry. The B.C. carbon registry enables the issuance, transfer and retirement of compliance units electronically. Currently the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act only allows regulated operations to buy and retire funded units.

With the amendments to this legislation, the B.C. carbon registry would be opened up to include non-regulated, such as companies and municipalities. This will allow them to participate in the carbon market, to buy, transfer and retire offsets and help fulfil partner commitments. For example, by being part of the B.C. carbon registry, B.C. Hydro would be able to meet its commitments to provide zero-emission electricity to LNG producers by purchasing offsets or funded units and transferring those units to LNG producers.

The third amendment has to do with transitional provisions. These proposed amendments would also correct a transitional piece of the original legislation, ensuring government’s carbon-neutral requirements are met. This is consistent with the intent of the act.

This government is encouraging new, innovative approaches to managing emissions, while our greenhouse gas emission benchmark makes B.C.’s LNG the cleanest in the world. A benchmark is a regulatory tool that sets an absolute limit on greenhouse gas emissions for every unit of LNG produced, while allowing for the growth and development of the LNG industry in our province. A benchmark provides an economically efficient path to meeting B.C.’s goal of having the cleanest LNG facilities in the world.

LNG companies are required by regulation to report all of their greenhouse gas emissions for every facility they operate. This includes greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas turbines used in the liquefication process and electricity generation, carbon dioxide venting and fugitive greenhouse gas emissions.

The benchmark will cover all greenhouse gas emissions from the point where natural gas enters the plant to where it is loaded onto a ship, train or other transportation system for delivery to market. The benchmark allows facility operators to choose investing in greenhouse gas emission reductions to ensure their facility elsewhere in B.C. Facility operations can lower their greenhouse gas emissions by adopting more efficient technologies or using clean energy.

LNG operations are required to achieve a greenhouse gas emission intensity benchmark of 0.16 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per metric tonne of LNG produced. This is lower than any other LNG export facility in the world. Facilities not meeting this benchmark directly by the incorporation of lower-emissions technologies or the use of electricity will be able to achieve compliance with the benchmark through flexible options.

An LNG facility in B.C. that meets the 0.16 benchmark through efficient plant design, investment in emission reductions or clean technologies will have a clear claim as the world’s cleanest LNG facility.

This legislation puts forward more choices and flexibility for a cleaner tomorrow. It’s all a part of building the work of a great, strong LNG sector that indeed will be the cleanest in the world.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today, and it won’t surprise members, as I’ve been raising these issues probably since I first arrived in this House. I’ve certainly been working on these issues prior to that. In fact, it’s one of the reasons why I first ran for election in the incredible riding of Vancouver–West End, and they certainly are issues that my constituents raise with me.

The issue is climate change. When I see an act that talks about regulating greenhouse gases, I get interested. I get excited. I think that means emissions are going to go down, not that emissions are going to continue to increase.

[1810]

Unfortunately, right now where we are in B.C. politics…. It doesn’t have to be this way. We could have changes. We should have changes. We seem to be in a place where the government is, on one side, stepping on the gas and massively increasing climate change and, on the other, saying we need to brake at the same time and that we’ve got to send emissions going down. You have the issue of emissions going up in B.C. while the Premier and politicians say: “Oh no, we’re working to be climate leaders, and emissions will go down.”

Well, to me, climate leadership and being a climate leader doesn’t mean leading the way to more climate emissions, leading the way to more climate change. But unfortunately, so far, due to this government’s serious lack of support for action, serious lack of knowledge or understanding that this is a crisis we actually need to lead on and not just dither away on and discuss and talk and talk and talk while we continue to increase emissions….

No, we need act, act, act — action. Action on emissions to drive them down now. Emissions should be on the way down, not on the way up. This government has failed, and they are on the way up. The government will break its own law in 2020 by increasing emissions. This bill, which talks about greenhouse gas regulation, does nothing to change that. In fact, it looks very seriously clear that this government is blithely going to walk away from their commitments to the future and increase emissions some more.

So 2020 — we passed a law. All parties in this House got together and passed a law saying emissions had to be 33 percent lower than where they are today, in 2020. People talk about them as climate targets. Well, I think it’s a climate law. We actually passed a law. It wasn’t to
[ Page 11812 ]
say: “Well, we’re going to pass a law that just says, ‘Try and follow the law.’” It would be like saying: “Don’t steal, but if you do, just try not to.”

That may sound extreme, but we’re talking about stealing from the future. What we’re doing today is stealing from our grandchildren. It’s stealing from great-grandchildren. We’re stealing their hopes for a climate that is at least somewhere below a 2-degree increase in temperature. We’ve already made a big mess of it, as a society. But we’re stealing from them their ability to not be living in complete climate chaos — with forest fires, with mass flooding, with a loss of species, endangered species.

This government is stealing from our future. I understand that many of us think: “Oh, climate change is a long way away.” That includes all of us. Each one of us could be doing more in our own lives, for sure, to be reducing emissions. I include myself in that. But this is the government that claims to be a climate leader, and the only leadership they’re showing is increasing emissions. That’s not leadership; that’s failure. This government is a climate failure.

After starting well, they’re now driving emissions up; so putting the brake on one side — or at least saying we want to put the brake on emissions — and meanwhile, keeping the pedal to the metal to increase emissions. It doesn’t work. Emissions have to go down, not up.

The government admitted they’re going to break their own law and increase emissions beyond a 33 percent reduction we were supposed to have in 2020 — in fact, probably be an increase. Maybe not. I hope not. Still, we need to be on a path to rapidly reduce emissions. Instead of saying, “Well, maybe we’ll kick this problem down the road to 2030,” the government needed to say, “No, this is a crisis” — as so many governments around the world have been saying. We need real action now, not just more words.

What does that mean? That means bringing in protections so that industries that are putting up a lot of emissions are supported and found new ways, and regulatory ways, to drive those emissions down while, of course, supporting good jobs and transitioning away from fossil fuels as well.

They’re going to be there for a while. You know when Hunter Harrison, I think it is, the big railway tycoon, comes forward and says that oil and fossil fuels in the future are bust and that they’re not the direction of economic growth in the future, something is up. You know that this is getting through to industry. Business understands this. When insurance agencies, banks and others are starting to include climate risk in their financial assessments and the risks to those that are investing in them, we know that they are taking this seriously.

[1815]

The government that we elect, which is supposed to be leading us down the path to eliminating our climate emissions and stabilizing the climate, are the ones that don’t get it. They’re increasing emissions.

It may be very clear that when you appoint somebody to lead on the climate action file and that person has expressly, in writing, again and again, said they’re not sure that they agree with the science, and they don’t believe it; when they promote climate change creating over actually reducing, maybe the government really does think climate leadership is about increasing climate emissions so we get crazy climate chaos.

I can’t understand why else they would be acting in this way, aside from either clear self-interest, that they think the public doesn’t care about acting on climate change, or they don’t, or they don’t believe it. I know some members on the Liberal side don’t believe in climate change and don’t think we, as humans, have any job to do to reduce emissions, because it just happens anyways.

Well, I’m not willing to take that risk. We, in the New Democrats, aren’t willing to take that risk. We think that emissions…. A government actually has to create legislation to drive emissions down.

What do we see right now? Well, because of the government’s lack of real action on, let’s say, natural gas, when you don’t include 70 percent of your emissions, when you just let them go up in the air and you’re not actually bringing in rules to drive them down, you’re going to have a problem.

According to the government’s own climate leadership team and the science and the evidence that they’ve put up, and information, actually, from the federal government, it looks like one natural gas, LNG, plant could increase B.C.’s emissions by 10 to 14 percent. That’s an emission increase, not an emission decrease.

My question for the government really is: if they’re wanting to rapidly increase emissions from one sector, what bill are they sticking on everybody else, or are they just deciding that taking from our future is okay?

On one hand, they preach on budget financing, on the budget and making sure we balance our budget — that we don’t want to take away from our grandchildren. We don’t want to pass on a debt to our grandchildren.

I’ve got a message for the government. They’re passing on a massive debt to our future in terms of climate change, in terms of emissions going up right now into the atmosphere that are destroying our ability to try and keep at least some semblance of a stable climate — where 50 years, 30 years, 100 years, where today, where we’re already starting to see the impacts now, and they’re only going to get worse without action….

You know, some reports have suggested that by 2050, a time when we’re supposed to have, by law, reduced our emissions by 80 percent, LNG plants could make up 75 percent to 108 percent of our carbon budget.

Basically, that means that in — what? — 44 years, nobody in B.C. will have a campfire. Nobody in B.C. will be able to drive a gas-powered vehicle in any sense or have gas use in any of their factories, if we’re going to meet that emission reduction target and also proceed with stepping on the gas in one specific sector.
[ Page 11813 ]

Now, it doesn’t have to be this way. There are abilities for us to meet our emissions reduction targets law if we actually acted. Now, the climate leadership team has put out some very helpful suggestions.

The government could choose to act, but instead, they’ve said: “Well, we’ll do a consultation.” And you know what? Then they said, “We’ll do another consultation, and we’ll keep talking, and we’ll keep talking, and we’ll keep talking. We don’t need anything in this budget. We don’t need action in the budget,” even though we do, as a society, clearly need real leadership now to reduce emissions.

We support it. If the government wants to have a bipartisan reach across the aisle and work with the opposition to come up with a set of goals, a set of rules, a set of policy so that we can all work together, I’d love it.

You know, the public says to me: “We don’t want the partisan. We want the action. We want governments and societies to treat this as the crisis it is.”

We’ve done that before. In World War II, there was a unity government over that one issue — in many countries — where they united to say: “We need to work together to solve these issues together.”

I wish that this government would act and would look to and reach out across the aisle. I’ve kept reaching. The government keeps putting its hands in the air and walking away.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, totally. The minister is getting excited, partly because she has not acted recently. It’s good to see that the minister is calling for action. I just wish it would actually lead to action.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1820]

S. Chandra Herbert: You know, it’s 2016. The minister could act. All of these ministers could act. Instead, they pass the debt on to the future. They take from our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren’s ability to enjoy this province in the way that we enjoy it.

We need action now — no more bringing forward legislation which actually weakens our ability to address climate change. Let’s bring in real legislation, real policy, real action that brings our communities together to reduce climate change now. Our future can’t wait for it. Our great-grandchildren can’t wait for it. Every day that we pass by in this House, not acting, every day this government steps on the gas — on one side increasing emissions while, on the other side, pretending to act — we waste time and we waste our ability to act.

It gets more and more expensive each and every day. I think pricing carbon, bringing in massive transit, bringing in public building retrofits is actually the way we should do….

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think that’s the way to go.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: While the minister may want to talk about the past, she isn’t talking about the future.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: She can laugh all she wants about the past and about the yesteryears in the ’90s. She can go back to the ’60s and ’50s and 1900s, if she wants.

My concern is the future. My concern is our action. I wish that the government would stop sitting on its butt, thinking that they’re the greatest thing ever, and actually do something about it.

I’m appealing to them. I’m pleading to them, for the future, to do something now. It’s worth acting. It’s worth realizing that partisan jibes are fun, but they’re not leadership.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: And while the minister may want to throw out past and discussion…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: …she is not addressing her need to act right now. She’s got the power. She’s got the budget. She’s got a cabinet, which claims to be leaders. Now is the time for them to actually be leaders and not increase emissions, as they currently are doing.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Rustad moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
[ Page 11814 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,947,632,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon. We are now meeting on April 5 at 1:30 in the afternoon.

[1335]

K. Corrigan: I do only have a couple more questions about government communications. We were talking about advertising campaigns in this budget cycle, 2016-17, and how it works and how much money is going to be spent.

I appreciate that the minister, before we broke, said that the ministry would be happy to tell us about ongoing advertising campaigns over the next year and the cost of them. I do appreciate that. I appreciate the differentiation between that and what had been said by the minister, I believe, or it was reported — that we would have to wait until we got the public accounts. So that’s very helpful, and I appreciate that.

Just to wrap up this area. We were talking a little bit about federal moneys towards the end, and I know there were past budgets that were in the range of, actually, several million dollars. Around $5 million — is that correct? Yeah, I think, in the last, 2015…. So $4 million total? Okay, so $4 million total then.

The expectation, the lack of certainty about what is going to be happening in this year…. Is the minister assuming that there will be some money? My question is: if that money comes in, where is that reported? I guess it won’t be in the budget, but where is it reported? It’s not part of the STOB — the stuff we’ve been talking about already. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I have just learnt, after all these years of involvement with government, that STOB 90 consists of recoveries external to government, including other governments. So STOB 90 would reflect that in retrospect. Obviously, we can’t have budgeted for these unknown federal transfers at this point, looking prospectively. But in Public Accounts, it would be shown as STOB 90 retrospectively.

K. Corrigan: So STOB 90 — because I don’t have it in front of me, or maybe I do, but I don’t know where it is — would that be broken down? Would it be indicated that this is money that has come for the use of advertising campaigns?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am unable to answer that question with any substance, so rather than make an erroneous assumption, we’d rather get back to you with specific detail. Given that it’s STOB 90 for all ministries, it will vary between ministries, whether it’s in terms of, I suppose, a large sum for transportation infrastructure or a small sum for something like the #SaySomething campaign.

K. Corrigan: Just as a general question, then: is STOB 90 broken down by ministry?

[1340]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Each of the ministries makes a full report on all their STOBs. Just as they are in the blue books that we have here somewhere in front of the member, each ministry has a full set of STOBS. In the public accounts, the completed standard operating budget items are each accounted for.

K. Corrigan: The moneys that are used for advertising or information campaigns that come from the federal government — are they earmarked as money for campaigns? How is it decided that those go into information or advertising campaigns?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The federal government titles its own programs as it sees fit, and then they connect them with provincial and territorial programs. It may be a Canada job grant, but that will be connected with a program in Manitoba or B.C. according to the local title, and often they’ll come up with joint titles. The program spending from the federal government comes under a single title, but it may or may not be directly translated into the provincial program that it connects with.

K. Corrigan: Are those federal moneys that might be used by the province for job programs or whatever it is…? Is that money that comes, generally, unconditionally? In other words, it’s about this program, but it is the provincial government that makes the decision that it’s going to be used for advertising.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The federal government has fairly rigid criteria that it applies to the communications component of a larger program such as the labour market development agreements they have with the various provinces, so there is little discretion about how that money would be used. If the federal government designates it for communications, public engagement or public awareness, that is how it is spent, or it is not spent at all.
[ Page 11815 ]

K. Corrigan: My last question is apparently taking a little bit of time here — my fault, not the minister’s.

I wanted to just ask some final questions about the ads that are running under the slogan “Our opportunity is here.” I did mention those before, and those would include, for example, the MSP for seniors and the RESP grant for children. I’m wondering if the minister could tell me what the total cost of that campaign is.

[1345]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The B.C. services campaigns that the member refers to include matters such as the B.C. training and education savings grant publicity and the property transfer tax exemption publicity. The estimated cost for those in the past fiscal was $5 million. We’re about four days into the new fiscal. The final accounting for that will be clarified in public accounts in a couple months. Those funds do not include any federal funds.

K. Corrigan: Is there a budget for the rest of that campaign? I guess I’ll add to that as well. Is there any expectation that any money is going to come out? Is there any reason why any money would come out of a 2017-18 budget as well?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member referred earlier to the sum of $8.482 million that is allocated for advertising in this fiscal year. That has not yet been allocated to the various initiatives to be involved, partly because we are waiting to see the results of the previous year’s efforts. There is no federal component in that.

K. Corrigan: For the 2016-17 year, there’s no estimate as to how much that B.C. services campaign is going to cost. Do we know when the campaign is scheduled to end?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I have learnt in the world of politics and communications, partly, the answer to the member’s question depends upon the response to the existing campaigns as we see recruitment for the RESP program for younger people. That will, of course, be reflected in the ongoing efforts as to determine whether the past fiscal year’s campaign for RESP recruitment was effective and whether it needs any tweaking.

The only truthful answer is that the money will be used in the fiscal year. I cannot say when, because it depends on the success of the ongoing programs. These are not programs which are set off to start on day one and carry on for 364 days regardless of the results. They are adjusted according to circumstances and to the response of the audience.

K. Corrigan: Last year, the contingencies were explained by the minister as, for example, “a particularly volatile fire season or a flu epidemic.” Does the minister continue to say that that’s the type of reason that we would be drawing from contingencies? Does the minister confirm that he will restrict spending from contingencies in 2016-17 for advertising to these kind of natural or emergency situations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, contingencies, by their very definition, are the unknown into the next 12 months. It’s impossible to constrain the definition of what is in contingencies, or they would have been budgeted for. I don’t seek to be evasive. But I think the very definition invites the answer that I have given, which is we cannot say what will be in contingencies.

[1350]

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister originally talked about exigencies — certainly, emergency types of situations. Certainly, in 2012-13, it wouldn’t have seemed like emergency situations. Perhaps the minister can confirm that trying to come up in the polls during a provincial election is not appropriate to be drawing funds for advertising from contingencies.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In estimates, of course, we seek to advance the public purpose by providing the kinds of pragmatic and truthful answers that are only appropriate here. So the only appropriate response is, of course, that any efforts to engage the public and to engage in communications will be in the public interest because that is our mission.

K. Corrigan: I hope the minister isn’t asking me to draw the conclusion that the B.C. Liberals’ advertising to the tune of an extra $21 million, like they did in ’12-13, is in the public interest because it would help get the Liberals re-elected. I think I’ll stop this line of questioning at this point.

What I’d like to do is to go on and ask some questions about board appointments. I’ll sit for a second, because I think there need to be some changes.

Last year we had a discussion — I asked some questions, and the minister provided answers — about the process of resourcing boards, which is one of the minister’s areas of responsibility. I’m not going to go through that whole discussion again about how that works, but I think it’s fair to say that over the last year, there has been some real upheaval in some of our institutions with respect to memberships on boards of governors and, in the case of UNBC, the appointment of a chancellor recently.

My recollection — and I don’t have it in front of me — of last year is that the minister largely said that the appointments to boards are a matter to be determined by the individual institutions and through the board resourcing office. I’m wondering if the minister would just maybe start by confirming that that’s the minister’s understanding of what the process is and perhaps give
[ Page 11816 ]
me some idea of how much the minister gets involved in making those decisions.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The recruitment, population and appointment of boards is obviously critical to the functioning of any western democracy. We have somewhere between 250 and 300 boards in the province, most of which are voluntary, unpaid positions. Recruitment to these boards is an important task as part of our functioning in our civil society.

Of course, there is a balance to be found between the recruitment of highly capable people and the willingness of people to serve on some boards. Some of these are very demanding boards, such as the Mental Health Review Board, which require a degree of professional expertise and dedication to the task, which can be quite onerous. Others are less onerous and perhaps less exciting but also less glamorous.

[1355]

There is a balancing that occurs between identification and recruitment of individuals who are suitably qualified for boards such as, perhaps, universities or health authorities and the counter-example of boards which are quite low profile and may require some degree of expertise, for which it is quite difficult to recruit.

The phenomenon is that the institutions or boards or tribunals themselves will often have in mind a competent individual with the right skills, and they will suggest that name to the board resourcing and development office. Where there’s a dearth of appropriate candidates, word may be put out on the board resourcing website to generate interest amongst the public and people who are interested in functioning on boards.

Generally, we find that boards attract people who are toward the end of their working life because they have the time and they have, generally, the financial security in which to make their skills available at no cost, in the public interest. This is an ongoing phenomenon of recruitment, partly at the suggestion of the institutions or tribunals themselves, partly at the suggestion of ministry connections and partly through the recruiting efforts of the board resourcing and development office.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that overview.

I want to go to UBC, because there have been some real problems at UBC. There have been a couple of resignations recently related to events at UBC. I want to take the example, for example, of Greg Peet, who recently stepped aside. I’m not sure if it’s a permanent resignation or if he’s just stepped aside. Maybe the minister could make that clear.

Greg Peet was appointed as one of the provincial appointments to the UBC board of governors at a time that he was in the middle of a legal case in which, in the end, a court decision found — and I quote from the decision — that with regard to a suit dealing with whether or not he avoided $1 million in B.C. taxes, the judge in the case found that he was “abusive” in his tax avoidance. Let’s put it that way. He was abusive in his tax avoidance.

I’m wondering how it is that a provincial appointment could appoint somebody who was in the middle of a legal case and then later was found to be abusively avoiding taxes.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The facts of this particular matter are somewhat complicated. I do not purport to have a complete command of the facts, but some things need to be clarified.

Mr. Peet was an extraordinarily successful developer of a large medical software operation in Richmond that was eventually bought out by an American company known as McKesson. When the company was purchased, they kept hundreds of employees here in Canada, and they continue to work in Richmond in a very highly effective and successful company.

Mr. Peet was assessed with some income taxes and paid that sum. I believe it was in 2008. The issue in the litigation is a not unusual tax dispute with the revenue authorities about whether or not he’s entitled to a refund. The decision of the B.C. Supreme Court — that is the trial-level decision — was that he was not entitled to that refund. I do not know where it is going from here, whether it’s under appeal or otherwise.

Now, in terms of Mr. Peet’s involvement with the UBC board of governors, the sense, I gather, was that there is enough distraction going on at UBC already that Mr. Peet felt that this would be a further needless distraction, so he resigned from the board.

K. Corrigan: I did read the court decision, not extremely carefully, but I did read it. Here’s a quote from Justice Macintosh. He said: “The direct result, under the Q-yes plan” — it’s called the Quebec year-end shuffle plan; those are his words — “of Veracity,” his company, “having a June 30 fiscal year-end for federal and B.C. purposes and an August 31 fiscal year-end for Quebec purposes was that Veracity avoided paying $1,175,249 in B.C. income tax.”

[1400]

This is the crucial part. “That tax was not paid anywhere. It was avoided entirely.” Then later, the reporting of this says that Justice Macintosh — and I have read this — found that the Q-yes plan, the Quebec shuffle plan, constituted “abusive tax avoidance.” He still owed the money. I don’t know whether he paid it or not. But that was the finding.

I think that when we have somebody having been found, by a Justice, of abusive tax avoidance, the question is a legitimate one. It’s not a question of, “Well, there’s interpretation,” and so on. The word “abusive” to me indicates that it was more than just: “Well, what am I capable of doing?” Not only that; I do think, although we’re all entitled to find whatever loopholes we can find, the fact
[ Page 11817 ]
that it was known, that it was very questionable at the time that the appointment was being made — I don’t see how it’s defensible.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, it’s not our role here to second-guess the courts nor to act as the Court of Appeal nor to pass judgment on the facts in a tax dispute. This is a venue in which we’re discussing the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, so I’m not about to comment on the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Macintosh or the merits of any proposed appeal. That would be totally inappropriate.

Under the circumstances, given that this was an ongoing tax dispute at the time — that matter is known — and Mr. Peet is no longer on the board of UBC, as far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed.

K. Corrigan: Perhaps the case of Mr. Peet is closed in the minister’s mind, but it goes to the issue of how these board appointments are being made. I guess I’ll ask, in the question, not whether or not the decision was correct in the court…. But the court has decided. I’m simply reading from the decision, and surely a member of the bar would certainly appreciate and respect a decision….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Former member, as I am. A member of the bar would appreciate the recent decision of a Supreme Court justice.

But my question is about the process of appointing Mr. Peet and other appointments that have been made. I guess, specifically in the case of Mr. Peet: who made the decision about that appointment? Was the minister involved, or was the minister involved in approving that appointment?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As a matter of course, in the reviewing of potential board members, they are asked if they are involved in any litigation, and if litigation is disclosed, the nature of it will be queried. It’s not entirely uncommon for individuals in British Columbia to have disputes with Revenue Canada about things that can be anywhere from trivial to significant. This particular dispute with Revenue Canada was disclosed by Mr. Peet prior to his appointment, and his appointment proceeded.

K. Corrigan: The other part of my question was: was the minister aware of the disputes that Mr. Peet was involved in, the nature of those disputes, and was the minister personally involved in that appointment?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This appointment occurred prior to the last election, and as the member opposite, hopefully, recalls, I was not involved in the Legislature prior to the 2013 election.

K. Corrigan: Was Mr. Peet reappointed since the minister was elected?

[1405]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that a reappointment occurred on July 31, 2015.

K. Corrigan: The other part of the question was: was the minister aware of that reappointment, and was the minister aware in some way of the circumstances of the court case in which he was involved?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Given that Mr. Peet was appointed in 2012 with disclosure of this dispute and that the reappointment occurred on July 31, 2015 and the trial occurred in November 2015, I was not made aware of any change in circumstances which would have warranted a change in approach.

K. Corrigan: Just to be absolutely clear, the minister is saying that he was not aware of the circumstances when the reappointment was made.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Through the board resourcing office, I was aware that there was a tax dispute, but the circumstances had not changed in the public eye from the earlier appointment in 2012 so there was no basis on which to be further concerned. If there was the normal process of discovery and so forth going on, litigation, we were certainly not aware of it. That is what happens in any civil litigation. As I say, the trial began on November 2, 2015, some months after the reappointment.

K. Corrigan: I wonder if, after the court decision came in, later in 2015…. Was the minister then involved in any way, in making a suggestion — through the board chair or in any other way — that it would be a good idea for Mr. Peet to step down from the board?

[1410]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member has noted, the court decision came in December of 2015. I was not aware of it until earlier this year. When it came to light, my concern rose, and the UBC board concern apparently rose, because they became more fully aware of it. Mr. Peet made the decision that it was too much of a distraction to the affairs of UBC, and he decided to step down from the board.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said repeatedly — and this is a good thing — that he keeps in close touch or wants to keep in touch with the boards of governors, presumably through the chair of the board. The minister said that his concern rose and the board of governors’ concern rose.

My question is: did the minister talk to either the chair of the board of governors or anybody else at UBC — or
[ Page 11818 ]
the president; that probably wouldn’t be the appropriate place — and suggest that Mr. Peet should step down?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The board of governors was certainly well ahead of me on this, in that when it came to my attention, they had already embarked on the decision-making process with Mr. Peet about his future on the UBC board of governors.

K. Corrigan: Did the minister make it clear to the board, through whoever — the chair or anybody else — that it was the minister’s feeling that Mr. Peet should step down?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I said, this happened very quickly, in that by the time I became aware of the issue and had a chance to read the judgment, the process was well underway within the board of governors. By the time that I was speaking with them, this matter was almost completely resolved.

K. Corrigan: A final question, I hope: did the minister make it clear what his opinion was? Did he suggest that he thought Mr. Peet should step aside?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite, of course, is appropriately concerned that there not be any political interference in this matter, either in favour or in support of an individual or to their detriment or to influence the decision one way or another. I can confidently report that by the time I had my encounters with the UBC board, this decision was well underway. I was, if anything, receiving reports and an observer in a fast-moving process.

K. Corrigan: So is the minister saying that it would be inappropriate for him, as the minister, to get involved in a decision or to encourage either the chair of a board of governors or a member of a board of governors to step down? Is the minister saying that would be inappropriate?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, quite the opposite. I see where the member is going with this. But the typical lawyer’s answer is that it would be dependent on the facts and the circumstances.

In the extreme case where there had been some kind of heinous offence that was in the public domain, I would be imposing upon the board of governors to act promptly if they had not already done so. In this circumstance, which involved a tax dispute with Revenue Canada, as I said, the board of governors already had the matter well in hand, and I was effectively an observer at that stage, as matters unfolded quite quickly.

In other circumstances, I’m sure the member opposite would agree that it would be inappropriate for me to express my personal opinions on the activities of an individual board member, because they do have a fiduciary duty to the organization that they’re appointed to, and the board of governors has that fiduciary duty en bloc.

[1415]

So it would be inappropriate, in some circumstances, for the minister to express his opinions or become involved. It would be entirely appropriate to express his or her concern, in some circumstances, as in this matter, and entirely appropriate, in some circumstances, where the issue of concern was of a sufficiently grave nature.

K. Corrigan: Was the minister involved in any way? Did the minister make his opinion known or get involved or in any way influence the decision of the UBC board of governors in the decision of John Montalbano to remove himself from the board of governors?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: No.

K. Corrigan: So there was no communication, no correspondence between the minister or the ministry staff with the UBC board of governors or anybody else at UBC at the time that John Montalbano resigned from the board. Is that correct? The minister is saying there was no communication there?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I was kept apprised of the quickly unfolding situation in the fall of 2015. As I said on the earlier matter, this situation with the former chair of UBC moved very quickly, and I was essentially an observer in an unfolding process. But I was kept apprised of developments.

K. Corrigan: Just to confirm, I believe the minister has already said this, but the minister is saying that the minister did not make his opinion, whatever it would have been, known about what he thought? He was simply finding out what the situation was and was not suggesting to anybody any course of action. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: My role was to receive information from the board at that time in this rapidly unfolding decision, and I did not express any opinions of my own. I simply absorbed the information that was presented to me, and in fairly short order, the former chair of the UBC board of governors submitted his resignation.

K. Corrigan: Recent information that was released under FOI — some of it inadvertently, I guess, released, or “leaked,” I guess, would probably be a better word — about that whole process of how Dr. Gupta ended up resigning or being fired, however you want to term it…. It looks like he was actually fired or forced to resign. I’m wondering if the minister or any of his staff were involved in or in any way influenced that process.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That process occurred in the summer of 2015. I was kept apprised of developments as
[ Page 11819 ]
they evolved, but I did not express any opinion or have any role in the eventual decision for the past president of UBC to cease to have that role. As I said, the situation unfolded fairly quickly. I was kept apprised of developments, but I had no opinion and took no position on any of the developments.

K. Corrigan: Many of the appointments to post-secondary institutions’ boards of governors made by this government would seem to be highly political appointments. I don’t need to go through them all, but certainly that is the case on the UBC board of governors, when you have the Premier’s ex-campaign manager and others who are appointed to the UBC board of governors.

It makes it seem that many of these boards are very political, when what they are supposed to be is entirely based on merit, or certainly largely based on merit. There seems to be a fair amount of dysfunction at some of the boards. I would say certainly UBC.

I’m wondering if the minister will acknowledge that there has been a problem with appointments and will acknowledge the concern expressed by faculty associations, students, observers and journalists about the quality of those appointments and whether or not our boards are getting too politicized.

[1420]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think any observer of higher education in North America in the last 20 years would have noted how it has become a much more complicated field of endeavour than it was in the past. Certainly in my era, it was a much simpler world than it is today.

Our mission with post-secondary boards is one of continuous improvement. There is an increasingly complicated skills matrix required in terms of human resources skills, governance skills, accounting skills for the audit committee and the like. So populating these boards with individuals with the time and inclination and expertise is an ongoing challenge.

Nonetheless, we do our best to recruit the best available people for these boards, and as I say, we’re in a stage of continuous improvement. I must say that that has been a priority of mine since coming into this ministry, and I think we have had some significant success in stabilizing and improving the governance of these institutions.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister, then, through that last statement saying “stabilizing and improving”…? Is that an acknowledgment that mistakes have been made in the past and that these boards have become overly politicized and that there are some problems with them?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I must say, quite to the contrary. When situations arise in any of our institutions that have attracted controversy or generated controversy, that is obviously a distraction from the mission of teaching and research. We seek to get the institutions back on to their primary mission no matter where the institution is or what the particular issue is of the day. Where that can be accomplished by improved board governance, we act as quickly as we can to do that.

I must take some exception to the idea the member suggests of these boards being politicized. In fact, they are increasingly being populated with highly skilled individuals who volunteer their time for the benefit of our communities — including, one must say, a former NDP MLA from Chilliwack who, until recently, has served on the board of the University of the Fraser Valley.

K. Corrigan: Well, if the minister would like me to spend the next hour going through the board appointments and the Liberal connections in the board appointments as compared to one former New Democrat….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Political donations — yes, absolutely. I’d be happy to do that. But I’m not going to do that. I certainly have the information in front of me. I do have the information, but I’m not going to go through that right now. I certainly think it’s been discussed in the media.

But the minister just said: “We are improving board appointments, and we are making sure things get better.” To me, it sounds like an admission that there, certainly, have been problems in the past. I think there continue to be problems.

I will talk about a very recent appointment. I’d like to talk about one that has really concerned the community of UNBC, the University of Northern British Columbia, and that is the appointment of Mr. Moore as the chancellor of the university.

Now, I know that the minister is going to stand up and say that he is not responsible for that appointment. That is something that’s done by the board of governors. But the board of governors is…. The appointments to the board of governors of UNBC are largely controlled by the provincial government.

I’m wondering if the minister could give me his perspective about the appointment of Mr. Moore as the chancellor of UNBC and the appropriateness of that appointment.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of being somewhat tedious, I’m going to read out section 11 of the University Act, which provides that there must be a chancellor at each university “who is to be appointed by the board on nomination by the alumni association and after consultation with the senate or, in the case of the University of British Columbia, after consultation with the council.” The second subsection: “The chancellor holds office for 3 years and after that until a successor is appointed.” And there is some machinery related to issues after that.
[ Page 11820 ]

The point that needs to be made is that this is not a position that the government has anything whatsoever to do with. This is an honorary, unpaid position, the traditional role being to hand out degrees at convocation ceremonies and little else.

[1425]

The chancellor is someone who carries the public persona of the university and has a ceremonial role, not unlike that of the Lieutenant-Governor here in this building. I think we should be thankful for those individuals who are prepared to volunteer their time to carry the mantle of an institution as the chancellor.

In this particular case at the University of Northern British Columbia, I’m pleased to advise that my recent visit to Prince George indicates that this matter has actually settled down very smoothly.

K. Corrigan: Well, if the minister, by saying this matter has settled down very smoothly…. There has just very recently passed a vote of non-confidence, both by the senate of the university and by the faculty of the university. Perhaps things are smoothing out very well. Maybe it’s just that there’s a hiatus, and there haven’t been protests over the last week or two.

I want to go back to what the minister said about this being symbolic. It is symbolic. It is a ceremonial and a very symbolic role. Surely, the minister must be concerned when you have had a vote of non-confidence and great concern from the UNBC community and from academics from across the country about the appointment of Mr. Moore, given his background. I won’t go into all of that.

Does the minister not accept that this has created real controversy, real upheaval for UNBC, which is not good for that community?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I know the member opposite would suggest it would be totally inappropriate for any political interference in this kind of appointment, given that it is honorific and symbolic in nature. Our ministry has had essentially nothing to do with this. We’ve been observers. As I’ve said, I’m pleased to report that in the Prince George community, it seems to be settling in without further incident.

There was a significant labour dispute at Prince George UNBC last year, and that may have been reflected in the activities of the faculty association, in their expressions of dissatisfaction with management, of which this was one. One must remember, of course, that the faculty association is the bargaining unit for the professoriate and the most senior managers at the university.

K. Corrigan: I just want to make that clear, that what the minister is saying is that the concerns, the very deep concerns, that the faculty association has raised about the appointment of Mr. Moore as the chancellor of UNBC arise out of the fact that they were in a labour dispute at UNBC.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I must say that my view is quite the contrary. Unfortunately, the labour dispute occurred last year. It was resolved satisfactorily, and almost simultaneously there was the issue of the appointment of Mr. Moore as the chancellor of the university. That is entirely within the bailiwick of the board of governors, as explained in section 11 of the University Act, and our ministry had nothing to do with it. It’s an unfortunate combination of circumstances. Fortunately, both matters seem to have been largely resolved at this stage.

K. Corrigan: Well, maybe when people see the transcript of what we’ve talked about today, I’m sure, it’ll raise some more concerns.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

What I did hear the minister say…. I clearly heard the minister make the suggestion that faculty at UNBC raised the issue about the appointment of Mr. Moore because of the fact that they were involved in a labour dispute and were unhappy about things. I heard that. I’ll go back and look at the transcript.

That is the faculty. The minister may believe that the faculty expressed those concerns because of the labour dispute. But that’s certainly…. I do not agree. I fully do not. I absolutely do not agree. I have read the concerns of many of the faculty. They’re very, very thoughtful. They’re very in-depth concerns, and I think they are legitimate concerns. Certainly, they deem to be considered as legitimate.

That doesn’t explain why it is that the senate of the university voted in non-confidence against Mr. Moore’s appointment. I’m wondering if the minister has any comment about that.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Madam Chair, welcome to our estimates.

[1430]

As I’ve said earlier and cited from section 11 of the University Act, this is a matter that is entirely within the bailiwick of the board of governors, in contact with the alumni association, after consultation with the senate. Any concerns or expressions of dissent on this issue should be referred back to the board of governors at the University of Northern British Columbia, as they have the fiduciary role to manage in the best interests of the organization. Any involvement from me or my ministry would be completely inappropriate.

K. Corrigan: Well, that’s the perfect segue to my next question, which I’m sure the minister is anticipating. Any
[ Page 11821 ]
involvement by you or your ministry would be inappropriate, is what the minister just said. Yet the minister has just…. Through an OIC, an order-in-council, Sandra Carroll, the deputy minister, has just been appointed as a member of the board of directors of UNBC.

I’m wondering if the minister could please explain how it is that appointing the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, who is beholden to, has a responsibility to, the minister…. How is it that that person, the deputy minister, could be appointed to the board of UNBC and that not be a conflict of interest?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ll take this opportunity to correct a couple of errors in the statement made by the member opposite. First of all, Sandra Carroll has been appointed to the board of the College of New Caledonia, not the board of UNBC. Secondly, she has, and I have, no role in the relationship with UNBC and its chancellor. So I’d invite the member to rephrase her question.

K. Corrigan: To the minister, I apologize. You’re absolutely correct. It was the board of New Caledonia.

I’m talking about appointments to boards, and you’re right. It wasn’t the board of UNBC, but the fact is that an appointment was made to a board. The minister had just said that it would be inappropriate for the ministry to, in any way, interfere in the affairs of a board. Yet the minister has appointed Sandra Carroll to the board of directors at another institution, which is apparently in disarray in many ways.

The correction is well taken. You’re absolutely right. I got my institutions named incorrectly.

I’m wondering if the minister could then explain about the appropriateness or the lack of appropriateness of appointing the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education to the board of directors of a post-secondary institution.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The situation the member refers to is the appointment of Sandra Carroll, Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, to the board of the College of New Caledonia. As the member probably knows, the University Act provides for a much more arms-length relationship because of the various traditional roles of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities. That does not apply to colleges, which are an instrument of government to deliver educational programming.

There has, in fact, been a precedent for this in that a Deputy Minister of Advanced Education in the past has been appointed to the board of the Justice Institute in circumstances which warranted that. In the situation of the College of New Caledonia, circumstances led to the situation where the particular management expertise of a deputy minister was desirable and available. We have made that appointment so that CNC can get on with the task of focusing on delivery of affordable, high-quality education to the students in north-central British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: The minister is suggesting that having a deputy minister on a board of governors that is making decisions about the affairs of that institution…. So it’s appropriate to have somebody who is in the highest position in his ministry and at the same time sitting on a board whose obligations are to serve that institution in the community? The minister does not see a conflict of interest in that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To the contrary, when we have extraordinarily skilled and experienced public servants who are available and willing to spend their time assisting a public institution to further its purposes, that can only be characterized as perhaps one of the highest callings for those senior public servants. We are joined by a number of them in the room today who are people who are eminently well qualified, thoughtful, reasonable, capable, honest and effective.

[1435]

I’m actually surprised that the member opposite would think it would be inappropriate to take this extraordinary skill set and not apply it to situations where it could be beneficial.

On the issue of conflict of interest, this is a term that is bandied about with gay abandon these days. To suggest in any way that the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education could be gaining personally, in terms of income or otherwise, by serving on a board in Prince George is, I’m afraid, beyond comprehension.

K. Corrigan: The concept of conflict of interest does not refer only to some kind of personal or pecuniary gain. It does not. It also refers to the appearance of a conflict, a perceived conflict of interest. In this case, you have a deputy minister who is beholden to — and rightfully so — faithful and serving the Ministry of Education. That is not necessarily the same interest as the board of governors, whose interest is in that institution, looking after students, looking after curriculum, looking after relationships with the community.

I find it hard to believe that the Minister of Advanced Education does not understand that the community sees that there is a perception of conflict in that appointment. I guess I’ll leave it at that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I don’t think any response is justified in that I’m not aware of any substantive basis for making that allegation.

K. Corrigan: Well, what I’ve just said to the minister is that the obligations and the duties of a member of the board of governors of a post-secondary institution, whether or not it is a university or it is a college…. The obligations and the institution that it is serving is not the Ministry of Advanced Education. They’re serving the community. They are serving that institution. They are serving the students. They are working with the faculty.
[ Page 11822 ]

I think it’s absolutely legitimate to say that there could be a perceived conflict of interest of having somebody so closely tied. It will impede discussions, and honest discussion, in in-camera decisions that are made. It will impede public discussion. It will give a perception that that board of governors is going to be influenced by an individual whose interests are the Ministry of Advanced Education and not necessarily that institution.

For heaven’s sake, we know that there have been many times in the past that the interests of those institutions have clashed with the interests — at least it appears to me — of the ministry. And if they haven’t, then maybe it’s a reflection of so many provincial Liberal appointees on those boards.

I’m going to go back to just a couple more questions about the appointment of Mr. Moore. Does the ministry believe that that is an acceptable appointment? Does the ministry feel that there is any role whatsoever for the minister in taking a look at and considering whether or not that’s an appropriate appointment?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As has been noted in earlier exchanges here and is certainly understood in the academic world, the idea that a minister would intrude and involve him or herself in the purview of the board of governors in appointing a chancellor is simply beyond my comprehension. That would invite, appropriately, a vigorous negative response from faculty and management at universities because part of their historical role is to be at a reasonable level of arm’s length from the rest of society so that they can think independently, debate topics that are not popular and do controversial things without retribution.

It is very, very far from my scope of contemplation that I would take any role in the appointment of chancellor.

[1440]

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying that in some circumstances, it’s absolutely appropriate, when there is an appointment of a board member of either a college or university, for the minister to get involved. There are times, even, with a board member of a college, to step in because things are not going well.

Yet after those board members have been appointed by the B.C. Liberals to, in this case, a university, it is completely inappropriate to take any kind of interest in a decision that that Liberal-dominated board has made to appoint somebody as a chancellor — somebody who is very controversial and has created great upheaval, unfortunately, and has resulted in a non-confidence motion by both the faculty association and the senate.

Perhaps the minister could particularly comment on the fact that the senate of UNBC has had a vote of non-confidence.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of being repetitive, I will simply make the distinction between universities and colleges. Universities are governed by their own legislation, and they maintain a high degree of independence.

I won’t bother to read out section 11 of the University Act again or to restate my position that it would be inappropriate for me to get involved in the appointment or removal of a chancellor, because that is strictly within the purview of the statutorily entitled bodies of the university.

Secondly, with respect to colleges, they are an arm of government. Their job is to deliver post-secondary education to students, and that is what we seek to do, and it is what my deputy minister is currently involved in, both as Deputy Minister of Advanced Education and as a board member of the College of New Caledonia.

K. Corrigan: I was going to go on to the blueprint for education at this point, but my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings is not here, so I think I’ll go on to a discussion about post-secondary education fees. Is that going to work for…? Does it make any difference whether we skip around a little bit now from what we’d originally expected?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just give us a minute.

[1445]

B. Ralston: I have a question about the memorandum of understanding signed in 2006 between the ministry and Simon Fraser University’s Surrey campus, a commitment to 5,000 FTE — that is, full-time-equivalent — students by 2015.

Last year in estimates — Wednesday, March 25, 2015 — I asked the same very specific questions to the minister. I’ve done this repeatedly over a number of years, because that was an important commitment to SFU Surrey.

It is the heart of my riding. Building a dynamic and vibrant university campus is also essential to the broader economic goals of the city in that part of Surrey and, indeed, to the region. The future of SFU Surrey is important economically and in the sense of providing services to students south of the river. This commitment that was made in 2006 is central to that.

Last year I reviewed the Hansard. The minister, despite direct questions on several occasions about the memorandum, refused to answer any questions directly about it. I did manage to dig up an information note that appears to have been prepared for the minister after the estimates on March 25, 2015, that says that this memorandum is now expired. The minister didn’t say that last year, but I’m wondering if that is in fact the case.

In addition, since this will be a bit of a composite question, another note which I managed to uncover from a Susan Burns to Donna Friedlander and Catherine Nickerson, dated Thursday, May 21, 2015, referred to the same topic. Some of it is edited out for section 13 of the information and privacy act, but I’ll read the part that’s provided to me. “The SFU Surrey MOU expired at
[ Page 11823 ]
the end of March, so there may be a desire to signal that growth is a priority, although without specific timelines or commitments.”

Is that what the minister was doing last year?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The issue of post-secondary seats south of the Fraser River is one that we’re acutely aware of. I was actually at Kwantlen Polytechnic University Cloverdale campus just last week. They have an exemplary facility there that is in remarkable condition. It’s almost new and is populated by hundreds of very successful advanced trade students.

They noted that they do have space there. Not only do they have space; they have a very large acreage. I think it was 54 acres of unused land that is available for future development in one form or another.

The population south of the Fraser, particularly in Surrey, is growing, I think, at the fastest rate of any municipality in Canada — certainly in British Columbia. That leads one to think that there is a real opportunity there for convergence of interests. Our ministry is acutely aware of this and is contemplating in the near future coming up with a more active plan for development of seats south of the Fraser to address the very concern the member raises.

B. Ralston: Well, once again, my question is very specific to the memorandum of understanding. It was signed in 2006. The note to the minister…. This is an information note, advice to minister, dated June 12, 2015, “Issues Supporting Regional Growth South of the Fraser.” I’m sure the minister’s staff can call this one up shortly. It says in this memo that the term of the MOU came to end on March 31, 2015. Is the memorandum no longer in effect? Is that what the minister is saying?

[1450]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member raises an interesting point in that memoranda of understanding are exactly what they are titled. They are goal-setting. In this situation, that particular document had a time limit on it, which expired in March of 2015. Nonetheless, the issue remains alive.

This is, I think, what the member is truly alluding to — what can be done south of the Fraser — rather than does a piece of paper need to be resuscitated.

We would much rather work on a substantive approach to this topic and come up with a way to make use of those lands in Cloverdale, to expand the capacity south of the Fraser, where we have, in Surrey itself, Simon Fraser University, two campuses at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. And of course, just west of Surrey, we have a Kwantlen Polytechnic University campus in Richmond. We also have, just eastward, in Langley, a campus of the University of the Fraser Valley.

So there are many opportunities here which are very attractive and interesting. We’re working toward those goals so that we can continue to satisfy the demand of students and of our society for post-secondary training opportunities in all corners of British Columbia.

B. Ralston: I agree with the minister to this extent: a memorandum of understanding is an expression of intent, and one would assume, obviously, that a government would not enter into a memorandum of understanding lightly. In other words, government has a certain fiduciary obligation in entering into a memorandum of understanding.

The fact is that this one was signed in 2006, mandating a target of 5,000 full-time equivalent students in the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser University. Ten years later — ten years later — it has not been achieved. It’s not been achieved. So that’s the issue.

Talking about the campus of the Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Cloverdale…. I’ve toured it, too, and their 56 acres. If the minister is suggesting that he’s going to expand more vocational seats in that institution, that’s fine.

But the issue for SFU Surrey is that it’s an intrinsic part of a developing downtown core. A commitment was made ten years ago. The government has not achieved that. So what is the government’s intention in terms of pursuing and acting on its previous commitment made ten years ago to SFU Surrey?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member states three times that this was signed ten years ago. That, of course, is the case; 2006 was ten years ago. So the point I think that needs to be made is that we are now ten years later. Capital plans are developed over a ten-year period.

We are now looking at a situation where there is an acceptance of the demand south of the Fraser River, and we are quite excited about the prospect of satisfying that increased demand through the vehicles of both Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Simon Fraser University, because they have both proven to be very successful institutions in the recent past.

Simon Fraser’s university campus in north Surrey has proven to be a real bolt hole in the community. It is developing into an exciting corner of the world at the current end of the SkyTrain system, and it shows great promise to be a growing community centre in the future, as the city hall moves into that neighbourhood. Of course, the member opposite’s familiar with the whole innovation boulevard concept and the growing presence of the Surrey Memorial Hospital.

This is an exciting corner of the world. We’re fully aware of this, and we’re exploring the opportunities with both SFU and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, because we still accept the sentiment of the MOU — that there is demand south of the Fraser — and we will look forward to some most interesting developments in the near future.

B. Ralston: Well, it’s been just as satisfying this year in trying to get the minister to answer the question as it
[ Page 11824 ]
was last year, and I think I’ve been equally unsuccessful. But let me try one more time.

The minister did, I think, offer a slight concession, in that there appears to be a continuing intention to develop this campus. One understands, I think, in the process, that as the MLA for the area, I have a probably higher interest in the expansion of SFU Surrey than perhaps other regional institutions.

[1455]

Nonetheless, I understand the challenge south of the Fraser. That’s one that we face in every aspect of the growth of Surrey.

The commitment here. The minister mentioned a ten-year plan and, I think, somehow implied that the capital plan had expired in 2016. I have the five-year capital plan from SFU, which is 2014-15 to 2018-19. I’m sure that that’s been deposited with the minister and discussed as part of the preparation. That campus is pivotal to SFU’s future plan —so a commitment to that rapidly growing part of Surrey.

The minister will know, or his staff will tell him, that the transition rate, that is, the rate at which students pass from secondary school — it’s the largest public secondary school system in the province, in Surrey — to post-secondary education is, on average, among the lowest of regions in the province.

Part of that — and there’s pent-up demand — is that the standard to get admitted to SFU is accelerating. It’s very, very difficult to get in, simply because there are so few places. I don’t get the sense that the minister has the interests of Surrey at heart — this second-biggest metropolis in the province, a growing region with all kinds of economic opportunities. I don’t get the sense that the minister really cares about Surrey.

Perhaps he can reassure people that he does have the interests of Surrey at heart and that he will make that commitment here today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I commend the member opposite for advancing the interests of his particular riding and for the area of north Surrey more generally. We all have an abiding interest in the prosperity of Surrey because it is such a fast-growing municipality, and it’s where a good chunk of the youth of British Columbia currently resides. We share his interest in the prosperity of Surrey and the opportunities for students there.

The member is probably aware, but he may not be, of the really excellent university transfer programs that are run out of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Douglas College, which are both a hop and skip from all of north Surrey. Certainly on transit, it’s about 15 minutes to Douglas College from anywhere in north Surrey. These programs have been greatly successful. We intend to see them grow over time to satisfy demand.

As I say, the member will probably want to keep his eyes on where we’re going with post-secondary education in Surrey, because it’s an exciting prospect.

L. Popham: My question is quite brief. It’s regarding my riding of Saanich South. In Saanich South, Camosun College has a campus called Interurban campus, and in February, the Trades Education and Innovation complex was opened. There was a ribbon-cutting ceremony, which the minister led.

I would just like to know why I wasn’t invited to that ribbon-cutting ceremony. Was that a political decision? Or are MLAs who represent the area usually left out of those ceremonies?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I must say that I have no role in the invitation list for any events that we go to around the province. We’re, of course, there on behalf of the government of British Columbia. Whether that includes elected members who are not part of the government — that is, part of the executive council — I’m not aware. It’s not something I get involved in.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask some questions now about revenues and post-secondary tuition and fees and so on. That’ll be the next area of questions. Being chained to binders here, I certainly would like to give the minister a chance to grab the appropriate binder.

[1500]

The Budget and Fiscal Plan, on page 124, table A9, talks about the revenue by sources, and under “Other revenue,” it includes post-secondary education fees. I note that the post-secondary education fees have increased by an annual average, since 2009-2010, of 6.1 percent.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain, given that there is supposedly a policy to cap tuition at 2 percent, how it is that we could have an annual 6.1 percent increase as a result of post-secondary education fees.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It may be that we’re talking about apples and oranges here, because I believe the member opposite is talking about the overall fee revenue in all of our institutions — that is, tuition and fees. That is subject to the 2 percent cap on growth of tuition for domestic students, but it is not applicable to international students. Their tuitions are essentially market-driven.

With the change in the Canadian dollar, the increasing attractiveness of our institutions and the growing volume of international students, there has, in some cases, been significant growth of the revenue from the international students, both because there are more of them and because each one of them is paying more.

The agglomerated budget item for tuition and fees would reflect that significant increase in international student revenue, both in terms of numbers of students and what each of them pays, whereas domestic students, as I said, are subject to a 2 percent cap on the growth of tuition.

K. Corrigan: I’ve noticed…. In taking a look at those revenues by sources, I believe that tuition increases might
[ Page 11825 ]
be the third-highest area of increase after a couple of others. It seems like a really high increase. The result is that proportionately more and more of the cost and the investment in our post-secondary institutions is being covered by student fees, so that government is decreasing the percentage of investment that it has. Does the minister believe that that is appropriate — to have an increasing amount of the burden placed on students?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The fiscal envelope of institutions such as a university depends on a number of factors. There’s, first of all, the grant from the province of British Columbia, which grows incrementally and is adjusted this year for the economic stability mandate to accommodate the change in the collective agreements. It provides for wage growth.

Secondly, there is tuition, and that is subject to a 2 percent cap on existing programs for domestic students. As we mentioned in the earlier answer, there has been some higher level of growth in the aggregate amount of tuition and fees because of the role of international students.

The third component of the revenue pool for universities, in particular, is research funds from agencies such as the federal government, the American National Institutes of Health, the Howard Hughes institute, various cancer foundations and the like. So the overall revenue pool for universities, particularly, keeps growing. For colleges, much of the same applies, except for the lack of research funding from third-party agencies. But the overall fiscal envelope of these institutions continues to grow.

[1505]

That is appropriate, first of all, because their student numbers generally continue to grow incrementally and, secondly, because the cost per student continues to grow incrementally. We adjust for that with the grants we provide from our own budget and, of course, the tuition pool that the universities have access to.

K. Corrigan: Certainly, the growth in numbers of student enrolments has not gone up by 6.1 percent per year, on average, since 2009-2010. I know we’re talking projected, as well, up to 2018-19, but that is projected. We don’t need to do it — in fact, I don’t want to do it right now — but I’m wondering if the minister could perhaps provide that information later of how much the enrolment has gone up versus the increase over time of the post-secondary education fees.

To get back to those fees…. I know we’ve been talking about various items, but that line item, post-secondary education fees, includes domestic tuition, international tuition, mandatory fees. What else, if anything, does it include?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s been clarified to me by our ADM, who is responsible for the financial aspect of the institutions, that this line item is described as post-secondary education fees, but it actually includes a variety of other items. I think the most appropriate thing is to get a written answer to the member to clarify that that is, in fact, just a crude definition of what is actually a much wider pool of revenue.

K. Corrigan: That would be fine.

So is the bulk of it, most of it, domestic tuition and international tuition, and then the fees that students pay? How significant are the other things that are included? Perhaps also, just to be clear, this doesn’t include student union fees, does it? I just want to make sure about that. I would assume not.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s become clear that we don’t have the detailed response to that question at our fingertips here. So as I say, it’s best if we get back to you with a more detailed written answer, because it is a large sum of money, and describing it simply as fees is inaccurate. In interests of veracity and accuracy, we’ll get you a more detailed answer in writing.

K. Corrigan: That would be fine. I’d appreciate that. What would be useful is if we could get that breakdown. How much of it is domestic tuition? How much of it is international tuition? How much of it is mandatory fees, like athletic fees or student services fees? That would be appreciated, certainly over, say, the last three years — what the breakdown is. That would be appreciated.

I’ll go on to something else. It’s also to do with tuition. There has been a flurry of activity and concern at post-secondary institutions across the province about the imposition of mandatory fees, imposed in a whole variety of ways by various institutions. I want to ask a number of questions about this.

[1510]

The policy, the 2 percent cap, says that the tuition limit, which is 2 percent this year, applies to — I won’t read all of the bullets — mandatory fees, including consumable fees and other mandatory fees — e.g., application fees and technology fees.

That’s what is included and the exclusion to that. So that’s 2 percent to all mandatory fees and the exclusion. I know the minister is very aware of this policy.

The policy says the tuition limit does not apply to a couple of things, which are irrelevant to our discussion, and then new programming, first year. “Institutions may set the initial tuition and mandatory fee rate for new instructional programs, not amendments to existing programs. After the first year, tuition and mandatory fees will be subject to the tuition limit policy.”

A number of institutions have either been or are proposing to impose a whole variety of fees — and this seems to be a fairly new and widespread phenomenon — to things like…. They’re having across-the-board student fees or having lab fees associated with programs that al-
[ Page 11826 ]
ready existed or having fees for applications — a whole variety of fees that are adding up, as the minister well knows, to sometimes hundreds of dollars a year for students, taking them far past the 2 percent limit on tuition increases that is in that policy.

I want to ask the minister, using his lawyerly skills: would the minister agree that what the policy says is not that you can have new services, but the only thing that you can apply new fees to is when there is a new instructional program?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I will reject the member’s compliment about being lawyerly, because we are both former members of the Law Society, and we don’t purport to be practising law in this room or anywhere else.

Now with respect to fees, the member has read accurately from the tuition limit policy. There’s also a letter that the member may or may not have seen dated March 3, 2016, to all post-secondary institution presidents. I’ll read from the top of page 2:

“New mandatory fees may be introduced for new services if there’s a clear benefit to students. Proactive consultation and engagement with students should be undertaken prior to board review and approval. Institutions should also consult with the ministry early in the process when new fees are being considered. Additionally, institutions will need to track the benefits to students of the new fees, and the ministry will collect this information as part of the annual tuition and fees reporting process.”

I think that makes clear that if there is to be a new fee, it has to be for an essentially new service. It is not open to the institution to simply retitle existing programs and put up the tuition or put up the fees. They must be offering something different and something new.

Obviously, if it’s an entirely new program, whether it’s in bluebird care or who knows what, they have to set an initial tuition because it hasn’t existed before. This has occurred in, for instance, some programs at Capilano University in the film school, where they have entirely new programs. They’re generally short courses, and they decide on a new tuition to be set for that program because it is entirely new. They can’t just simply copy it over from the old programs.

When it comes to fees, we have heard the concerns of the various student bodies around the province that they do not want to find that fees are being applied to them arbitrarily. We have assured them that on the basis of this letter, we’ll be keeping an eye on this. We invite their feedback. We’ll be checking in with the students and with the institutions to make sure that they are abiding by this policy and by the guidance letter provided on March 3, 2016.

[1515]

K. Corrigan: I have seen the letter. The tuition limit policy says very clearly that mandatory fees can be applied to new instructional programs. It does not say services. Services are things that are provided by colleges and universities across this province as part of the suite of things that they offer. What it talks about is the ability to have new tuition costs and mandatory fees related to new instructional programs, and that is not what the minister is doing.

What the minister is doing is creating a new category, which is creating havoc, because there is no end to fees that you can impose if you start talking about suddenly, and in contravention of my reading of the policy, saying that now you can start imposing new mandatory fees for new services. It’s a completely different thing.

Will the minister acknowledge that this is in contravention, that the letter contravenes? That’s fine. If he’s saying there is a new policy, that’s fine. But will the minister acknowledge that to allow charges for new services contravenes the policy because they are not new programs? It’s very clear that it refers to new programs.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I cannot accept that proposition. I think the tuition limit policy is clear on its face, as is the letter dated March 3, 2016. We are in close contact with institutions themselves and have ongoing feedback from student organizations about the compliance of these fees, with the two documents being the tuition limit policy and the guidance letter dated March 3 of this year.

The purpose here, of course, is to make sure that students are getting value for money. In my visits to all 25 of our post-secondary institutions, the two routine questions I ask of students, in the absence of administrators or instructors or professors, are: is your program meeting your expectations, and are you getting value for money?

I have yet to find any students anywhere in the province who say that they are not getting value for money. They appreciate that their tuition fees are reasonable. They expressed mild concern over any new fees. We say: “We want your feedback on those, because if the new career-counselling service is in fact illusory, we are going to take that up with your board, and there will be consequences.” If in fact the career-counselling service is substantive and justifies the fee, then the fee will stay.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister can point out the words in the tuition limit policy that show what exceptions there are. In other words, under “the tuition limit does not apply to,” what words there are that would be able to be interpreted to say that you could have new mandatory fees for new services, as opposed to programs.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this comes down to parsing legislation and policy documents, which is probably not appropriate in this room. Nonetheless, the point is that the tuition limit applies to the four categories laid out in the document, and it does not address the issue of entirely new services to students, whether it be career counselling or wellness programs or other kinds of programs that the institution may offer. That is why we put out the letter on March 3, 2016, to address this matter, which is effectively not dealt with in the tuition limit policy.
[ Page 11827 ]

K. Corrigan: Okay. That’s interesting. The minister is saying that these new mandatory fees that will now be able to be introduced for new services are not covered by the policy, so this is a new area that is being allowed. That’s what the minister is saying?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: An interpretation of the tuition limit policy provided for this fee arrangement which has come to light this year. In response to that interpretation, we have put out this letter of March 3, 2016, to clarify any perceived ambiguity so that both students and institutions can function in a state of greater certainty.

[1520]

K. Corrigan: The minister just said, I believe, that the tuition policy does not address the issue of new mandatory fees. So what is it? Is it an interpretation, or is it a change?

I read it as new services. Yes, it’s parsing words. Of course, it’s parsing words. But it is appropriate, because we’re talking about the budget for post-secondary education today, and this is going to have a very significant impact on students.

I could go through all the ones that have been proposed but that certainly — I mean, this is a whole separate issue — have absolutely nothing to do with new services. They are simply lab fees and hundreds of dollars of fees that have been tacked onto programs that have nothing to do with new services.

That’s another matter, but it is very clear to me that what the minister is saying is that there is a new piece to the tuition policy. I would assume, then, that the minister is going to say that the tuition limit applies or does not apply to new mandatory fees. Is that going to be clarified in the policy? Clearly, new mandatory fees for new services are not included in the policy.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member has pointed out something that has concerned us for a number of months, which is a perceived ambiguity, and that’s the purpose of the March 3 letter to the institutions.

As the member will certainly have noticed, the tuition limit policy applied to the past two fiscal years. In this new fiscal year, which started about four days ago, we are going to be issuing a new tuition limit policy which will incorporate the adjustments or clarifications made in the March 3, 2016, letter so that all of this can be completely clear to all involved.

The member has pointed out a legitimate issue, and we have attempted to address it in the past fiscal year. But in this fiscal year and those to come, we will hopefully address this squarely.

K. Corrigan: The minister is acknowledging that to allow new mandatory fees for new services does not fall within the tuition limit policy. What, essentially, the minister is saying is there is going to be a change in the policy. I appreciate that.

My problem is that that is not the route that this has taken, and it has created real confusion in the institutions over the last several months. What institutions have been operating under, over the last several years, is the belief that one can take the tuition limit policy at its face and that you cannot impose new mandatory fees for services or for existing programs.

There seems to have been a change. I want to talk about that change and the problems that it has created. My understanding is — and it’s certainly reflected in documents that the minister is, I’m sure, aware of — that several months ago, the Ministry of Education went to institutions around this province or communicated with institutions at various meetings and so on and said, essentially, you have an opportunity to impose fees that you might not have been able to impose before under the policy — essentially, to be creative about that.

This, then, caused a flurry of activity by institutions that, by the way, are feeling terribly pressured financially. So this was a way, essentially, to get around the 2 percent tuition cap.

Is that what happened — that several months ago, senior members of the staff of the Ministry of Advanced Education spoke to, communicated with, institutions and said: “This would be a good year to impose these, because we’re going to, essentially, reinterpret the policy”? Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The scenario that the member describes is entirely fictional. It has no basis in fact whatsoever, and I think I’ve made it clear that the next revision of the tuition limit policy will incorporate the March 3, 2016, interpretation letter. This is much like an interpretation bulletin put out by Revenue Canada. We will now incorporate that into a revised tuition limit policy letter for this fiscal year and in years to come.

[1525]

K. Corrigan: So the minister is saying it is entirely fictional that senior members of staff of the Ministry of Advanced Education let it be known to various post-secondary education institutions that they could impose fees, to be creative. That’s what the minister has just said.

I want to make it perfectly clear that, for example, Bobbi Plecas met with various post-secondary institutions and told them that they could and should…. Not should, necessarily; I’m not sure of the exact wording. But she certainly let them know several months ago, perhaps as long as close to a year ago, in various meetings, that this would be a good year for them, that they could be creative about mandatory fees because there was going to be a different response from government. The minister is saying that did not happen?
[ Page 11828 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite knows full well that in the absence of a transcript relating that to the former assistant deputy minister, I’m not going to dignify it with a response.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister was absolutely clear that that didn’t happen, and that’s why I’m being more specific. I certainly wouldn’t have…. I was looking for some kind of explanation about why it is that we’ve had years and years where institutions have not applied mandatory fees, outside of the tuition, for services or a variety of things, and suddenly we have a proliferation.

It did happen. My understanding is it was at the direction…. I have documents, and the minister is well aware of them, that individuals were told. Senior administrators at North Island College and so on, Selkirk, were instructed. VCC…. The way it’s framed is that they were directed. The minister is now saying that that is not true.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: These are allegations, plain and simple. In the absence of any evidence, it doesn’t warrant a response.

K. Corrigan: This is not a court of law. I’m asking the minister: is the minister aware whether this happened or not? If the minister’s saying it didn’t happen, the minister has already said that. Does the minister continue to say that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I’ve said I think three times in a row now, I have seen no evidence to support that allegation. And as I’ve said a number of times, the forward-looking approach will be to adjust the tuition limit policy to address these very issues.

K. Corrigan: The suggestion has been made by senior administrators at various post-secondary institutions — including Selkirk College, I think Vancouver Island University, VCC — that there was either direction or that there was an allowance or that they were instructed or that they were told they could do this. That is why I’m impressing it. It’s others, not me. Others have said that. That’s why I’ve raised it in the first place.

The minister is saying it didn’t happened. My question to the minister, then, is: has the minister, given the various documents and the various examples of senior administrators around the province saying this did in fact happen, investigated or found out whether that happened or not?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In my visits to the numerous institutions around the province, this has not come up as an issue where they attributed these statements to the ministry. This is something that I’m not aware there is any evidence for. This is simply an allegation being made by the member opposite. As I have noted, when this came to our ministry’s attention as a practice that was evolving, we put out the March 3, 2016, interpretation letter, which makes this very clear.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that the minister may have spoken to institutions about that, but what I’m asking the minister is: did the minister talk to his senior staff, including Bobbi Plecas, about whether or not that happened?

[1530]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member noted earlier that this is not a trial. Similarly, I do not conduct cross-examination interrogatories of my own staff. I trust my staff because they’re exceptionally skilled and entirely reliable, and I rely upon them for counsel and advice. The issue at hand has been, for all purposes, resolved by the letter of March 3, 2016, and I think the matter is now very much settled.

K. Corrigan: Well, it may be that there is a new tuition-limit policy that is going to allow institutions to impose mandatory fees that will get around the longtime 2 percent tuition increase, which is probably unfortunate for students and does, I believe, reflect the fact that the B.C. Liberal government is not willing to properly fund post-secondary education. But that is not the issue.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

The issue is whether or not a certain amount of chaos has been created and whether or not senior staff at the Ministry of Advanced Education told institutions that they could add these new fees, that they acted accordingly and that the ministry is now basically saying it never happened. That is what I’m saying. I think that’s not old news. I think that’s important news.

The minister said that he trusted his staff. Is the minister, then, saying that he did not raise this issue with staff and did not have a discussion with staff about whether that instruction happened or not?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our estimates.

This question can be answered fairly briefly. I continue to work in a very constructive and positive way with staff because they are entirely reliable. I trust what they say, and I trust their judgment.

In terms of working with the institutions. When this practice became apparent — that new mandatory fees were being applied by the institutions — the interpretation letter of March 3, 2016, was promptly put out so that we could have a verifying process, working with students and working with the institutions to make sure that they are all on the same page as the ministry on the appropriateness of these fees and any restrictions on any such fees.
[ Page 11829 ]

With that in mind, I am going to ask that we take a 15-minute break.

The Chair: This committee is recessed for 15 minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:32 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[J. Yap in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I just would like to carry on where we left off. I was asking: did the minister have any discussions with his senior staff about whether or not they had advised institutions that it would be okay to impose mandatory fees that perhaps would not have been allowed in previous years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To put it simply, the matter did not arise until we became aware of newly imposed mandatory fees. That fairly promptly led to the March 3, 2016, interpretation letter.

K. Corrigan: What the minister is saying, then, is that if there was an instruction or discussion between senior staff, possibly Bobbi Plecas or other senior staff, then the minister was not made aware of those discussions and was not aware of those discussions until shortly before the letter went out on March 3. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: My recollection is that, on a tour of two institutions on Vancouver Island, I became aware of this in late January. There was a bit of data collection that went on in February. As the matter came into focus, the determination was made to issue the March 3, 2016, interpretation letter.

K. Corrigan: I just want to read three quotes, just to demonstrate that there was a belief that this instruction or this information had come from the ministry.

A November 20, 2015, written report from the office of the president of North Island College says: “Earlier this year the ministry advised B.C. colleges that they had a new interpretation of the tuition limit policy which enabled institutions to implement mandatory student fees.” That was from the office of the president.

Then also from North Island College, the board of governors’ November 26 report said: “Mandatory student fees established at public post-secondary institutions are within the scope of the province’s tuition limit policy…. Earlier this year the Ministry of Advanced Education provided clarification to post-secondary institutions on how the tuition limit policy applies to mandatory fees.”

A letter from the Students Union of VCC to the minister on February 13 says: “Vancouver Community College held a meeting of its tuition and fees advisory committee on January 18. At that meeting, the college’s vice-president of administration, Marlene Kowalski, made a clear and direct statement that proposals to increase and implement new fees were being made, based on direction from the Ministry of Advanced Education.”

Neil Coburn, the VP of education and students at Selkirk, said: “We got an indication in the fall that the province would allow institutions to consider new fees in three areas.” Those are the quotes. That’s the basis of my questions.

I want to go back to the minister saying that Bobbi Plecas or others didn’t tell administrators that they could impose new fees. I want to add onto that. Is the minister, then, also saying that either Bobbi Plecas or others did not say at meetings with administrators, at one or more meetings, that institutions should be creative about fees but that — and I quote here, or it’s perhaps a slight paraphrase — “You’ll never get it in writing”?

[1555]

In other words, my understanding is that institutions were told that. In some cases, they asked to get that clarification in writing, because this was essentially a new policy, but they were told, essentially: “Don’t ask for it in writing, because you’re not going to get it.” Did that happen?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member has read out a stream of widely variable and disconnected allegations and double-hearsay statements and statements from student organizations that could not possibly have been in contact with an assistant deputy minister. So I must simply refer her back to the source of her information and ask them to make themselves clear.

K. Corrigan: Well, I did include a letter that had come from the Students Union of VCC. That’s absolutely true, where they’re saying that what they were told in a tuition and fee advisory committee was that there had been a clear and direct statement that proposals to increase and implement new fees were based on direction from the Ministry of Advanced Education.

I also read out that the VP of education and services at Selkirk College said essentially the same thing and that both the board of governors and the office of the president of North Island College said the same thing.

I want to go back to the statement that I understood had been made more than once, at more than one meeting by one or more senior ministry staff, which said, “You’ll never get it in writing,” or some variant of that. I want to ask the minister if the minister is in any way aware of those comments that, essentially, we were going to have, yet again, secret government under the B.C. Liberals. “We’re going to do this. We’re going to get around our own policy so that we can continue to say that we have a 2 percent limit on tuition increases while at the same time imposing mandatory fees.”

Is the minister in any way aware that that was told to administrators in various institutions — not only that they could impose new fees but that they weren’t going to get it in writing because, obviously, government didn’t want to put it in writing?
[ Page 11830 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite is a very capable and learned individual. She knows perfectly well I can’t respond to this kind of gossip and rumour. These are all thirdhand repetitions of rumours that do not warrant a response.

What I can tell the member opposite is that the proposed fee increases at Vancouver Community College were all rejected except for one.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think it’s important. I don’t think it’s wild allegation when we do have confirmation of at least some kind of change being reported by reputable administrators of various institutions and a reference to another meeting. Yes, reported by students, but I don’t think that because a student union has reported something, we should reject it out of hand. That was one of many, many individuals that said there had been a change.

The minister is just categorically saying that nobody on his staff said to any administrators, “You can change this,” and particularly, “but you’ll never get it in writing.” Is the minister saying that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ve responded to this question a number of times.

K. Corrigan: Finally on this issue, I just want to ask about…. Maybe I don’t need to. The minister has acknowledged that there is a change of policy. I note that I have a response to an FOI of about a year ago, in which the same kind of request was made for a change in fees, and Northwest Community College was told that they couldn’t and that they had to stay within the fee limits. I’ll look for that and perhaps get back to that.

I have my colleague here from Vancouver-Hastings, so I think what we’d like to do now is turn over to asking some questions about the blueprint for education and the jobs plan. I’m going to turn it over to my colleague.

S. Simpson: I expect to engage this discussion with the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training pretty extensively when her estimates come up sometime later in the session.

[1600]

I know that those questions that pertain specifically to Advanced Education and to the institutions that are applying this…. She will be telling me to ask those questions of the Minister of Advanced Education. I’ll try to do a little bit of that now and see if we can frame some of that information.

I know that last year we had some conversation around these issues. At that time, if I fairly reflect the minister’s comments, it was pretty early in the process. Institutions were still finding their feet in many ways. The issues about ramping up to the percentage of the operating grant that would be applied were still a work-in-progress in a number of institutions.

I had the sense, also, that there was still a lot of work going on in regard to determinations of the deputy ministers committee about what would be applicable programs and what wouldn’t be. How those decisions would get made was, again, still a work-in-process.

Maybe just to start, if the minister could give us a bit of a summary of where things are at right now in terms of how far in advance the blueprint is in being instituted in institutions today and where we’re at in terms of the full implementation or institution of the blueprint from the Advanced Education perspective.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a many-faceted issue. I’ll start with the major blocks that are the foundation of it from the Advanced Education perspective. I’m sure the member will explore some other channels.

The re-engineering of operating grants started with a dedicated amount, in 2013-14, of $190 million, which was dedicated to specific programs. There have been increments, in the subsequent fiscal years, of $40 million, then $90 million in the past fiscal year. In the coming fiscal year, it will be a further $90 million. In ’17-18, it’ll be a further $50 million. Adding together those increments of $40 million, $90 million, $90 million and $50 million to the base of $190 million, we come out to $460 million of dedicated funding to specific in-demand programs.

Now, as of the end of the ’14-15 fiscal year, which is the last year we have for complete reports, all of our institutions met or exceeded that skills gap plan target. We believe we’re on target at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year, and we’ll be, as I say, embarking on the 2016-17 fiscal year. The increment this year is $90 million. The grand total of dedicated funding per year at the end of 2017-18 will be, as I said, $460 million.

That’s one of the building blocks. Now, in addition to that, there’s the $185 million fund that has been dedicated to skills-training capital funding. I’ve had the pleasure of going around to a number of institutions, advising them that they are receiving substantial chunks of money to upgrade their skills-training equipment.

This ranges anywhere from nursing monitoring equipment through welding equipment to very elaborate heavy-duty-mechanics equipment to power engineering boilers. It’s a whole range of equipment. The funding before 2016 was $104.14 million, and the budget for this fiscal year in that category is $140.26 million. We’re well on track to have invested these funds in the skills-training capital equipment.

[1605]

We also have the critical trades seats block, which is a third sum of money dedicated to…. So $6 million was committed in the past fiscal year to reduce wait-lists in 18 high-demand trades occupational training programs; $5.1 million of that came from our ministry and $1 million from the Industry Training Authority. That created 1,488 new trades seats at 15 post-secondary institutions in the fiscal year just passed.
[ Page 11831 ]

That was in addition to the investments of $7 million in the previous fiscal year for a similar number of critical trades seats. The total, combining those two years, is $13.1 million for 2,976 new trades seats.

Now, as I say, this is a rather multifaceted problem. I think I’ll leave it to the member opposite to pursue the channel he sees fit in this field.

S. Simpson: You referenced $1 million, roughly, from the ITA to seats. Is that the extent of ITA contributions to advanced education institutions, or have there been additional ITA dollars that have been received by institutions for their programs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ongoing base funding, if I can call it that, from the ITA that goes through the advanced education institutions is in the range of $65 million a year. This $1 million increment was to create those new trades seats. That’s in addition to the existing baseline funding. Our goal, of course, was to expand access to existing programs that were, at the time, oversubscribed, so that we could reduce wait-lists as much as possible.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us…? I want to try to understand how the decisions are made. The ITA comes to the table with $60 million plus to participate and purchase seats from institutions. What is the discussion that goes on about determining that program that they are going to support the seats from? Is that a determination of the institution, or is it a negotiation of the ITA and the institution? Or does the ITA come and say: “Here’s what we want you to do for us. Facilitate what we want, and we’ve got a cheque for you”?

[1610]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This may be best explained by an example in a particular field. If we took heavy-duty mechanics, for instance, the labour market demand is determined through the Ministry of Jobs and Skill Training. They then fund the ITA for a certain number of seats in our institutions.

On the supply side, Advanced Education, through its 25 institutions, has the instructors and the physical plant available, and the funding comes to a particular institution from the ITA to fund a certain number of seats — that is, spots for trainees.

The question obviously arises: does that fluctuate from year to year, and what happens to the instructors if the ITA doesn’t fund that year? The ITA has been very responsible in levelling out demand for these seats so that the institutions aren’t left in the lurch with empty classrooms, with an instructor with no students.

The goal, obviously, is to match supply and demand. Our institutions provide the supply side of the educational services, and the ITA effectively determines the demand side and provides the income to the institution. The understanding, though, is that if the ITA determines there isn’t sufficient demand for a particular program, that will have to be wound down in institutions, either temporarily — there may be a term where it’s not offered that term — or it may be moved elsewhere.

Generally, there has been the opportunity to level out demand amongst institutions so that their instructors have steady work and the institution’s physical plant is in steady use.

S. Simpson: In these programs that are now provided by advanced education institutions to meet the needs of the ITA — the assessments of job skills training, when they’re assessing in the deputy minister’s committee which, I believe, sets some determination around which occupations or which skill sets are appropriate — who tracks graduations?

Is there any tracking of the success of people who come through those programs — if they’re foundational programs, whether they come through and then there’s subsequent apprenticeships, whether there are completion programs that people come out of with the proper documentation or certificates and then go into the workforce?

Who tracks those graduations, and who tracks and assesses the success of those programs and whether they’re accomplishing the objectives of the blueprint?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The student outcome surveys that are conducted through the auspices of the ministry follow students from recruitment through the course of their progress in the program. A good example would be an apprenticeship program with a foundation course where they then go on from there to the workforce and then generally come back for level 2. Many of these programs have four levels. At the end of the level 4, they would be eligible for the Red Seal certificate.

Human nature being what it is, not every student who signs up for the course on day 1 goes all the way through to Red Seal. Our student outcome surveys follow them at each stage through the four levels of that particular program to determine their success at each level.

The ITA’s role is to be at the end of the road to see what happens with the completed-apprenticeship Red Seal candidates. They are looking for the completely minted tradesperson.

[1615]

We follow the progress of the student, whether they complete or not. It’s no secret that in some trades programs, students will often complete level 1 or 2 and then find that they would rather stay in the workforce than go back into school. They don’t see an immediate need for it.

In other trades programs, there’s a very strong tendency to complete the Red Seal because — things like aviation mechanics — you’ve either got it or you don’t. So it varies between trades as to the completion rate. But we do follow all of them, all of the trades and students,
[ Page 11832 ]
through student outcomes surveys, in terms of where they end up after each level of their training.

S. Simpson: Just to pursue that a little bit. One of the biggest challenges facing the program today is a lack of apprenticeship spaces. People are coming in. They’re getting the foundational work done at the institutions and often having a difficult time finding a placement in the workforce to be able to fulfil the apprenticeship that will take them through the levels and allow them to complete and come back and do their classroom work and complete there.

When the Advanced Education Ministry is tracking that and tracking the students and their success, is it then putting in place the records as to how successful that is? Without the apprenticeship placement, obviously you don’t complete the rest of the work. You’ve either got it all or you don’t. That’s been one of the big challenges here.

Is there documentation available from the ministry that says: “We had X amount of people potentially complete foundational work in this given year, but only this percentage of them were able to find the placements that allowed them to fulfil their educational obligations for us”?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a rather complicated answer. The student outcomes surveys ask a whole series of questions such as, “Were you satisfied with your program?” and “Was it relevant to your work?”

[1620]

The most useful one, for the purpose of this exchange, is the percent rated “knowledge and skills gained, very useful or somewhat useful” in performing their employment after their training component — not necessarily the whole course but the component they have completed. That ranged from 83 percent in other trades to 92 percent in personal and culinary services and precision production to 95 percent in mechanic and repair technologies technicians.

We don’t ask them who their employer is. That may change, obviously, as they find different employment. Then when they return for higher levels, we get the same survey answers, so the inference from that is that they are finding work in closely related fields.

I actually had the experience, out at Kwantlen Polytechnic, of talking to a couple of millwright students. One of them said that he was working in a recycling facility. I thought: “Oh, that doesn’t sound very glamourous.” But he said: “Oh no, they have wonderful machines, and they break all the time. I have to fix them and keep them running.” He had the machinery of his dreams to work on.

Another one worked in a glass plant. I wondered how that would be related to the training as a millwright. He said that in fact they had extremely complicated, expensive and sophisticated machinery, and it was his job to keep it going. On the face of it, it may not appear that they are using their skills, but in fact, they are using their skills to the fullest, because they’re doing things that we are not imaginative enough to understand.

Now, in terms of the other side of the equation, ITA does follow the students who go through to complete looking for their employment after they’ve reached completion. Our role in the student outcomes survey is to follow the path of the student to see if they are getting the education they need and if they’re finding relevant employment. In fact, the employment rates are very high — well into the 90 percent range. It varies by the field. The unemployment rate is very low.

S. Simpson: Just to follow up a little bit on that. If I’m to understand the answer, I believe that’s the minister saying that for people who completed their training, here is their success rate in finding appropriate employment or employment that is satisfactory to them based on the training they got. I’m sure those 83 to 92 percent numbers don’t include people who commenced training and then, for any variety of reasons, didn’t complete and in fact left the training — either because they weren’t able to find the appropriate other piece components, like an apprenticeship to complete, or just chose to walk away, or for any variety of reasons.

Does this tracking that the ministry does tell us how many people actually have completed versus people who have clearly dropped out of the programs for any variety of reasons? And does it identify for what reason they may have chosen to drop out?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This again is somewhat complicated in that students, as we all know, have the luxury in our part of the world of exploring different channels of education. They may go into one field and decide they don’t like it and change to another, so tracking them through the system is somewhat complicated. Nonetheless, the student outcomes surveys do track the individual to see if they found their training very helpful.

Then at the end point, in the apprenticeship level, we do have the outcomes tracking. I can give you some numbers for that. Twenty-nine hundred students responded. After completing apprenticeships, 94 percent were satisfied with their workplace training, 86 percent had earned their ticket, and 96 percent were in the labour force. The average hourly wage was $30. And 90 percent were in a training-related job; 93 percent said the knowledge and skills gained during in-school training was useful at work.

Those are the ones who have completed a program, but we don’t know if they changed from welding to millwright after their first foundational course, because that student would then be deemed as someone who left welding after one term and disappeared to follow up. But in fact, they were completing the millwright program instead.

We also have the scenario, of course, of students who in the recent past found work in the field, particularly in the petroleum industry, that didn’t require them to
[ Page 11833 ]
have completed their program. They would be making very large sums of money relatively early in life, having completed one or two stages of their program. We now find that those students, of course, are coming back to complete their training because they realized they need a full certification to be truly portable and employable in a number of fields rather than in one particular task where they were well paid for a period of time.

[1625]

Those students would have been deemed to have been lost to follow-up or incomplete after finishing foundation or level 2, when in fact, they were earning six figures out in the field and were quite content.

We now find them coming back and registering for programs that we didn’t anticipate they would be in because they have had a change of focus in their lives after having worked in the industry for a while and decided they wanted to do something slightly different.

S. Simpson: One of the things that we know about the ITA…. We can go back, and we know that when the ITA was turned on its head a few years back — and the result of that was the blueprint as a follow-up to that and much other work — it’s because the ITA wasn’t particularly successful. It had a lot of people starting but not a lot of completions. We know that the LNG industry, among others, stepped up and said: “That’s not good enough. If you want us here, you need to get us a skilled workforce.”

That motivated a number of changes by government. We had the Jessica McDonald report. We had other work that was done that led to the blueprint in many ways and to a revamping of the ITA. Part of that was a recognition that the difference between the number of people starting an apprenticeship or a skills-training program and the number of people completing with the kind of accreditation that was of interest to industry — that these were the people they wanted — just wasn’t meeting a standard.

Is there an assessment now — and I believe the blueprint called for one — to know that we fixed that? I know there has been a lot of investment of time, money and effort to do that, but is there an assessment there that says: “We are satisfied we fixed it, and here are the kind of numbers that we’ve got now that validate that”?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: While attempting to be as helpful as I can be, we can only provide the student outcomes survey information in terms of the disposition of that student after each stage of their training and whether they are (a) working, (b) using their skills obtained and (c) having a good, productive life.

In terms of the question the member asked about ITA placements and ITA outcomes, I’m afraid that’ll have to go to the Jobs Ministry.

S. Simpson: I just have one or two other questions which relate to the relationship between the ministry and more specifically the institutions — the post-secondary and the advanced education institutions — and the work of the deputies’ committee that makes determination about which skills, which occupations, are in and which ones are out to fit the operating grant and to fit the blueprint. It didn’t seem that clear last year, but I am sure it was a work-in-progress.

What is the role now that the institutions can play? They have students, I’m sure, that come to them, looking for programs or trying to get into programs that are full where there’s much more demand. I talked to folks from Capilano. I was talking to students. I know there were a number of students here in the last couple of days. I was talking to students from Capilano who were talking about some of the programs that have been closed there — textile design, some of those programs, where there’s opportunity, but they don’t fit the bill, so they’re not in.

What role do the institutions or the ministry play, other than having the deputy be a member of this committee, presumably, in helping to shape what occupations are in or out? Particularly, I ask this since the government has pivoted somewhat. There was somewhat of an LNG preoccupation here when this all began. We now hear a lot more talk about diversification of the economy. That seems to be a much more frequently heard term than LNG these days. So you’re looking at a wider range of occupations and skill sets, and presumably, that committee’s mandate is to respond to that.

What role does the ministry play in supporting the work of that committee and the institutions and being able to say: “Here’s what we are hearing about demand”?

[1630]

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This, again, is a rather complicated answer, and we’ll have to see if it addresses the query that the member has.

The ITA has the primary focus of ascertaining industry demand, particularly in the Red Seal trades, and then reflecting that back to institutions with funding profiles to make sure the institutions are able to supply the number of workers to go in and meet that demand. Our ministry services that demand by providing slots and spaces and physical plant and instructors.

However, we also work with our institutions and give them a fairly wide range of options, particularly on a local basis, to develop their own specialty programs. A very good example of this is the development of the film program at Capilano University, which has nothing to do with the ITA whatsoever.

That has been very much demand-driven by the industry. Generally, they’re short courses of a year or two, where the students show up and say they would like to be in the training program. They often have some prior industry experience in the film industry, and Capilano
[ Page 11834 ]
University does everything it can to adjust to that demand, to make sure that the students are able to address their goal and get through promptly, at an affordable price, so that they can get out into the workforce.

I think, crudely put, one can say that the ITA is a demand-side organization, and Advanced Education tries to be a much broader range on the supply side. We will train people in a whole range of things that really have nothing to do with the ITA, especially where there’s a local specialty. We can think of various aerospace-related programs that are offered at, I think, three institutions around the province, where they have just developed the local expertise and they carry on with it.

S. Simpson: Just one or so more questions on this, and then I’ll be done.

To follow up, particularly on the minister’s comments, this is part of the challenge that we saw. I mean, it’s pretty easy to determine if Red Seal…. “Here’s the Red Seal skilled trades that we’re going to have.” That one’s pretty easy to identify — and the ITA has a background, a history and a skill set to do that work — but we know that when we talk about jobs and the economy, we’re talking about a whole lot more than just that. That’s important, that skill set.

Some people might argue that with the changed circumstances around the oil industry and the changes there, we’ve got maybe more people with those skilled trades in this province than we had anticipated we were going to have a few years ago — people who have come home because their work is less available elsewhere.

But I know when I talk to people in sectors that I’ve encouraged — to the deputies’ committee, around things like computer animation and those areas — there are opportunities, but there are very few seats available in the province. There are few in the private sector. Cap has some. I think they’ve just doubled up their number of seats, maybe in the last year, which is great.

[1635]

There are lots of opportunities for very good jobs there, after a year or two. Those companies are happy to take somebody with the basics and then train them up with the skills that they need. With those courses, though, their challenge, for the institutions, is to fit inside the blueprint box and get into the 25 percent, if they can, to expand the programs, as money is tight at the post-secondary level.

So how do they get in there? Do they have to come through…? Or how does the Advanced Education Ministry influence that process when you’re learning about all of these other opportunities outside of skilled trades, outside of traditional ITA? How do you influence that committee? Is there a formal process here? How does that committee get influenced to add stuff in?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, it’s a rather complicated answer. The industry-related demand side is reflected through to the labour market planning board of deputies, and they will then come to the conclusion that some funding should flow to the supply-side institutions to ensure that those trained individuals come through at the far end to satisfy that demand.

It’s also open to our institutions to come forth and say they have an idea, whether it’s in ranching technology or computer systems technology or graphic information systems — all kinds of different things that would not occur to ministry staff and would not be within the ambit of the ITA.

It’s open to our institutions to put forward those propositions and say: “Would you like to put this into the mix for the labour market planning board to get dedicated funding?” If the answer comes back, “Interesting program, but it won’t receive dedicated funding” in the $410 million that was mentioned earlier, it’s still open to the institution to offer that program out of the remainder of its budget. But it will not have directed funding for a certain number of seats.

We see this all around the province, particularly in things like data analytics that are now offered in a number of institutions around the province who have just done it on their own initiative. They come to the ministry, and sometimes they need to ask for validation. Sometimes they’re authorized to just go ahead and do it, as in the case of the research universities. If they decide to offer a new bachelor’s or applied master’s program, they just go ahead and do it.

They seek to be receptive to demand, because these are often very much employment-driven programs where the students are seeking assurance from the program directors that they will be employable. It’s really up to the program directors at the institutions to say: “Yes, this is a skills-applicable program.” Often in those highly specific skills, they will have industry representatives as part of the teaching component, and the students will be hired before they complete the program.

[1640]

So there are multiple channels to this. The formalized program through the labour market priorities board is one of the channels, but it is the one that fits most closely into the blueprint structure. It’s entirely open, as I said, to institutions to operate outside the structure, still be validated and still offer the program. A good example is the ranching technology program at TRU in Williams Lake, which operates outside of any dedicated funding but is quite successful.

K. Corrigan: I’ve just got a couple more questions about the blueprint. I appreciate what the minister has said so far about this, but one of the challenges that was apparent last year, and maybe has been addressed through some flexibility, is the fact that you had these 60 occupations that were related to post-secondary education, and there was going to be a major retooling. Now, this year
[ Page 11835 ]
you have another 60 occupations. If you do a comparison of what the top jobs are between the 2022 outlook, which was from two years ago, and you compare that to the 2024 labour market outlook, you see that the amount of movement in those top jobs has been fairly significant.

I’ll take, for example, the top occupation requiring training. The top one for the 2022 outlook was administrative assistants, and after that was administrative officers. If you look at it now, you see that it’s in a completely different category — that things have moved around. That’s one of the challenges with the list — they’re all broken up in a different way — so it’s hard to compare them.

But you have dozens of occupations, even in those 60 or 90, depending which list you’re looking at, that have moved in and out. How is it that the system is going to be able to respond yet not force institutions into doing programs that you find out within a year or two were the wrong choices?

[1645]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise is that the top occupations list will necessarily evolve over time. At the same time, we do not want to in any way find students recruited who then cannot complete a program because the priorities have changed.

On an annual basis, using the example of helicopter mechanics, a cohort of those students will be recruited and funded, and their funding is guaranteed for the duration of their program. If that cohort of helicopter mechanics then satisfied a large volume of the demand or a large percentage of the demand in the workplace, that particular occupation would be moved down the rankings in following years. The original batch of students would go through to complete, and the next batch of students would be smaller. But again, their funding to complete the program would be guaranteed.

K. Corrigan: Under the top opportunity management occupations, which is the first category in this year’s outlook, if you look at those management occupations that require a university degree and/or significant work experience, you have the first, the second, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, the 12th, the 13th, the 14th and the 17th — all jobs that weren’t even on the list before.

Is that not going to create a huge amount of upheaval and cost for post-secondary institutions if you’re telling them that there is money attached to those training opportunities within the institutions, and you find that you have almost half — in that particular category, the first one — of the jobs moving onto the list that haven’t been there and then a whole bunch moving off? How are you going to deal with that fact?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Having had a chance to look at the list the member refers to — I believe we’re on the same list — the majority of the top ten positions under that heading of “Top opportunity management occupations” require a generic business training beforehand. So the components that would go into the first couple of years of training of that individual are the same as they have been for some number of years — with modernization, of course.

Now, at the same time, these represent refinements of industry definitions of demand. If someone is defined as an insurance, real estate and financial brokerage manager, clearly that requires basic business education just as it always has, and that basic business education that may have been on the previous year’s list is still on this list, just in a lower ranking.

[1650]

The industry demand has said: “We have received or expect to receive enough general business managers. Let me tell you we’d like to be a bit more specific, so we’re going to ask for these specific roles, such as a banking, credit and investment manager.” That is a fairly tightly defined skill set that often requires on-the-job training. But as I said, the first two years will still be the basic business school training, whether at BCIT or UBC or anywhere else.

We see this in the progressive refinement and tighter definition of training programs that in my era — and, I suspect, the era of most of the people in this room — were unknown. We went into general programs and then found our specific calling later on. There was certainly no training for anybody in medical defence litigation when I went through, but there is now. This, I think, reflects the modern approach to higher education, which is to be much more skill-specific than it was in earlier times.

As the jobs plan moves forward and the blueprint definition of in-demand occupations is refined, it is getting to be more and more specific rather than generic, as it was in years past.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that it’s going to get more specific. Part of the problem is that as you get more specific, as the demand for those particular jobs goes up and down, it seems to me you’re going to have post-secondary institutions following this path of constantly trying to re-tool in order to meet the demand.

One of the things that I think would be useful is if there was an indication somewhere about what training it is that is required. We had a discussion about this last year. There’s certainly merit to it. One of the challenges I see to it is the whole issue of those types of in-demand jobs, like managers — and I think that we talked about this last year — who could come from a whole variety of backgrounds. Certainly, we hear from industry that somebody who has a master’s degree in public policy or in philosophy or in a whole variety of things might be a really good candidate to be a manager because of the critical thinking and so on.

I think it’s a challenge for post-secondary institutions, both when you’re being specific in terms of trying to respond and, at the same time, ensuring that people who have general kinds of skills get credit for those. They may
[ Page 11836 ]
be the perfect people for jobs that don’t have specified types of training.

One of the things that has happened, my understanding is, is that the ministry has in some way become more flexible in recognizing that there isn’t a really clear path in some types of work and that things will fit under some of those more broad types of categories — that the institutions are being able to persuade government that a more generalist kind of training qualifies in sciences or in the arts. Is there some truth to that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member touched on an interesting point. So 25 percent of our funding is moving toward dedicated program funding, and the other 75 percent remains in what I call the general pool — that is, general education. Most of the people in this room benefited from general education. In our era — certainly, the member for Nanaimo’s era — any old degree could qualify you for further education and a skilled career.

As time has gone by, expectations and expertise have risen. It may still be possible to complete a degree in English and become a credit union manager. It’s more likely, in this era, that the individual finishing a degree in English would go on and take some kind of capstone training, as they often call it these days, a year of business education at an institution somewhere, and then take on their work at a credit union.

We try to reflect that in the availability of programming so that we still offer all of those general degrees in arts and science for very valid reasons. Many of those people will be the leaders of tomorrow and will be very successful in the space they want to study in.

[1655]

At the same time, we do offer specialized training programs so that when those individuals eventually change their mind or find their particular career goal, they do have the tools to transition themselves from a generalist into a specialist. That is very important in our society, and it’s something we encourage. Now, at the same time, there are some students who come into post-secondary education saying that they fully intend to be a turbine mechanic working on helicopters or turboprop aircraft.

We facilitate that. We say: “You’re going to have to come in with physics and math and, preferably, a bit of mechanics. You will then go either straight into an aviation mechanics program or, perhaps, a more generalist aviation technologist program. In later years, you would specialize in turbine engines.”

We do our level best to make sure that these changing goals of students are accommodated. In our society, this is a very valuable thing — that students are allowed to change their mind.

K. Corrigan: Of course, perhaps I’m just a little bit suspicious of the whole thing because politicians are not in the top 60 jobs. I’m offended — highly offended. But I think it’s probably very…. Actually, it probably legitimizes the whole thing. [Laughter.]

I’m going to switch from this. I could ask lots more questions, but I see we’re running somewhat short of time. I’m going to switch to some questions about adult basic education.

We have discussed in this Legislature repeatedly…. I’ve raised the issue of adult basic education and the fact that government decided that it would not universally fund adult basic education and that institutions could start charging, I know, for adult basic education. There are some grants available. Certainly, not everyone is eligible for those grants.

We got the results of a freedom-of-information request asking about enrolments in adult basic education. We received it back recently. My question for the minister: is the minister concerned, and does the minister recognize, that there is a decreasing amount of access when you see that the enrolments in adult basic education between 2013-14 and 2015-16 have decreased throughout the province by 21 percent?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a rather complicated topic. One must start the information flow by noting that the demand for adult basic education declined significantly starting about five years ago. We don’t have the numbers available for the member, but we will get them for her. The annual numbers for adult basic education were in significant decline before the issue of tuition arose roughly a year ago.

[1700]

Of course, the availability of tuition, transportation, child care and book subsidies mitigates the tuition completely. We are now in that space where the demand before fees were applied to these courses was in rapid decline, and that led to the question of: were the institutions limiting the number of available spaces because of the lack of associated revenue?

Now we have been able to give them the necessary revenue through the subsidy program so that eligible individuals below the income threshold contribute to the revenue of the institution, and that encourages the institution to offer more spaces.

These are conundrums that we’re still working through, but I think the key point is that enrolment was in significant decline prior to the introduction of tuition fees.

K. Corrigan: I don’t have a long history with what has been happening with ABE. Of course, I’m not the most knowledgable person in the world, but I’ve been very interested in it. My understanding is that a large part of the earlier reduction in adult basic education courses, certainly at places like Vancouver Community College and others, had to do with the fact that a few years ago, prior to getting rid of the free adult basic education, there were increasing restrictions on what was eligible to be funded.
[ Page 11837 ]

My understanding, and perhaps the minister can confirm or not, is that that had a large part, when the minister talks about demand — that the programs that were eligible decreased significantly a few years ago.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Consulting with the five experienced staff people here, they’re not aware of any restrictions having been placed on entry into the ABE programs at our post-secondary institutions. That, conceivably, may have been at the institutions themselves, but it would not have come from the ministry. Again, we’re not aware of any such restrictions being in place at institutions themselves.

K. Corrigan: I don’t have the background information for that with me, but my understanding was that around 2012, there were restrictions on the types of courses that qualified as being adult basic education. But I won’t pursue that.

Maybe what I’ll talk about…. When the minister talks about declining demand, which I’m really concerned about…. I wonder about that, and I’ve expressed why I wonder about that. Let’s take a look at what’s happened in some institutions just over the last year.

The policy was announced. The change at Camosun College between 2014-15, one year, and the 2015-16 interims, because obviously we don’t have the full year yet, was a 32 percent decline in enrolment. These are numbers that we were given through an FOI from the ministry. College of New Caledonia — we have a decrease of 54 percent enrolment in adult basic education in one year. At Vancouver Community College, a decrease of 31 percent. So those are all the colleges.

[1705]

When I was talking about the overall change of 20 percent, to be clear, that was at colleges, where the vast majority of these programs are offered. We’re talking 32, 54, 31. Those are the vast majority of the students that are taking adult basic education in this province. Maybe not vast, but it is a large component of the students taking adult basic education.

My concern is that some of the other places where the numbers have not gone down as much…. Not all of those institutions have had the fees kick in yet.

Some of them are still going through that because there was transition money — in the case of, for example, Vancouver Community College. Although the fees were imposed over the last year, Vancouver Community College, through the transition money, topped up the eligibility for the grant to cover a slightly higher group of people who were just outside of the income eligibility so that instead of it being at $22,000, it was some $26,000 or $27,000.

Now, my understanding is that that is ending now. The transition money is done, and we’re going to have a further decrease, maybe of 500 students — some estimates may not be that high — who are no longer going to be eligible for the grant, who had been last year because VCC topped it up, and that many of those students will not come back.

Will the minister acknowledge that the policy of charging tuition for adult basic education has had a serious impact on the accessibility of those programs for students and that there is a real issue that the enrolments have significantly declined as a result of that policy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to clarify the record, I think most people in this room know that the adult upgrading grant is available for full coverage of tuition, fees, child care, transportation and some other benefits, including books, for a single individual with an income of $23,600. If they’re up to $26,000 of income, 50 percent of that grant is applied. For a family of three, it’s $36,200, and again, a 10 percent increment on that takes them up to $40,000 of income, which would still make them eligible for the adult upgrading grant.

We also had the issue of the attendance, and I believe that the member opposite has, through freedom of information, the basic attendance sheet. We see that the subtotal across the province in 2013-14 was 7,634. In 2014-15, before the fees came on, it went down to 7,164, so there was some significant reduction there, in the complete absence of fees. Then the 6,236 students in the immediately past fiscal year are when the fee arrangement was in place.

Ascribing causation to this is very difficult in that there has been a changing landscape in adult basic education for a number of years. As I said, we will provide the member with the aggregate numbers for the previous years when we’re able to locate them.

This is a situation where it’s complicated by the availability of the courses in the various institutions. Some of them, such as Nicola Valley Institute of Technology continue to offer ABE for free. The question is: is that better than a situation where the student below the income thresholds would get not only the tuition for free but also get their books and child care and transportation provided to them? This is a classic situation of attempting to sort out what exactly the variable is that changed the outcome in the system.

K. Corrigan: I find it pretty astounding that the minister is suggesting that the cuts to free adult basic education do not explain what’s happened in the last year, when you have….

[1710]

If you just talk about in the last year since the cuts did take place, they haven’t worked their way through the system. The minister can hold me to this is if he thinks it’s something else. I predict that there will be further declines next year, and it will be directly related to the fact that the grants are…. Either tuition is going to be charged for more people or will be imposed at all sorts of institutions.
[ Page 11838 ]

I invite the minister to speak to the people running those programs. They are very, very clear — I’ve spoken to many of them — that the loss of free education, which this government said was a good idea, for completing and upgrading their high school so that they could go on and do other things in the post-secondary system, which a vast majority of these people want to do to be productive…. If you talk to those people, they will over and over again tell you it is directly related to the loss of free adult basic education.

The changes this year are very clear — 31 percent at VCC, 32 percent at Camosun and 54 percent at College of New Caledonia. If the minister doesn’t believe that that’s directly related, a direct cause, then I certainly invite him to go back and speak to administrators and those program managers.

We’re running a little bit short of time, but I want to say also, though, that we have a reduction overall from 2009-10 down to 2015-16. We have a 36 percent reduction, according to the information that was provided.

I’m going to go back and check with my sources and find out what other factors were involved. I was very clear. People had told me — and some of the documents I had indicated — that there were other structural changes to the program in the last few years that started to encourage the downward trend. It wasn’t a lack of interest of individuals, but it was a lack of ability and flexibility in the program and greater restrictions. I’ll certainly check on that.

In the same freedom-of-information request, we asked about ESL. What we have found — and I think this is shocking — from that FOI is that the attendance at ESL or ELL classes at our colleges has declined by 67 percent. That is, again, directly related to the fact that ELL is no longer free.

Now, I know the minister is going to get up and say that that was due to federal funding. But you know, there are changes in federal funding all over the place in various parts of government, and it is a choice of government whether or not the decision is made to take responsibility. Government gets more money. It’s going to get more money from the federal government now. Government gets less money in an area. The question is whether or not we should be providing these kinds of services to people who simply have a language hurdle that they need to get over in order that they can be productive citizens.

I’m wondering if the minister has any comments on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite correctly notes that this was federal flow-through money. Essentially, the province, through its post-secondary institutions, acts as a contractor, because for the period of the LINC program, language instruction for new Canadians, that was something where the federal government, not being in the business of post-secondary education, basically contracted the service to the province.

That went on for a number of years. Then the federal government changed its mind. They apparently came to the conclusion they could get better value in the semi-private sector by going through non-profit organizations such as SUCCESS, and they transferred their funding to those other organizations.

[1715]

While we do not dispute the member’s statistics, in terms of the decline in enrolment of ESL, as far as we know, these individuals are still getting their language instruction. It’s just not in a provincial institution.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m wondering if the minister has in any way proactively pursued discussions with the institutions themselves or with other parts of government to find out whether in fact people are getting this education, because they’re not. It hasn’t been appropriately replaced. We’re talking about programs where students or adults were getting very specific training. It was more advanced training than the LINC program. It was courses that led to health programs, or it was writing programs for university — all sorts of different programs that were very much aligned to giving people the skills they needed to be able to go on and access the post-secondary system.

I think it’s very unfortunate that the government made the decision not to continue to support those programs, particularly when you consider that, at least until recently, it was specifically in the mandate letters of several of our colleges that they needed to provide English language training and they needed to provide adult basic education. I just think it needs to be noted, and I think it’s unfortunate. I’m not sure if the minister wants to respond.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Under the circumstances, given that the province was essentially acting as a contractor for federal government funding and delivering a service that the federal government was not equipped to, we can hardly be held responsible for the federal government changing its mind and deciding to use the non-profit sector rather than our structured public sector. I think that’s the only real comment I can make on the topic.

I do wonder, if we are going until 6:30, if it would be timely to take a ten-minute break.

The Chair: Okay. We’ll call a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:17 p.m. to 5:29 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a question about…. And I apologize to the minister’s staff. I just gave them a list of the priorities, and it’s changed. I’m sorry. It’s not intended. I suddenly realized that I was missing a couple of things. But I will go back to the things that I said were on the list.

[1730]

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about student housing. As the minister knows, there is a lack of affordable on-campus housing for post-secondary students in B.C., and I’m wondering: is there any funding in this budget to address that problem?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The student housing issue, obviously, is of interest to us. I have learned on this job that UBC actually offers one of the highest ratios of student housing to student population anywhere on the continent, but that does not solve the problem, given its geographic location and the difficulty of getting non-university housing nearby. This is an issue that is ongoing, and to address it in part, in Budget 2016, we’ve included close to $22 million for student housing over the next three years. That will be in the capital costs for improvements or new facilities, and that is something that we are now canvassing with the post-secondary institutions.

K. Corrigan: One of the things that has constricted post-secondary institutions, and student societies as well, is the limitation on borrowing. My understanding is that, essentially, if institutions could borrow, they would be able to provide student housing, but they have to get permission. That’s partly related to the fact that any borrowing that is done…. That debt that’s associated becomes part of the government reporting entity.

I’ve had many institutions, student organizations and faculty organizations say that if government would be willing to…. I appreciate that this is not the decision of the minister alone, but I think it’s important to bring the message that if universities, colleges or institutes were given the ability to borrow when they want to, they essentially could build and would build student housing. That would, as the minister notes, take pressure off, particularly in metropolitan areas like Greater Vancouver.

I’m wondering if the minister is working in any way in order to persuade government that it should be easier for institutions to be able to borrow so that they can provide more housing.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a bit of a conundrum in our society, because student housing tends to be fairly constrained. It’s certainly not luxury suites. That raises the issue of who else would use it but the students when the students aren’t there. That leads to the issue of what is the revenue per unit cost, which leads lenders to get skittish. So if an institution says, “Oh, not to worry. We’ll be outside the GRE, and we’ll borrow money for residences,” it may be that the rating agencies say: “Well, we don’t believe that that’s going to happen, because the revenue stream isn’t there to maintain the residence debt.” So the debt will eventually float its way back to the province, and we end up with the worst of both worlds.

This is bit of a conundrum. We have raised this with the Ministry of Finance, and it’s a subject of ongoing discussion. The rating agencies’ approach to this is that, essentially, regardless of the status attributed to the debt associated with the student residences, it will be booked to the province’s debt by the rating agencies, which rather defeats the purpose of moving the institutions outside the GRE.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. There are two ways you can go. You can either create more approvals within the GRE or move them outside of the GRE.

[1735]

In either scenario, it would — my understanding — lead to significantly more student housing being built. I also have received a very rough estimate from a couple of different places that there is a need of around 16,000 spaces. Certainly, UBC has said that it…. Between UBC and SFU, there would be demand for about 9,700 students. Then if you add some of the other institutions and do a rough guess, we’re talking thousands — maybe 15,000 or 16,000 spaces.

I think, for example, of Capilano University. We have this wonderful institution over in North Vancouver, and they have wanted and desired to build student residences so that they can have a student life. I’ve talked to students about this, and I’ve talked to faculty about that as well. They feel that it could so improve the quality of the experience and the attractiveness of Capilano University, as wonderful as it is, if you could have a student residence on that property.

I know that that is true for a number of other institutions as well. Kwantlen Student Association would really love to have approval, have the ability to build housing at Kwantlen. I know it’s true for a number of other institutions as well.

Maybe what I can ask the minister is if the minister would work hard on behalf of the students of the various institutions around this province to come to some kind of resolution that will allow institutions that are willing to borrow the money to be able to do that so that they can build student housing.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this is in keeping with the best intentions of this entire process, which is to improve the work of government through the examination provided by the members opposite. The member’s sentiment is well taken and understood.

K. Corrigan: I guess I shouldn’t forget my local institution, or one of my local institutions. We’re so lucky in Burnaby to have both Simon Fraser University and BCIT. I know that Simon Fraser University has been struggling with this as well. They recently had student housing…. Louis Riel place, family student housing, had to be closed down because it basically became unsafe, with mould and so on.

I guess that raises another question, and maybe I’ll just quickly put this in here as well — the whole issue of pre-
[ Page 11840 ]
ventive maintenance. I’ve certainly heard from a number of institutions that the capital funds, including funds for preventive maintenance, have just not been there the last several years. We have institutions that basically, many of them, have many of the buildings crumbling — BCIT, Simon Fraser University and a number of other institutions.

I’m wondering whether the minister can address or acknowledge the fact that preventive maintenance has been ignored. The funding is not there for institutions in order to do that preventive maintenance, and I’m wondering what the minister intends to do about that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s interesting how our society evolves. If we work from the present tense backward, we have some really lovely, superb buildings around the province. I’ve had the good fortune to visit many of them. We also have some rather elderly buildings that in the world of universities are quite young, compared to those in Europe, but nonetheless, they were built in an era where they are now approaching the end of their life cycle.

We recognize this, and the three stages to this are to build an entirely new building, to refurbish an existing building — there are opportunities there that can be of variable cost effectiveness — or to have more, as the member notices, preventative maintenance and ongoing improvement of the buildings so that they do not deteriorate.

Our routine capital vote to address this issue, Vote 46, for this fiscal year, is almost exactly $100 million, and in 2017-18, it’s $115 million. In the subsequent fiscal year, it’s $162 million. This, of course, is in addition to the capital budget for new buildings to replace decrepit buildings. We do devote a large sum of money to this topic.

[1740]

I think the question is, in the eyes of user: is it ever enough? Of course, there are competing demands for seismic upgrading of K-to-12 schools, for hospital buildings, so this is an ongoing balance that we have to strike between reasonable expectations of students, faculty and our society as a whole and the ability of the taxpayer to support this effort.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think if the minister were to do a tour of some of the institutions, like BCIT or Simon Fraser University, he would see literally crumbling buildings. I appreciate that there is some money going into deferred maintenance this year.

Part of the problem is that, increasingly, institutions are being asked to shoulder capital responsibilities out of their operating budgets. It’s essentially like a cut at a time when post-secondary education funding has in fact declined or now is flatlined. Really, what it means is that underfunding over years has meant that many of our buildings are in pretty desperate situations.

I know I asked senior staff about this previously, but maybe I’ll just ask about it now and get it on the record. Do we know the current value of backlogged maintenance — what the need is now in terms of deferred maintenance at post-secondary institutions? Do we have an institution-by-institution breakdown? I know that there was a report done about a couple of facilities, I think BCIT and SFU. I’m just wondering if there has been a provincewide assessment and where we stand and whether we can see copies of those assessments.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a rather complicated question, because as the facility cost index deteriorates, then the question becomes: rather than rehabilitate the building, should it just be torn down or replaced? It’s a bit like your car. You could say that after ten or 15 years, with a car like mine, it would cost a small fortune to bring it back to new, so why would you ever do that? The replacement cost or refurbishment cost goes up and reaches a ridiculous level and then collapses to zero because the building just gets replaced instead.

The assessment of the facility cost index and the deferred maintenance is available. We don’t have it here. But the caution is that it’s actually not a terribly useful number, because it may be that it would be an unwise investment to attempt to refurbish a building that actually should be replaced.

K. Corrigan: I would appreciate getting that information. Do those assessments, or the facilities cost indexes — thank you for the reminder of what the term is — exist for all of our post-secondary institutions?

[1745]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I had referred to it as the facility cost index. It’s actually the facility condition index, or FCI. This is applied by the ministry to what are known as core buildings — that is buildings with academic content. If there’s a field house or a parking garage, we don’t do the FCIs on those.

There’s a process by which we have a five-year rolling inventory where we will visit these buildings and have them assessed once every five years. So the FCI on a certain building may be four years old. Again, it relates to the core buildings, not to the entire inventory of buildings on the campus.

K. Corrigan: I know we’ve got the request in with the ministry — perhaps just further conversation with the ministry about what is and what is not available. If it’s not an index for a campus but individual buildings…. I do understand that there are hundreds of buildings around the province, but maybe I can have further conversation with ministry staff about what is available and what we can take a look at. I’d appreciate that.

I want go to a subject which is very important to a lot of students and of great concern. That’s the issue of safe campuses and the importance to comprehensively address sexualized and gender-based violence and harassment at our colleges and universities.
[ Page 11841 ]

We have had a very serious number of assaults at various institutions around this province. Some of the ones that have been newsworthy, I guess…. Every assault is, of course, important, but I know there have been high-profile cases at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria. But it is very clear that sexual assaults, gender-based violence and harassment are not limited to any campus and take place at every campus throughout our province.

I’m wondering what government is planning to do in order to address what seems to be a culture for some people and what is going to be happening and what the plan is in order to address this very serious problem on our campuses.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This will be a somewhat extended answer, and I hope to cover the queries that the member may have.

This is a topic that has been around for a long time, but it has been somewhat delayed in getting the attention it deserves. More recent events across Canada — notably at Dalhousie, University of Ottawa, Lakehead University and elsewhere — have brought it to the fore. The advent of social media has also made it a much more pressing issue for the victims because it can lead to a stigmatization and a state that they would be suffering from that would add to their initial victimization. So this is now very much a topic of substantial interest.

At the first level, we have the preventative and policing phenomenon. We’ve seen recently at UBC that, for casual observers, it appears to be that there are at least one or possibly more perpetrators there who are engaging in totally inappropriate activities, right up to the level of actual physical assault on the unsuspecting passer-by.

That requires a vigorous policing response and a university response, in terms of campus security, and a structured response in terms of how buildings are managed and how students are warned and advised to conduct themselves. That, in the situation of UBC, is well underway in response to the recent very tragic and unfortunate events.

The health and safety of the victim, of course, is the number one priority. We hope to prevent there being any victims through the policing and surveillance functions and the preventative care of buildings and students. But when that fails, we are faced with a situation where student victims and potentially faculty victims do come into play. Those individuals must be treated in a highly supportive fashion.

[1750]

It was actually in the last quarter of last year that our ministry took the initiative and said it’s high time that we had a uniform high standard of best practices at all of our institutions so that they don’t respond inadequately or inconsistently to these situations when they arise. That work has been underway for some months now.

In the midst of that, UBC had its investigation of whether its own response was appropriate. That was conducted by a lawyer in Vancouver and concluded about six weeks ago. They’re also in the process of developing what they believe to be best practices, and they expect to have that out in June.

The member may have noticed in the Globe and Mail today that there was an article from Simona Chiose, who is based in Toronto but does the advanced education beat across Canada for the Globe. She was pointing out that the western Canada sexual violence initiative, incorporating eliminate violence B.C. as its lead member, is actually making very good work in this field. That work will be incorporated into the British Columbia higher education policy, along with the work from the UBC review of this issue.

At the same time and simultaneously, we have the legislation initiative that the member from Oak Bay brought forward, which we are working on now, in order to put into legislation the need for institutions to have a sexual violence policy so that this can be understood to be an obligation of institutions rather than something that would be deemed to be a good practice or in any way optional.

At the last stage, unfortunately, we have the fallout of these events in terms of the actual follow-up by the institution with the individual — both the victim and the perpetrator, or at least the alleged perpetrator. This, of course, triggers substantial legal issues and rights to counsel and the entire procedural machinery related to criminal law.

We know that in our society, it’s quite common — or we perceive it to be common on the basis of insufficient statistics…. No one refutes the concept that victims often don’t want to go to the police for fear of public exposure and a highly formalized environment in dealing with the criminal procedural element of these offences. They, instead, either keep it to themselves or approach their institution for support.

That is where we seek to provide the guidance to the institutions, as to how to go about this in a timely and effective and sensitive fashion so that those victims — whether they’re students, faculty or otherwise — can be dealt with in the most effective and supportive way possible under the circumstances.

K. Corrigan: It’s a complicated and important issue. It’s difficult when you have limited time, certainly in estimates, to discuss the issue and the problems in any great depth.

The minister knows that several months ago the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I jointly wrote a letter to the government expressing our grave concerns about the fact that there were several victims — or alleged victims, I guess I must say, at this point — at UBC who had come forward and felt that they were not being appropriately listened to, that the processes were inappropriate, that the university was non-responsive and that there was a lack of communication so that several incidents were able to happen. Serious sexual assaults were able
[ Page 11842 ]
to happen without there being the communication and the processes in place so that there was a connection of these various incidents.

I appreciate what the minister says about getting the police involved. That is true. There is a huge under-reporting to police of sexual assaults.

But I do believe that it is important that we all work together to have a comprehensive strategy that is incorporated and works with a more comprehensive provincial strategy on sexual assault. Certainly, it’s my understanding that Ontario’s Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment is something that we should be considering, that we are considering.

[1755]

I know that the member from Esquimalt is working on a private member’s bill. I’m not saying something I shouldn’t say out of school, because she has certainly talked about that in the media, about domestic violence.

It’s a huge problem. It seems to be something that is widespread on our campuses. It isn’t always visible, but we have had a lot of cases that are visible, and I think we all need to work together to have a comprehensive approach to addressing sexualized and gender-based violence at our post-secondary institutions. So I am happy to work with government to make sure that we have a comprehensive approach, not just for our colleges and our universities but also for British Columbia as a whole, because women and men both need to feel safe on our campuses.

I will continue on.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: No, I’m not done. I’ll be done when the time says we’re done.

I wanted to ask about the U-Pass. The U-Pass has been something that has been highly valued and highly utilized at many campuses in British Columbia. Now it is my understanding that there’s some question. I know this is not directly a responsibility of the Ministry of Advanced Education, but I’m sure the minister and staff have been in contact with the appropriate ministry to discuss this.

I’m wondering if we can get an update, because I believe there was a letter that came from TransLink, I think it was, a few months ago that suggested that the U-Pass might be cut back.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member says, this is not squarely within our ministry, so I will quote from the note in front of me. “The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is entering into a new contribution agreement with TransLink to extend the program to April 2018.” Beyond that, I really don’t have any news.

K. Corrigan: Okay, well, is the minister keeping in touch and pressing the case on behalf of students about the importance of the U-Pass? Is the minister confident, then, that there will be an agreement that goes to sometime in 2018? I’m wondering why it is that it’s only 2018. I thought the past agreement was a little bit longer than that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: All I can express is the widespread sentiment of students that this is a good thing and that it seems to be a desirable approach to managing transportation for students. In terms of the specifics of the duration, I really don’t have an answer. It’s best addressed to the Ministry of Transportation.

K. Corrigan: Well, I hope that the minister will be an advocate on behalf of students, because it does certainly affect students. I guess that’s a good segue.

I want to ask about what is happening with Bill 41. Bill 41, as the minister well knows, was the bill that was supposed to deal with the fact that student union fees, which had always been mandatory…. The mandatory nature of them was called into question as a result of the fact that the Society Act was amended last year, or maybe in 2014. Anyway, it was amended recently, and as a result of that, membership in student unions would not necessarily be mandatory, which of course would undercut their ability to have the fees that they need to provide the services to the students they represent.

[1800]

As a result of Bill 41, which the official opposition opposed, the minister did promise that there would be a consultation period in which there would be a review of all the fees that student unions…. I won’t say impose, because they’re voted on. They’re all voted on by the student bodies.

I’m wondering if the minister can give me an update on what’s happening with the negotiations about the fees that students vote on.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is correct. This is a subject of significant concern because the new Societies Act would provide that a member of a society could resign, which wasn’t the norm in earlier days. Of course, if a potential freeloading student came along and said they’d prefer to use the student union building but not pay for it and preferred to get away with all kinds of things for free, that would turn into a potential race to the exits.

We responded quite quickly to this on the basis that if student organizations do take on debt for a new student union building, such as the $10 million debt at the University of the Fraser Valley at Abbotsford, then they’re going to require a fee stream to pay for the building over time, to pay down the debt on the building. Part and parcel of this, of course, was sorting out the obligation of students to pay the student association fees and, for instance, the U-Pass and all the other things that come up as potential fees applicable to students, usually to all students.

The next step in this phenomenon is to draft the regulations. We have been in touch with the vast majority of
[ Page 11843 ]
the student associations — now at 18, I believe, out of probably 24, because the Justice Institute doesn’t really have much of a student association. They’re mostly police officers and firefighters. Of the student associations, the majority have been contacted, and we’re in the process of working on the regulations with them.

K. Corrigan: Is the guiding principle that student union fees that, as I’ve said, have been voted on and approved by students at the institutions — all the ones that exist — will be approved and will continue to exist?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member describes it, the guiding principle — that is exactly correct. That’s the starting premise that we begin this consultation with the student associations.

K. Corrigan: I’m wondering if the minister has an idea of what the regulations are going to look like. Is it the plan to list the fees that are permissible, which would then create an exhaustive list? Or is it to create categories? Or to say that, essentially, all the fees at the student union at a particular institution, as long as the students approve it by referendum, will be approved? I’m just wondering what the plan is.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I understand that the rather difficult task of drafting regulations is underway, because all the contacted student associations were asked to provide a comprehensive list of their menu of fees. Understandably, with that many different categories and that many institutions, one quickly gets into the low hundreds of different categories. So if this is amenable to categorizations such as a building capital fee or the U-Pass, that’s the easy part. The harder part is in characterizing the other fees as part of the regulations, and that’s underway now.

K. Corrigan: Which raises the issue that was raised during the debate on the bill, which we raised. Why would you just not say that if a student fee has been approved by referendum, then it is okay for it to be mandatory?

[1805]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: A great example is in my visit to Kwantlen’s campus in Langley. One of the students used the federal government term to describe himself as a status Indian and said that at Thompson Rivers University, he was easily able to opt out of the medical and dental coverage because he didn’t need it. It was duplicative of his federal government entitlements. But when he went to Kwantlen, it was extraordinarily difficult to exempt himself from the fee of a couple of hundred dollars for the medical and dental coverage that he did not want and was redundant. We’re in the process of sorting out these various nuances.

K. Corrigan: I think those types of exemptions were already being dealt with. We went over this during the bill, but those types of exemptions were already dealt with — all of the institutions. My understanding is that every single one of the institutions had some kind of very simple waiver form. All the students had to do was fill out — dental and medical coverage is a perfect example — a very simple form.

I saw the waiver form. It would take just a minute or two to fill it out. You could fill it out and provide evidence that you had coverage, and therefore, you would be able to exempt yourself. Those kinds of examples as a reason to have to detail what all the different fees are in order to then have them approved under the regulations seem like a backward way to do things, because all the student unions already had options in order to provide for those kinds of circumstances.

I don’t know if the minister wants to comment on that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I don’t have a reply.

K. Corrigan: Don’t have a reply. Okay.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about PCTIA. This was another piece of legislation that was dealt with — Bill 7, the Private Training Act. Again, I’ll try not to go through old legislation in great depth, but the gist of it was that government passed legislation several months ago that required private training institutions to go through a new regime of accreditation. I won’t get into all the nuances of that.

One of the groups, a very large group, that has essentially been forced to go under the umbrella of the act and of the new regime are language schools, and they’re very concerned. They were very concerned about the fact that they were included under the act, and they continue to be concerned. I’m just wondering if the minister can bring me up to date on any developments about whether or not — the consultation on those regulations, particularly as they affect language schools — there has been progress and what’s going on in that regard.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This again is a somewhat complicated topic in that language schools are not subject to registration with the outgoing system, known as PCTIA, or the incoming system, known as PTA or Private Training Act, unless they reach certain thresholds of hours per week and dollars of tuition.

Then, of course, language schools are still exempt unless they reach the threshold required in terms of duration to trigger the need for a visa from the federal government. A language school that seeks to be on the list of federally validated institutions for visa purposes has to receive a provincial designation no matter which province they’re in, which is known in this province as EQA designation.

[1810]

If a language school seeks to have EQA designation, then they must be registered with the PTA-PCTIA system. That would then put them on the provincially designated list which would be accepted by the federal government for visa purposes.

The language schools have been engaged in the development of the regulations in preparation for the Private Training Act. Those regulations are well along the path to full development, but they’re not there yet. We expect to have them out in the near future.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that the language schools had was that imposing this particular legislative scheme on language schools was going to be very onerous and was not the right kind of model for language schools, which already had, through Languages Canada, what had seemed to have been a very effective system that prevented students from, essentially, losing their money, which is what this is all about. It’s about regulating, making sure we have a high quality of institutions for international students.

What they say is happening now is that the language schools that want to be able to have students come for a lengthy period of time, as the minister said, are being required to register, and I would like to point out how onerous it is, according to Languages Canada.

For students that are going to small schools, they say the cost of registration in Alberta or Nova Scotia is $4,000 for the first year. In Ontario it’s $9,000, and under the new act, it is $21,500 in B.C. For a medium-sized school, it is $7,150 in Alberta or Nova Scotia, $22,150 in Ontario and $57,922 in British Columbia. For a large school, for the first year, it is $10,650 in Alberta or Nova Scotia, $35,650 in Ontario and $104,000 in British Columbia.

Now, I can’t attest to the veracity, but it’s a pretty good organization with a lot of credibility and history. I’m wondering if the minister is aware of the concerns that have been expressed, and I wonder if the minister is aware that the number of language schools has significantly declined in British Columbia, while those schools are increasing in other provinces. According to Languages Canada, it’s directly related to the cost under the new scheme.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As is often the case, these are more complicated stories than they first appear. I’m told by ministry staff that the dollar figures presented for British Columbia are not entirely accurate and that given that the regime has not even come into force yet, it’s hard to attribute the cost of running the organizations to declined enrolment or a change in location.

We also know that language instruction in Canada is massively based in Ontario and British Columbia. There are hardly any schools in the other provinces, perhaps because of weather or other reasons, so the comparison of British Columbia to Nova Scotia is really not an appropriate one.

Finally, there have been some large institutions that have withdrawn from Languages Canada, which would affect their statistical base.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

K. Corrigan: Thank you. I just want to ask one question about…. I would love to have had time to ask some more questions about student debt and student aid, but maybe I’ll just ask one question.

[1815]

I’m wondering if the minister could confirm how much it would cost to eliminate the interest that is charged on the grace period for student loans. In other words, many students are not aware that even though they have a grace period in order to start paying off their student loans, they are in fact charged interest for that time period. I’m wondering if the minister knows what that amount is.

Just because I’m not going to have another chance, and there are a couple of questions about student loans and student debt and student aid that I’d like to ask, maybe I can just put them in writing and pass them on to the minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Sure.

K. Corrigan: Okay. Thank you very much.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think the member has come to the point in estimates where we don’t have that number readily available. She has a couple of additional questions. Rather than read them into the record, she’s offered to send them to us in writing, and we’ll get a written response to her. That will create an orderly conclusion to our estimates.

At this point, I believe the Chair is moving that Vote 13 has come to a vote.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,947,632,000 — approved.

Vote 14: government communications and public engagement, $37,869,000 — approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions of the Ministry of Advanced Education estimates and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:17 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada