2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th 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 17, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 18, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 24)

Hon. B. Penner

Committee of the Whole House

Coroners Act (Bill 8) (continued)

M. Karagianis

Hon. J. Les

C. Puchmayr

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Coroners Act (Bill 8)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

Proceedings in

the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and

Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy (continued)

Hon. S. Bond

D. Cubberley

S. Hammell

[ Page 6749 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2007

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Penner: I do have an introduction to make —

actually two. In the House today we're fortunate to be joined by Mr. Dallas

Smith, president of the Nanwakolas Council. He comes from the midcoast of

British Columbia, and he's one of our first nations leaders in the province.

Also joining us today is Chloe O'Loughlin. Chloe is the executive director of

the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, B.C. chapter. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Parks and Protected Areas Statutes

Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I am pleased to introduce the Parks and

Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. With Earth Day approaching this

Sunday, it's entirely appropriate that we bring this new legislation forward.

This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British

Columbia Act, the Park Act and the Forest Act to continue our government's

ongoing work towards expanding B.C.'s parks and protected areas system,

including the creation of conservancies on the central coast and north coast.

[1005]

This bill will continue the implementation of historic land use

decisions that will protect some of the most significant, spectacular and

ecologically diverse landscapes and coastal areas in the entire world. The

creation of these protected areas is taking place in the broader context of a

land and resource management plan that will also provide certainty for land use

to support economic opportunities for coastal communities.

This balancing of environmental stewardship with economic

development is based on a historic collaboration that has taken place between

first nations, industry, conservation organizations, local governments and many

other stakeholders to arrive at the central coast and north coast land use

decisions that were announced by the Premier last year.

The amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will

establish 41 new conservancies in the central coast and north coast in addition

to the 24 conservancies that were established by this Legislature last year.

There are also amendments to the Protected Areas of British

Columbia Act that concern changes to the protected areas system in other parts

of the province. Three new class-A parks will be established, and additions will

be made to 16 existing parks. Several boundary descriptions will also be

updated, using more accurate mapped boundary description methods.

On an administrative note, I want to point out to all of the

members that the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the maps

for members' review that depict the boundaries of the new conservancies, parks

and expanded areas.

This bill also contains amendments to the Park Act and Forest Act

which will create a legislative mechanism for the deletion of and compensation

for forest tenure rights that are displaced by the creation or enlargement of

parks and conservancies. These provisions are being added to put in place a

clear, proactive framework respecting impacts on the rights of forest tenure

holders that occur when protected areas are established on Crown land that up to

that point have been available for timber harvesting.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Parks and Protected Areas Statutes Amendment Act, 2007,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Richmond: In this chamber I call committee on Bill

8, Coroners Act, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In

Section A,

Committee of Supply, continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Education.

[1010]

Committee of the Whole House

CORONERS ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

section 18 (continued) .

The Chair: You closed debate on

section 18, so I'm going to

call for the vote on

section 18.

[ Page 6750 ]

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

M. Karagianis: At the end of our discussion yesterday, I

had asked the circumstances around the minister's ability to order a coroner to

hold an inquest. I think we had just begun to discuss that at the end of the

day. I'd like to go back to that, because I think we hadn't finished.

I don't believe the minister had finished his comments here on the

circumstances around which the minister would order an inquest to be held and

the timeliness of that — given, obviously, the circumstances around backup in

the waiting list for coroners' inquests or the circumstances around that. The

minister was going to elaborate on where and how and why he would order an

inquest and what his power is there to speed up an inquest, if necessary.

Hon. J. Les: In

section 19, clearly, there is opportunity

provided for a minister to require an inquest to be held, generally speaking, in

both sections (

a) and (b) —

section (

a) being where an inquest has not already

been held, and in

section (

b) where an inquest has already been held. The

minister may decide that it is in the public interest that an inquest be held,

in the first instance, or that a second inquest be held. The determining

criteria would be that it is in the public interest to do so.

Once that decision or that request has been made by the minister —

that an inquest should be held — the timing of that inquest, of course, can be a

matter of some debate. Clearly, if there are ongoing criminal proceedings, as we

will see in the subsequent section, the Attorney General can actually request

that the inquest be delayed — and, I would suggest, rightly so.

Even absent that circumstance, there is still always going to be

the necessity to ensure that all of the relevant parties that would be required

to give evidence at an inquest would be available. In some cases it takes some

doing to assemble all of the people that you need to be able to conduct the

inquest.

My assumption would be that if a minister were to require an

inquest to be held, the general requirement would be that it be held as soon as

possible or as soon as practical, but that doesn't necessarily mean next week.

It in some cases could easily be a number of months.

[1015]

M. Karagianis: In reading further on this in subsection

(2) section 19 — under "receiving an order under subsection (1), the coroner must

hold the inquest" — it is my understanding that the minister has the power,

then, to actually call for an inquest even where the coroner would not

automatically hold an inquest or where there are other circumstances that would

lead the minister to call for an inquest above and beyond the normal procedure.

Is it true that the minister can? Can you call an inquest after

the fact, as well, after an investigation has closed down and there had been no

compelling reason or no impetus at the time to hold an inquest? Can the minister

then go back and say: "I would like to hold an inquest into that death"?

Hon. J. Les: If the minister determines that it is in the

public interest that an inquest should be held, whether or not one has been held

previously, it is his or her prerogative to so order. Once that request has been

made, then that inquest will happen.

M. Karagianis: Is this a process that can be triggered by

family members who feel that perhaps the death of a child in their family needs

to have an inquest after the fact? How is that process triggered for the

minister? Does that family contact the minister and say: "We believe an inquest

should be held into this"?

Hon. J. Les: I think it should be clear that there is never

going to be a cookie-cutter set of circumstances here that give rise to a

ministerial determination that the public interest requires an inquest to be

held. Every circumstance is different, and these are always, or very often, very

tragic circumstances. Each one is attended by a variety of issues, so I can't

imagine that there would be an awful lot of similarity between the

considerations that would lead to a minister requiring an inquest to be held,

but ultimately, of course, it is the minister's decision.

M. Karagianis: What I'm really trying to establish here

is…. In the case of, let's say for example, the number of child death files that

were put in storage and have not necessarily been put through an inquest

process, how would families trigger that? I mean, there are hundreds of those

files that have been sitting in storage. We know that the children's

representative will not necessarily take that as part of her mandate, to go back

and look and demand reviews on any of those child deaths.

For families that have been waiting for closure or outcomes on all

of those files, how is that process triggered? Is that through the minister? Is

that through the Coroners Service? Is that something that's done through the

children's representative's office? How do a number of those families get some

kind of process — inquest or otherwise — on those lost files?

Hon. J. Les: I guess I should say at the outset here that I

think the member opposite is running off the rails a little bit. The files in

question that she refers to had in fact all been investigated by the Coroners

Service. What had not been done was the review of all of the files on a

collective basis. But all of those files had been appropriately investigated,

whether the causes of death were natural or unexpected. If unexpected and

unnatural, the usual coroner's investigations will have been done on all of

those files.

I don't actually recall, as I stand here, whether any of those

files resulted in inquests. There may well have been. But if an inquest was

required, that determination

[ Page 6751 ]

would have been made at that time by the Coroners Service.

[1020]

I would caution against confusing or mixing up coroner's

investigations, in the first instance, with the child death review process,

which is a process that is quite different. It is an additional process that

often results in a collective review of all child deaths to determine trends and

issues that need to be commented on in a collective sense.

M. Karagianis: In my reference to the numbers of files that

were in storage, I in fact have had families approach me with regard to some of

those files, asking whether or not there was going to be some closure for some

of them. I know of several cases where it is possible that an inquest may have

been appropriate with regard to the manner in which those children died. I think

of one in particular. It's a constituent of mine whose nephew died in a fire,

and the family has actually had no reporting-out whatsoever on the nature of

that death and whether or not an inquest was appropriate.

With the greatest respect, I'm not trying to get off the rail, as

the minister framed it. I am asking: of any of those files, if families feel

that an inquest is still appropriate, is the course of action that they take

here…? Where it says that the minister may order a coroner to hold an inquest,

is this the appropriate avenue for those families to pursue some questions or

perhaps some initiative from the minister on that?

According to this, I see that the minister has that ability, and

I'm saying: is this the conduit, the channel, for families if they feel that

perhaps they are not satisfied with the outcome or reporting-out of those child

deaths? Is this the avenue they pursue to approach the minister directly and

say: "We'd like an inquest done"?

Hon. J. Les: A couple of things here. First of all, I want

to be very clear. I don't think that it's appropriate, frankly, in the context

of dealing with this legislation to be bringing forward individual cases for

commentary, certainly by me. I think that would be quite wrong for me to do

that.

We're dealing with the legislation. The legislation is very clear

that if there is a ministerial determination that it is in the public interest

that an inquest should be held, in the first instance, or indeed that there

should be a further inquest held, then the minister is empowered to call for

that investigation. As the legislation says, then, in that case, an inquest must

be held.

M. Karagianis: I wasn't asking the minister for a comment

on the specific case that I outlined. I was asking the minister whether or not

the appropriate avenue for families to pursue an inquest, if they felt one was

desired, was to contact the minister directly. Is that in fact what this

legislation says? If a family feels that an inquest is desirable, do they

approach the minister directly, do they go through the Coroners Service, or is

there some other avenue for them? I don't want any specific cases to be

commented on but really just the avenue that families would pursue here.

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, if someone feels that a death has not

been properly investigated, it has always been and, according to this

legislation, always will be an option for people to request the minister to

order an inquest. But I will also add to that that it is expected practice and,

I believe, common practice in British Columbia that all unnatural and unexpected

deaths are investigated. That is the expectation I continue to have. All deaths

are appropriately reviewed, investigated, commented upon and brought to a proper

conclusion.

[1025]

If someone — a family member or otherwise — has a feeling that

that has not been done in a certain case, then obviously I'd be interested in

hearing about that. Any minister, I suspect, upon learning of a set of

circumstances where a death had not been properly investigated, would want to

ensure that that investigation in fact does take place and an inquest called, if

that's appropriate.

M. Karagianis: In subsection (3) of

section 19 it talks

about the coroner holding a second inquest, and I know the minister has made

reference to second inquests. What would trigger a second inquest into a death?

Hon. J. Les: Again, that determination would be made

pursuant to the public interest. If the minister of the day decided that there

were some outstanding issues that he or she felt had not been appropriately

addressed or there was some other issue in the realm of the public interest that

would benefit from further investigations through the holding of a second

inquest, then that decision could be made.

M. Karagianis: Back to my previous questions on this. Is

that something that a family could actually trigger if they felt that there was

something further to be investigated or perhaps they were not satisfied with the

conclusion? Could they then request a second inquest of the minister?

Hon. J. Les: Again, there are no two sets of circumstances

that would be similar. There will be a variety of ways in which a minister would

come to the determination that a second inquest was desirable or in the public

interest. That could come as a request from members of the public or members of

the family — any number of different people.

I think any minister would want to always consult widely and, in

so doing, would be able to come to a balanced decision as to whether or not a

second inquest would be necessary. I would suspect that calling for a second

inquest would be an extremely rare occasion indeed. Nonetheless, that vehicle is

provided for in the act out of an abundance of ensuring that the public interest

is well served.

Sections 19 to 30 inclusive approved.

[ Page 6752 ]

section 31.

M. Karagianis: On

section 31, "Who may participate in

inquest." This is under the division "Evidence at Inquest." This lays out very

clearly a number of criteria for who may participate in this. I'm particularly

interested in subsection (4) of

section 31: "A participant is responsible for

paying fees and expenses the participant incurs in respect of legal

representation or advice in relation to the inquest."

[1030]

This topic has come up before. I think I outlined some of this in

my remarks when the bill was first introduced around family members'

participation in inquests and the hardship of that. I know of some particular

circumstances around this that are behind my questioning. Is there an allowance

here by government for family hardship in participation in inquests?

Hon. J. Les: I should point out that the expenses we're

talking about here are the expenses related to the retention of legal counsel.

They are not the expenses related to travelling to and from or staying in hotels

and that kind of thing, and the legislation does not contemplate subsidizing

people for the retention of legal counsel.

When we use the term "participants" here, we are not necessarily

referring at all to family members. There would be a wide variety of possible

participants in a coroner's inquest, and they would all be responsible for their

own legal costs.

M. Karagianis: I take the minister's comments to mean there

is actually no hardship clause whatsoever that's applicable to this

section of

the act.

Hon. J. Les: Not as it relates to legal costs.

M. Karagianis: In the case of where family members have

been required to participate and in fact seek legal counsel for a variety of

reasons — either because they don't have the confidence in their participation

without legal counsel or where it may be advisable, but that there may be

compelling hardship for those individuals — what other options can they seek in

order to participate?

Often there may be distant family members who end up participating

in inquests for a variety of reasons, who may seek legal counsel as

confidence-building or as a way to express their particular concerns more

eloquently. What avenues do they then have to pursue in order to be allowed that

equal representation if they're in a financial position that does not allow them

to pay for that — where they're being compelled to participate in the inquest?

[1035]

Hon. J. Les: I guess I should underline a couple of things

here: first of all, the fact that a coroner's inquest is not a fault-finding

exercise. So therefore, it is not necessarily at all a legally adversarial kind

of forum. It is a fact-finding exercise. So that certainly reduces — if, in

fact, it doesn't eliminate — the need for people to be attended by legal

counsel.

I take the member's point that sometimes people can draw some

comfort by being attended by a lawyer, but that is at their discretion. The

coroner, when conducting an inquest, is there to represent the interests of the

deceased and all of the interests that flow from that and to find the facts and

the circumstances that related to that death. In many cases there is going to be

absolutely no requirement for the family members to be attended by a lawyer

because, in fact, what the coroner's inquest is intended to do is to find the

facts, to speak on behalf of the dead, as it were, and that's a commonly used

phrase.

M. Karagianis: Well, what about the case of participants in

representation? I notice in the previous clause (3) it says: "…participant may

be represented by counsel or, with the approval of the coroner, by an agent."

All of these things could incur costs, certainly, so if we have

a position, then, of having to bring either an agent or legal representation or

someone else that may be at their cost in order to participate, what are the

provisions for that?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, for an inquest to be successful,

people need to be able to communicate. If there are language barriers, those

need to be addressed. Where those language barriers might exist, the translation

services would be provided at the expense of the Coroners Service. Clearly,

everyone has an interest to make sure that people can actually understand and

communicate and what have you. So that doesn't necessarily at all conjure up the

need for legal advice.

Simple translation services that are required…. It's not unusual —

even in meetings that are quite informal, especially at the federal-provincial

level — that simultaneous translation is provided. If such services were

necessary to properly conduct a coroner's inquest, those kinds of facilities are

made available at the expense of the Coroners Service.

[1040]

Sections 31 to 50 inclusive approved.

section 51.

M. Karagianis: So the reporting of a review…. "Following

each review by the child death review unit or a death review panel, a member of

the child death review unit or…panel, as applicable, must…report to the chief

coroner…" etc.

This goes back to my question that I asked earlier on duty to

disclose to other family members. Can the minister maybe address in this

section

on the reporting out of a review how, in fact, this again triggers family

[ Page 6753 ]

members, other children in care, front-line agencies, caregivers and child

protection personnel in this review process?

Hon. J. Les: When a child death review process is complete,

the objective is to learn as much from those tragedies as possible, with the

ultimate objective of ensuring that we do whatever we can to prevent further

untimely deaths of children. It is obviously in the interests of everyone

concerned — society in general — to ensure that these child death reviews are

reported upon publicly to the extent possible so that we can together in British

Columbia take those actions that would limit similar deaths from occurring.

I recall the example a year or so ago when there was a report

released to do with a child's sleeping practices. Some very interesting

conclusions and recommendations came from that which I suspect will probably

have already saved some children's lives. Of course, we will never be able to

quantify that. That is the kind of product that we're trying to derive from

collectively looking at all of these tragedies to try and prevent further

instances occurring.

M. Karagianis: Is it the expectation, then, that the death

review panels themselves will be the conduit, in the case of children under

protection of the government, for bringing those resources into this as well?

I'm looking again at the circumstances around children in protection, the

environment in which they were living at the time that the death occurred, other

siblings or family members, or children in that environment that may be

endangered.

Does the death review panel act as that resource that connects

back to the child protection process? I don't see here in this reviewing process

anywhere where that particular aspect of children in protection is taken into

consideration.

[1045]

Hon. J. Les: When the child death review unit is assembled,

the composition of that group will vary from time to time depending on the

particular focus that is being applied. At the end of that process, once the

death review unit draws its conclusions and makes its recommendations, it is in

fact a conduit in that it supplies information to other agencies of government —

certainly to the Representative for Children and Youth, for example, and to the

Ministry of Children and Family Development and to others who have a very direct

interest in advancing the cause of child safety in British Columbia.

Very clearly, the child death review unit is an important

contributor to the process. I think the member opposite used the word "conduit."

I think in part, at least, that is correct. But that unit, though, at the same

time is not the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. It is not

the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It's an important contributor

to the process.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, in the minister's explanation

here…. I realize that the death review panel, obviously, is first and foremost

concerned with doing the death review. Part of their mandate — again, it's not

been included anywhere in this legislation — is that the Coroners Service has,

as part of their consideration in reviews, what the existing environment is

that's left behind in the death of a child — certainly under protection. So that

is my main concern here.

We've had some very harsh lessons here in the past couple of years

around a too narrowly prescribed mandate for the Coroners Service in looking at

the death of children that are under the protection of the government and those

left in the environment in which the death occurred.

I'm just looking for some comfort here that the legislation will

continue to allow for those recommendations to go out and for the process itself

to also reach out and protect any other children left in a dangerous

environment. It's been kind of a thread through my earlier comments.

At this particular point, in looking at how the reporting is done,

I want to make sure that that is part of the reporting process — looking at

other children that may still be in jeopardy in a situation as part of that

review.

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I should say that where the

member opposite earlier made the comment that the mandate of the coroner was too

narrowly described in the past…. That's simply not so. The Coroners Service in

British Columbia has always had a very straightforward and simple mandate: to

review all deaths that occur — period.

[1050]

With respect to the child death review unit, clearly there is an

evolving scenario, in that with the recently established Representative for

Children and Youth, we are developing those protocols between that office, the

child death review unit and the Coroners Service to make sure that all

information that is learned from the child death review unit is appropriately

shared with the Representative for Children and Youth.

Section 51 approved.

section 52.

M. Karagianis: In this

section around the appointment of

the coroner and other persons…. The actual

section 52 here is very

straightforward about how the appointment occurs, but what I would like to ask

about is qualifications for coroners and for persons that the coroners appoint.

What are those qualifications?

Hon. J. Les: When we are looking for individuals to serve

as coroners in the province, clearly we are looking for those kinds of people

who have the appropriate life skills. Often those are people with medical

expertise, people who have investigative capabilities, people who have legal

skills. When these people are accepted — provisionally, in the first instance —

they undergo at least six months of training in the Coroners Service on a

probationary basis, after which they are eligible to be appointed as coroners.

[ Page 6754 ]

We have people with quite a variety of backgrounds and skills in

the Coroners Service today. They don't all have to be former police officers,

doctors or lawyers, but certainly backgrounds akin to those professions are

important. An ability to analyze a situation, a good ability to take a set of

circumstances and come to the appropriate conclusions, is very, very important.

We have, I think, a good process operative in the province today that, to date,

has given us a very good and professional Coroners Service.

[1055]

M. Karagianis: I would take it, then, from the minister's

comments that not all coroners or persons appointed by the Coroners Service have

medical expertise or experience?

Hon. J. Les: That would be correct.

M. Karagianis: And why would we be not requiring all people

participating in the coroner's investigation process to have medical experience

of some sort?

Hon. J. Les: When a community coroner or regional coroner

is conducting an investigation, they have the ability to avail themselves of all

kinds of specialist assistance as required, whether that's legal assistance,

investigative assistance or medical assistance. So it's not required in the

first instance to have that coroner himself or herself qualified as a medical

professional. If they need medical assistance, they have the ability to avail

themselves of that in every case.

M. Karagianis: In the situation where the Coroners Service

took on all of the child death reviews, was there a process for educating the

coroners on the kinds of trauma and the kinds of medical circumstances around

abuse and neglect of children?

Hon. J. Les: When a child death review process occurs,

there is a variety of expertise that is brought to bear on that process, and we

have on the staff in the Coroners Service a medical doctor, a pediatric nurse

specialist, a child death investigator and numerous other resources that are

brought together to ensure that the child death review process is as complete

and thorough as is possible.

I am quite confident that with these high-level resources, these

very specialized abilities we have, the child death review process is indeed

very thorough and offers the public generally and certainly everyone involved

with these processes the ability to derive as much information from these

tragedies as possible.

M. Karagianis: Is the Coroners Service — the team that the

minister has just alluded to — available throughout the entire province? If a

child's death occurs in the far north or some isolated community, does this team

actually go into that community to work in order to investigate that child's

death?

[1100]

Hon. J. Les: Yes, these people are all available everywhere

and anywhere in the province by a variety of means, but by travelling if

necessary.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

section 54.

M. Karagianis:

Section 54 is the appointment of coroners.

The chief coroner may appoint, in accordance with the Public Service Act, one or

more persons to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the coroner under

this act.

Can the minister perhaps elaborate on when this would be done and

why this would be done and whether these appointments would be long-term or

short-term? What is the nature of these kinds of appointments?

Hon. J. Les: The intention in clause 1 of

section 54…. The

appointments here are the equivalent to an individual being hired as a member of

the public service.

M. Karagianis: Under what circumstances would that occur?

Is this simply hiring more people into the Coroners Service, or is this perhaps

appointing people to deal with situations I outlined earlier in

section 52 — in

remote areas, in the far north or in circumstances like that? Or is this simply

the mechanism by which you can hire more people into the service?

Hon. J. Les: What we're talking about in this

section is

the appointment of regional coroners. These are the more senior level of

positions within the Coroners Service. That is distinct from community coroners,

which are a different level of employee and appointment within the Coroners

Service.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

M. Karagianis: Would the criteria and qualifications in

each of these circumstances be the same as for the chief coroner or a coroner

that was appointed by the government?

Hon. J. Les: When any position is filled in the Coroners

Service, the principle that's always observed is one of merit. We want to make

sure that the people we attract into the Coroners Service have the skills and

abilities that are required to do the job appropriately and with discretion.

That will always be the guiding principle, whether they are community coroners,

regional coroners or in fact the chief coroner himself or herself.

We want to be sure that we have people who have the right skills,

knowledge and background and have the right training, as well, to discharge

their responsibilities appropriately.

[1105]

M. Karagianis: In

section 2 it says that the coroner may

delegate to any coroner any of the chief coroner's

[ Page 6755 ]

powers or duties under this act. Under which circumstances would that occur,

and why is that necessary?

Hon. J. Les: This particular clause in the act is actually

fairly standard in the public service. Of course, all of the powers and

authorities of the Coroners Service are vested in the chief coroner. When any

activity within the Coroners Service occurs, it's almost by definition a

delegation of that authority by the chief coroner to a regional coroner or a

community coroner, as the case may be. I don't think there's anything unusual

here. This is pretty standard practice.

Sections 54 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 63.

M. Karagianis: I see here under both sections 63 and 64

that there are some new prohibitions around disclosure. Can the minister explain

why there are some restrictions beyond the standard Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. J. Les: When a coroner's investigation is being

conducted, it is important to ensure that that investigation is in no way

fettered by concerns around disclosure of information. Information that is

derived in a coroner's inquest process can sometimes be intensely private,

personal and in some cases perhaps even pejorative in some future proceeding.

At the same time, it is still important that we, in conducting an

inquest, discover all of the facts. To the extent that it is necessary to

provide some protection against disclosure to arrive at all of the facts, it is

important to be able to do that.

M. Karagianis: I don't understand why you don't have faith

that the Freedom of Information Act as it stands gives the coroner all of the

tools necessary to do exactly what the minister is saying. Why no trust here in

the Freedom of Information Act? Why are special clauses being written that go

beyond that, which actually constrain disclosure?

[1110]

Hon. J. Les: In fact, I have a great deal of trust in the

office of freedom of information and privacy protection to the extent that we

consulted extensively with the freedom-of-information commissioner in developing

these particular sections of the act. I can tell the member opposite that he is

comfortable with the language in the legislation as it is written today.

Sections 63 to 67 inclusive approved.

section 68.

M. Karagianis: The language here with regard to disclosure

to the Representative for Children and Youth…. It's somewhat similar wording in

section 67, but in

section 68 I just have some concern around the terminology —

that "…the chief coroner or the chair of the child death review unit may at any

time disclose information…."

I'm concerned as to why there's no requirement or expectation of

disclosure of information rather than some discretionary ability here for the

Coroners Service to withhold information.

Hon. J. Les: This particular section, if it's read

correctly, actually protects the Coroners Service where it decides to share

information with others. This is a

section that enables it to do that with the

Representative for Children and Youth.

There are many scenarios where there may be a question of whether

or not it is appropriate or in the particular interest to share information. But

this

section clearly enables the Coroners Service to share that information, as

they decide is appropriate, with the Representative for Children and Youth.

M. Karagianis: Conversely, this

section also allows the

Coroners Service to withhold information from that office, does it not?

Hon. J. Les: The Representative for Children and Youth in

her legislation actually has the ability to compel information to be produced.

So I think there's a good balance here that ultimately will have the effect of

making sure that all information is available.

Sections 68 to 79 inclusive approved.

section 80.

C. Puchmayr: My questions are with respect to this part of

the act being repealed. I would like to get some clarity as to why that is being

repealed from the Coroners Act, which makes reference to

section 36(1), and its

repealing of

section 20 of the Mines Act.

[1115]

Hon. J. Les: Nothing nefarious afoot here. The relevant

provision is being deleted here, but it has been migrated into

section 21(3) of

the act that we are debating today.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister then explain whether this

is actually strengthening the provisions that existed in 36(1)?

Hon. J. Les: There are no changes with respect to the

powers or abilities of anyone under this section.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister then explain why that is no

longer required to be a direct part of the Mines Act?

Hon. J. Les: Quite simply, what we're dealing with here is

the powers of individuals in respect of inquests which are best dealt with under

the Coroners Service — legislation relating to the Coroners Service — as

[ Page 6756 ]

opposed to that relating to the Mines Act. So this is clearly a provision

that simplifies — in no way detracts from current powers and abilities — and

makes more transparent the abilities and powers of certain individuals.

Sections 80 to 87 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Les: I move the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:18 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

CORONERS ACT

Bill 8, Coroners Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Committee of Supply, estimates

debate for the Ministry of Forests and Range.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

AND RANGE AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $489,876,000.

Hon. R. Coleman: To my left is Doug Konkin, the Deputy

Minister of Forests for the province of British Columbia. Through these

discussions, I imagine we will cycle through a number of staff who I will

introduce by name and title as they come through so that the committee is aware

of who is here.

I'm just going to deal with forestry in my opening remarks this

morning. I will deal with the issues in and around housing as we get to that

portion of the estimates debates, which will come, I understand, after the

forestry questions are done with.

In forestry our job is basically to oversee the public interest in

forests in British Columbia. That means providing leadership in the protection,

management and use of the province's forests and range lands, and responsibility

for stewardship of over 47 million hectares of provincial forest land. There's

an estimated budget of $730 million for '07-08 that covers a number of core

business areas.

First, there's the protection against fires and pests. That's to

manage fire to protect the provincial Crown land and invest in the forest land

base. It is an increasingly interesting, dynamic area of the ministry as we deal

with pests and fire. As everyone can be quite aware, fires are actually more and

more a challenge to the ministry, as we've noticed over the last number of

years. Plus, of course, everybody is so familiar with the pests that we're

dealing with in forests in British Columbia — one in particular being the

mountain pine beetle.

This includes increasing the emphasis on fuel management and

constructive uses of fire. This is a public issue — to try to get the public to

understand that fire sometimes is a good thing with regards to forest management

and also the mountain pine beetle, which I mentioned earlier and will expand on

later.

Of course, there are other beetles. There are the spruce beetle,

the Douglas fir beetle, the western pine beetle and others. We have no shortage.

I find that every tree has its own bug.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, from your chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: Otherwise, you can harass me. You just

have to go to your chair to do it.

The second is forest stewardship, with sound environmental

stewardship for the forest resources, including looking at future forest

conditions and ensuring that actions today optimize future benefits from our

forests.

Range stewardship and grazing. Work with other agencies to ensure

a healthy, viable range industry; manage range by limiting invasive plants,

restoring damaged lands and limiting forest encroachment on grasslands.

Compliance and enforcement, which is to uphold B.C.'s laws

protecting forests and range in other ministries' jurisdiction and act on forest

crimes such as theft, arson and mischief.

Forest investment. Through the Forest Investment Account, some

revenues are invested back into the land base. This ensures that we have

productive forests for future generations.

Pricing and selling of our timber. Ensuring British Columbians

benefit from the commercial use of their forest assets; providing a competitive

regulatory framework, fair pricing system and effective allocation of timber

harvesting rights.

The seventh area that we deal with is timber sales itself, which

is the auctioning of significant portions of provincial annual allowable cut to

generate pricing and cost data. This drives our market-based pricing system and

provides competitive access to timber for industry.

We have a number of key priorities in the ministry. Obviously, one

of them is to deal with the mountain pine beetle action plan. The infestation is

the largest in B.C.'s history, affecting 9.2 million hectares of land. More than

582 million cubic metres of timber has been attacked. The mountain pine beetle

action plan sets out

[ Page 6757 ]

steps for both the short- and long-term issues with regards to the plan, and

it is backed by nearly $500 million in provincial money.

We continue to want to support the communities. In the last month

alone we've given additional money to the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action

Coalition, $900,000; the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition, $900,000; and the seed

money and funding to help the Southern Interior Beetle Action Coalition build

their business case and start to get to work in their area of the province as

the beetle moves there.

[1125]

The climate change. We support the climate change action plan that

is being prepared by government. By exploring new ways to use the wood residue

and beetle-attack timber to create new clean energy; adapting to climate change

by studying and modifying standards; by increasing tree-planting efforts through

Forests for Tomorrow, reforesting areas affected by the 2003-2004 wildfires and

mountain pine beetle infestations that are not being harvested.

In 2006-2007 we planted 732 hectares in addition to what the

licensees would have done, site-prepared 4,560 hectares, surveyed another 65,800

hectares and grew 13.7 million additional seedlings. Together, government and

industry and licensees plan to plant a minimum of 180 million seedlings this

year. That number is to increase to 220 million to 250 million seedlings by the

year 2009-2010. We are on track in British Columbia to plant our six-billionth

tree next spring.

On the other issue that faces the province, and as we go through

these issues in estimates, there is one in front of us that is basically a coast

action plan and log exports. A great deal of work has been done in the last 17

months, working with coast stakeholders with regards to issues that face us in

forestry on the coast today.

In 2001 Peter Pearse said that antiquated mills must close, and

government needs to make market-based forest policy changes. We responded to

that in 2003 with a 2003 forest revitalization plan. We enabled wood to travel

to the highest and best by eliminating appurtenancy — no longer forced operators

to log when uneconomic to do so — and we introduced market-based pricing.

More recently we introduced changes to scaling and updated pulp

log grades. The Competition Council report has given us some information with

regards to the coast. We did recently appoint the Pulp and Paper Task Force. We

commissioned a review of the log export policy, which everyone has had the

opportunity to read, I'm sure. I know the critic has. It was called the

Wright-Dumont report, which dealt with a whole bunch of issues in and around log

exports and, frankly, didn't make any definitive recommendations with regards to

this often controversial and interesting discussion that takes place around

logs.

But we do need to continue to create an investment climate that

supports a future on the coast. It has to be a vibrant, healthy coastal forest

sector because of the people it affects and the communities that need it. We're

going to announce that coast action plan in the near future. It is in its final

process of the discussions where you're down to what dollars go where, what is

being identified as a priority, what can be accomplished, how it affects how we

will operate on the coast, etc.

It's a very complex amount of work that's been done. I thank all

of the participants that have been there, through different organizations —

whether it be organized labour, communities or in fact the CEOs and companies

themselves in the forest products sector. There is more to be done before that

plan will actually be in position to be finalized, and there are more meetings

planned. Of course, some of them have now been delayed, given the fact that I am

in estimates for the next…. Lord knows how long we'll be here. So some of those

meetings will actually take…. That's fine. We can always do them in the evening,

which is what we will probably do.

On the first nations side, we're the first government to set aside

revenue-sharing for first nations. We committed to increasing the first nations

participation in the forest sector. Since September 2002 we have signed

agreements with 128 first nations, including forest and range agreements and

direct awards. It provides for 24.4 million cubic metres of timber and $166.5

million in shared forest revenues.

The challenge with first nations — as we've gone through that and

built this relationship with them on forest and range agreements and

opportunities, as we've come through — is the fact that we now need them to

help. We need them to work with industry and each other to build their capacity

and build the capacity for them to be able to be successful in the forest

sector.

The bottom line is that now that the wood has been awarded at that

level, we'd actually like to see the wood move. We would like to see them on the

land base, getting the opportunities from cutting the wood and the opportunities

it can by selling the wood and building in their communities the jobs they want

to build. That's the next challenge with regards to that piece of the file,

which we'll continue to work on.

In forest safety, the ministry is committed to efforts to continue

to improve forest safety in the forest sector. As of April 1, B.C. Timber Sales

requires all bidders to be registered as a SAFE company with all to be certified

by the end of the year. If you're not going to be a SAFE company, you won't be

allowed to bid on wood in British Columbia.

[1130]

We've asked the Auditor General to conduct an independent safety

review, a report that I understand is scheduled to be back to me by the end of

June. That was done to see, with the work that was done starting in 2005 with

the Forest Safety Council and industry and union, what successes we were having

from what we were putting out there.

There's no question that forestry is a complex, interesting and

dynamic ministry to be the minister of. It poses challenges on a daily basis. It

proposes nuances

[ Page 6758 ]

that oftentimes have to be taken into consideration with a number of other

issues as well as statutory authorities and other issues with regards to how we

manage the land base. We're on our way, I think, with more work to be done.

There always will be. I'm optimistic that together we can get there, and I look

forward to the debates on the ministry's budget in the next few days.

B. Simpson: I note that the minister has another staff

person with him that he may want to introduce.

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess Mary snuck in behind me while I

was talking. Mary Myers is the budget manager. She's the one who actually keeps

me fiscally straight. Doug is the one who keeps me straight on policy and

statutory authority, and brilliant in my speaking publicly to make sure that I

know what I'm talking about.

B. Simpson: I will not rise to the bait on the brilliance

of the minister's public speaking around forestry issues.

I do want to open with a few words, because as people are aware, I

live in a community that's in the heart of the mountain pine beetle. It is a

forest-dependent community. It has gone through all of the ups and downs of the

forest industry over a number of decades, but it now faces a challenge the likes

of which it has never seen before. I look forward to exploring some of that in

estimates, because we need to know what the nature of that challenge is going to

be. I've also worked in the industry for a number of years and consulted to it

before that. It's an industry in a sector that's near and dear to me.

It's very easy to use the word crisis with respect to the forest

sector, and I know that the minister likes to refer to me as Chicken Little when

I use the word crisis, so I'm going to use a different word today. And it's not

my word. It's actually the word of someone who has spent a lot of time in the

forest industry, as a forest industry analyst, and has done forest research for

many, many years in both the solid wood and pulp and paper sectors.

In a recent

article in Truck Logger Magazine , this

individual simply says: "The forest industry is in a mess." Those aren't my

words; those are the words of someone who has been in this industry for a very

long time. He says: "It suffers from conflicts between economic, social and

policy forces. We're operating like a giant forestry sudoku game. Individual

problems are given short-term fixes and then the fix causes a new problem,

bringing the forest economy to its knees. We must find a way to do things

differently to make the numbers line up neatly without violating the multitude

of pernicious short-term rules."

Again, Madam Chair, those aren't my words, but they capture the

essence of the challenge that we have in front of us with respect to the forest

sector. It is in a mess. It is in a mess no matter where you look.

What I would hope to do during this estimates debate is challenge

in the area of leadership through this time. That's what we need. We need

someone who is willing to embrace the full breadth and extent of the challenge

that we're confronted with — not run from it and not be overly optimistic about

it but present it as the challenge that it is — and in all manners of public

engagement speak the words of the challenge that we have and not go into the old

debate of forestry is a sunset industry or a sunrise industry, which does no one

any good.

The reality that we're confronted with is quite different,

depending on where you go in the province. On the coast my experience — the best

way that I can capture it — is that we're in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Back in

the mid-'90s after the Kobe earthquake, the forest industry on the coast had

cash but did not invest it in the coast at that time — for all manner of reasons

they didn't do it — and we're now living with the consequences of that lack of

investment.

[1135]

The interesting thing is that that same group of companies are the

ones who are going around and who have the voice of the government to say what

it's going to look like in order for us to get investment again. We're into a

vicious downward cycle where the large corporations have a voice. The

independents, the remanufacturers, the communities, the workers do not.

Every time you want to do something on the coast, we go and ask

the corporations — who missed their opportunity to readjust to the marketplace —

what they need. What they need, according to them — whether it's the coast

restructuring group, the Competition Council, the steering group, the recovery

group…. I'm sure we'll get the same from the pulp CEOs. They want lower taxes,

lower wages, less regulation and lower input costs. They want their stumpage

down.

That's a no-brainer. That's one sector of the forest industry and

the forest sector that is giving their wish list. At the same time, we have, for

example, on the coast two cash-rich companies, TimberWest and Interfor, who have

cash in their pocket, who have the deregulation from the Forestry Revitalization

Act, who have the changes to the Forest Act, who have had their input costs

reduced by a coastal master agreement on wages and fairly low stumpage rates.

They still will not invest in the coast, yet they have the rights over the land

base, and they are using those rights over the land base to become exporters of

logs.

It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy by people who want to

give a good return to their investors, and I don't have any problems with that

at all. That's how the free market works. That's how corporations work. That's

the job of a CEO in a corporation. But the job of government, particularly in

this case, is to ensure that communities and workers and British Columbians

benefit from our public forests, and that job is not being done.

I actually jokingly said — I guess about 18 months ago now — that

my prediction in the interior would be that we would probably have one or two

major corporations left with a few mega-mills. I thought that maybe ten

[ Page 6759 ]

years, 20 years might be the case, if we continued on this path. Anybody who

is paying attention to the industry knows that that could be sooner rather than

later, with what's going on with Canfor and with the rumours that are abounding

around Third Avenue Management and what Third Avenue Management is doing in this

province.

The southern interior still has to go through its compression of

the marketplace and the corporate buyouts that have to occur there, but

certainly north of 100 Mile House we have two major players, and that's starting

to cause all kinds of grief for all kinds of communities.

Over top of all of this, of course, is what's happening on the

land base. I'm happy to hear that the minister said today that he recognizes

there's more of the mountain pine beetle on the land base and that he recognizes

the fire component to that. The reality is that that land base is under severe

threat, and it's only going to get worse.

Both parts of the province, the coast and the interior, are being

significantly affected by climate change. One of the things that we'll explore

in estimates is what the costs are of the storms that we've got on the coast.

People in Vancouver got all out of sorts about Stanley Park — and rightly so.

That's their gem, and they take great pride in it.

What doesn't seem to have gone into the psyche of British

Columbians, particularly in the lower mainland, is that those storms hit our

entire coastal forest region. They hit everywhere. We had bridges out, roads

out, trees down. We had crews that were trapped and couldn't be helicoptered

out. We had Port Alberni as an entire community that was trapped and cut off for

days. The combination of fire threat and forest health threat in the interior,

the potential for those continuous storms…. In fact, we haven't been doing the

logging that we need to do on the coast to get logs into the log market. We've

been out of the bush so often because of fire threats and storms and late snows

and everything else.

Climate change is going to be a major issue here, but there's

another issue behind all of this. I'm glad the minister mentioned the Forestry

Revitalization Act, because we're going to explore that in estimates quite

extensively. I believe that the Forestry Revitalization Act not only did not

achieve any of its stated outcomes; it is actually now in the way of us doing

meaningful change that we need to do. That will be explored in depth.

[1140]

As we've heard in this House, oligarchy seems to be the word of

the spring session. That is a very serious issue, and I've alluded to it

already. We also have now monopolistic situations in certain areas of the

province, and that's not good for anybody.

In 2003 what actually did happen was the complete gutting of the

social contract from our public forests. It was completely ripped to shreds, and

I cannot help but feel that the government's actions in this regard — their

continuation of only speaking to the large corporations about forestry issues

and about forest policy changes — has to be related to what happens on the

Liberal Party donation side. It feeds the cynicism that from '96 to '06 the

forest companies have donated $6,336,980 to the Liberal Party. That's a lot of

money and buys a lot of time with the minister and with the Premier's office and

really shows where and why what we've done in this term has favoured the

corporations.

We also have the Forest and Range Practices Act, and we'll explore

that in estimates. The Forest and Range Practices Act has effectively shut the

public out of any discussions about the land base. The forest practices act was

initiated in 2003. We're still struggling, in 2007, to put it on the ground. The

minister had to postpone the end date of that until March 31. We're going to

explore where we're at on that, because I'll tell you that people on the ground

— registered professional foresters, people in the ministry who have been on the

ground for a long time — say that they don't know what the lay of the land is.

They are caught between two worlds. Some activities on the land base are under

forest development plans, and some activities on the land base will be under

forest stewardship plans. Nobody knows what these forest stewardship plans mean.

The intended result of the government was to have excellence in

environmental standards. No one can guarantee that that will occur under forest

stewardship plans. The sad fact of that is that once a forest stewardship plan

is approved, neither the public nor even the ministry staff have much in the way

of oversight anymore — if at all.

We also have found out in recent months that the government did

not do the due diligence that it needed to do around legal objectives in

conjunction with the forest stewardship plans. The people in Clayoquot were

quite surprised to find out in a presentation from the Ministry of Forests and

Range staff that the higher-level values in the Clayoquot and all the work that

was done there cannot be protected under the Forest and Range Practices Act and

that we have to find other mechanisms to protect it. That was quite a shock and

caused quite a panic.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands was brought into

that discussion. I canvassed that at length in Agriculture and Lands because

that's where higher-level objectives and land use planning rests, and quite

frankly I was not satisfied with the answers. We simply don't know if the new

results-based code is going to work. What it has become is the legal morass that

the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, the Forest Practices Board, the

West Coast Environmental Law Association and everybody else said it was going to

become.

In the Forest and Range Practices Act there are no values for some

of the things that the minister has spoken of. There are no values for fire, so

in a forest stewardship plan I don't have to talk about managing for fire. There

are no values for worker safety, and in a forest stewardship plan I don't have

to talk about how I'm going to ensure worker safety. In a forest stewardship

plan I don't have to talk about forest health activities.

[ Page 6760 ]

We will canvass the defined area management program and that

fiasco, and how we've lost control over forest health activities, and how we

can't protect it under FRPA now. Of course, there are no values stated

explicitly for climate change.

On top of 2003, we then roll forward to last year and another

nightmare scenario — that is, the softwood lumber agreement. I predicted at the

time that it was an agreement that would not hold. My gut reaction to the terms,

my gut reaction to the iterations of it as it was revealed to me, based on my

experience in the industry and based on who I was talking to in the industry,

was that it would not hold. What did we get?

[1145]

A couple of days ago two of the key negotiators in the softwood

lumber agreement — high-level people…. In fact, Mr. Aldonas was involved with

the Liberal government here very early on in their mandate to try and figure out

how to avoid a softwood lumber agreement through the Revitalization Act. Mr.

Aldonas knows softwood, and he states categorically that the deal will likely

not last. It's coming apart, and we're going to explore that.

There's a couple of things of interest here — the softwood lumber

agreement, for example. We still are arguing about how to define the surge

mechanism. That's an ongoing argument. You would think that would be dealt with

in the negotiations, but it's an ongoing argument.

The independent manufacturers are still arguing with Revenue

Canada over taxation. The woodlot federation was promised by the minister that

they would get a stumpage adjustment, which all of a sudden was cancelled

because we couldn't take it forward under the softwood lumber agreement.

We would be in a worse situation if this government hadn't done

another thing, and that was create a monopoly for CN Rail. As the minister must

have heard at the Council of Forest Industries this past week, CN Rail's

monopoly is now causing grief for all the lumber manufacturers in the interior.

They cannot get product to market.

But there's a trap there, because if they could get their product

to market, we would most likely be in surge. We would most likely go from a

15-percent penalty to a 22.5-percent penalty, and they know it. The only thing

that's floating some of the independents and the smaller operators in the

southeast is the fact that we haven't yet hit surge, so the worst is yet to

come.

I'm also being told by the industry that we would see a lot more

downtime as a result of the softwood lumber agreement if one thing wasn't a

reality for everybody — that is, they don't want to lose their workers. They

cannot afford to introduce instability into the mills because they are afraid of

losing their workers, particularly their trained millwrights and some of the new

apprentices they have.

The coast position seems to be that we're defaulting to log

exports. We've canvassed that in question period. We've done a lot of work

around that, and I want to explore that further in estimates. As I said, the

interior default seems to be a few mega-mills.

Yet the Premier, when he stood at the Council of Forest Industries

last week, said that all it is, is that we're in a time of change and that

everybody somehow has to embrace change. It's just like going from the

horse-and-buggy days to the car days, which I think kind of dated the Premier

more than anything else.

The magnitude of the change we've got is way more significant than

that. What I believe we need in all of this is to move away from positive spin,

to move away from boosterism, and to embrace the realities and the depth of the

challenges that we're confronted with.

Again, the minister has been asked by a variety of groups to hold

a summit on forestry, to hold a conversation around this province on forestry

and to hear directly from people in this province how deep their fears and their

concerns are for the viability of their communities, their mills and their jobs.

I would suggest — and we'll canvass this as well — that one start

in that would be the bioenergy strategy. The bioenergy strategy should be a

public consultation document. It should not be actioned without public

consultation.

The coastal strategy that the minister spoke about and that we're

all eagerly anticipating should not be a strategy that's actioned but should go

out for public debate and discussion. As the deputy minister and the minister

are both aware, I believe one of the foundations for that discussion has to be

the tenure discussion that we have avoided for a long time in this province.

It is about time that we did that. The 20-percent clawback, as

we'll see during estimates, simply isn't working. It's not sufficient to drive a

true log market. It's time that we talked about tenure and that we talked about

it in a very real way.

We also need to look in a deeper way at the implications of

climate change with respect to forest management. We'll explore that with

respect to what the chief forester is doing, but I believe significantly more

resources need to go to that.

Finally in all of this, part of that conversation has to be:

what's the new social contract? Communities and workers and British Columbians

have a right to derive benefit from their public forests, and that right has

been removed from them.

[1150]

With that, Madam Chair, I will get into a quick question before we

take a break. With the minister having his numbers person with him, of the $730

million for '07-08…. Let me rephrase the question. Are things like

revitalization compensation — the amount that the minister mentioned for first

nations of $166.5 million…? Are those Ministry of Forests operating costs that

are included in what's reported out annually?

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, that's too bad because, boy,

I would have liked to have done a bunch of sour grapes stuff on Mr. Aldonas and

a few other things, but I'm sure we're going to get our opportunity in the next

day or so.

[ Page 6761 ]

Mr. Aldonas was actually the guy who was the architect under the

federal Liberals who tried to drive a deal in B.C. that was going to be way

worse than the softwood deal that's before us today. It was one that was going

to put a 15-percent tax on only B.C. companies and nobody else in Canada. I'm

glad the member opposite wants to think he's an expert on softwood, but I think

he was a failed expert on softwood.

Just to the member's question — I note the time, Madam Chair — $50

million is in the budget for revenue-sharing with first nations. That is the

actual dollar amount; that isn't the wood. It is the capacity-building portion

of the Forests and Range opportunities that is included in the budget.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report a small amount

of progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR

EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $5,494,380,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Bond: I have a number of things that I would like

to put on the record. It was, in essence, our homework assignment from

yesterday. I want to be sure we're covering off some of the questions that were

asked of us, and we didn't have the answers right at the tips of our fingers.

I'm sorry that I won't try to link them directly to the questions,

but there was a question yesterday about Yahk Elementary School and how the

transition had worked with students that were moving from the Bountiful

community. Currently Yahk Elementary School has 24 students. It is continuing to

work very well. There are three students there from the Bountiful community, so

that situation appears to be continuing very positively.

The Mormon Hills and Bountiful graduate question was also asked by

the same member. The reason it's challenging to talk about graduates from that

program — and I certainly should have had this answer yesterday…. Mormon Hills

actually goes to grade 7, and Bountiful goes to grade 10. Students complete

their schooling in area schools or through distributed learning. It's very

difficult to look at graduation results for schools that have that grade

configuration, but staff are certainly analyzing our individual results, and I

will be responding by letter directly to the member who asked that question.

We were asked by the opposition critic about foundation skills

assessment participation rates. I recalled that it was around 90 percent, and in

fact last year the participation rate provincially was actually 90 percent.

In terms of translations, one of the members opposite asked about

what we translate and how we translate and requested more translation of

specific information. So I wanted to be clear and read into the record that the

ministry actually works very hard on translation. In fact, translation of

ministry information occurs in the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, French,

Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog and

Vietnamese.

[1015]

Information that we translate includes foundation skills

assessment letters to parents; satisfaction surveys; healthy schools parent

guides, which will be available by the end of the month in those languages; our

crystal meth guide; a letter regarding books for kindergarten students.

Graduation program exams are translated into French, and there are a number of

programs there. We have FSA numeracy as a straight translation into French. We

have FSA brochures for parents in Chinese, French, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, and

the list goes on — a handbook of procedures. There is a long, long list — I have

not included all of them here today — of information that is regularly

translated by our ministry to communicate with parents across the province.

We also had a letter from one of the members suggesting that we

had not followed up on an issue from last spring's session of the Legislature. I

have brought a copy of the letter. In fact, on May 4, 2006, we did respond

directly to those concerns, and I'd be happy to table that letter and make sure

it's provided once again to the member.

Finally, there are two others we wanted to clear up. There was a

question about StrongStart schools being in Victoria. There are going to be

StrongStart programs

[ Page 6762 ]

in the Victoria school district. The priorities for the service were

identified by the school districts, so there will be two StrongStart programs

there.

There was a question around funding from the critic, and we looked

at funding and how it had kept up in terms of program expansion. If we take into

account all fixed costs since 1992-1993, funding is now $537 per pupil ahead of

costs, which is a substantial improvement. In every year except 2003-2004, since

2001-2002 education funding increases have exceeded inflation and other cost

pressures.

That brings our homework back to the table for the members

opposite.

The Chair: If I could mention it, there is no tabling of

documents in the budget estimates. If you'd send them directly to the member. If

you wanted them tabled, they would have to be tabled in the big House.

D. Cubberley: We were having a discussion about ESL

yesterday. There was one area of questioning that I didn't quite cover off, so

I'd like to finish that before moving into some questions around literacy.

What I wanted to get a sense of is: for those children who are

they qualify for ESL funding? Or are they treated like any other B.C. kid when

they arrive?

Hon. S. Bond: The qualifying criterion is not being able to

school board. They would then designate that student as an ESL student.

D. Cubberley: Just to dot the "i" there, they would then

qualify for funding in the way that any other child would at the higher level.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to venture into the area of

literacy, which is obviously part of any Minister of Education's mandate, being

responsible for K-to-12, but is also in an expanded sense the responsibility of

the minister. I think in a general sense it's a very good thing that government

has designated a minister to have responsibility for literacy and to actually

break it out and identify it. It's obvious to anybody looking into these matters

that the level of literacy achieved overall in a society is in some sense a

measure of how well it will do economically in the modern global economy that

we're operating in.

[1020]

It's a fact. I believe it's documented in any number of places,

but one where I've seen it documented most recently is in a B.C. Progress Board

report. Of the new employment that is being generated in British Columbia — of

which there's a substantial amount — 70 percent of projected employment

opportunities in both new and replacement openings will require some

post-secondary education or industrial apprenticeship training, which would

apply attaining literacy at level 3 or higher. It's obviously a key factor in

how well we do economically and therefore an important focus for government.

In a general sense, currently about one in four British Columbians

has literacy skills that are too low to participate effectively in the knowledge

economy. A snapshot, if we're looking at those level 1 and level 2 adults,

indicates that a substantial portion of them actually have high school and even

post-secondary, yet they lack the literacy skills sufficient to participate

effectively in the boom. Over time, as well, we know that adults that are stuck

at level 1 or level 2 tend to occupy low-income jobs and to live in relatively

impoverished circumstances.

In a general sense, given the scale of this — something that

affects one in four British Columbians — and the connection to the economy, I

just want to ask: what in the minister's view are the most strategic measures

that are needed to intervene effectively and lift those low-literacy adults to

level 3 competence or better?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, if there was an easy answer to

the adult literacy problem, I think we would have found it by now across the

country and around the world. I don't think there is an easy answer. We're

engaged in a process right now, obviously being signalled by the Premier, by

bringing literacy together — basically the focus of that — to one ministry. I

think that was a very good step in the right direction.

First of all, I should let the member opposite know that on the

national stage we are actually the lead province on literacy across the country.

We have held two forums, one in Ontario and one in B.C., focusing on two aspects

of literacy: the early learning piece and the older, K-to-12 and more adult side

of that.

One of the things that's really important is that this is not

on the excellent work that's done in communities. There's a terrific amount of

work going on every day. Part of the key strategy is coordination of resources,

coordination of strategies.

The big challenge we face is that adults who face low literacy

still have a very difficult time admitting that challenge. Despite all of the

resources that are being employed in communities across this province — we have

amazing work being done — part of the big problem is that there is still an

enormous stigma for adults who need to be able to admit that they have low

levels of literacy. I think there is much work to be done.

We're looking at a number of strategic initiatives, and we're

partnering with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education in particular to

look at an adult strategy that would bring together our resources and focus them

on a number of important areas. We're looking at how we look at adult learning

centres and how there is a connection between the K-to-12 system and looking at

a more unified approach to adult learning centres. We are looking at how we

provide adult basic education in the province.

[ Page 6763 ]

I don't think there is a single easy answer, but I think we have a

strategy in place to look at…. We're working across eight ministries in

government to try to reach those adults that have a very difficult time actually

admitting that they have a challenge with low levels of literacy.

[1025]

D. Cubberley: I certainly take the minister's point about

low-literacy adults in some cases having to struggle with their own self-image

around the problem they face. I know through experience in my own extended

family that that is in fact the case.

The experience that I have is with someone who is now an adult but

has mild dyslexia. The dyslexia was probably not identified early enough in that

person's school career for a correction to be applied, and the negative

self-image was internalized very early on. That, of course, leads to a much

tougher nut to crack later in life. I think that will bring us back to one of

our themes and one of the priorities for public education, which is around early

intervention — to try to rescue.

[B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

I would agree that there isn't an easy solution to the problem,

and the problem doesn't just exist on one level. When we group low-literacy

adults, obviously the population divides along a number of lines. The approaches

to any one of the subpopulations in that group would need to be tailored and

would look dramatically different depending on where they come from and why

they're in that position. Hopefully, we'll get to canvass that a little further.

Just to take this a little bit further, one source of low-literacy

adults is obviously the group of students who drop out of high school, who don't

complete. I think we've said there is now about one in five that that's still

the case for. Another group or another source of those might be the students who

get passed through high school, who complete, but aren't up to a standard that

would allow them to easily engage in post-secondary.

A question would be whether we actually have a measure through the

school system of the number of kids who leave school either as a complete or as

a dropout, who are low-literacy and who would go immediately into that group of

level 1 or level 2 adults when they enter the labour force.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, when a student leaves with either a

Dogwood or a school leaving certificate, we don't actually link that to a

particular literacy level. So to answer the member's question, we would not be

able to say that a student would move into a level 1 or level 2 literacy level.

Obviously, there are students for whom that would be the case. It may be a

student with special needs.

The member opposite is correct. There would be students who would

be at that level of literacy skill but would still complete, and we would not

track them in that way.

D. Cubberley: Would it not be of some interest in assessing

performance? We do have some impressive tools in place to measure performance at

one level, and we're talking about accountability within the system and trying

to use the knowledge that we generate through that assessment process to improve

outcomes. Would it not be desirable to know what portion of the group of people

who either drop out or complete with low grades are in effect not equipped with

the literacy skills to participate effectively in the economy?

[1030]

Hon. S. Bond: We would agree with that. One of the things

we're working toward as we speak is very much looking at individual results and

at how we get that information — how we drill down, how we sort out where they

are — so that we know, when we're sending those students out of the public

education system, what the challenges are that they're going to face.

I would agree with the member opposite. I think that is an

important step that we need to take. We're not in a place where we do that at

the moment, but I think part of the reform agenda that we have moving forward

over the next six months is very much about that kind of information. How do we

get it? How do we better equip those students?

One of the things we have recently said will happen now in British

Columbia is that if students have a gap after they graduate, we want to give

them the opportunity to come back and have that gap closed. The way we're going

to do that is using on-line technology at the moment — so through distributed

learning, not bricks and mortar necessarily. But that is a new opportunity in

the province.

I think the member opposite has a very valid point, and it is part

of our workplan to look at how we would measure and how we would help those

individuals.

D. Cubberley: I know from prior comments and from the

latter comments that the minister and her staff care about the kids who are not

thriving in K-to-12. I'm pretty sure she would recognize the link between that

failure and the increased risk of later failure in life both in the economy and

in family life, and that all of that ultimately results in costs to society that

are higher than they would be if individuals left as higher-performing adults.

There's also at another level a direct connection to economic

underperformance in the province in terms of lost productivity. That's been

mentioned by agencies that report to government as a significant concern.

Clearly, anything that can be done to reduce the incidence of low-literacy

adults and future low-literacy adults by catching and lifting more children as

they are moving through K-to-12 is going to be very valuable.

In light of the scale of the problem and the urgency that has been

placed on addressing it by agencies like the Progress Board, I'm interested to

know what new measures within K-to-12 may be being looked at that are aimed at

early detection and intervention and that go beyond what we have traditionally

done — not

[ Page 6764 ]

what we may do at individual schools or in school districts that happen to be

innovating, but that we have mandated across the system as ways of intervening,

catching and lifting those kids early on in their school career.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think the earlier we deal with it,

the better off we are, and we mean early. We mean between zero to six years old.

So one of the things we are looking at is: what are the practices of school

boards in relationship to early learning?

We know that research would tell us that if a student is behind in

grade 2 or 3, despite amazing opportunities and great teachers and all of those

opportunities, it's going to be really hard for them to catch up after about

grade 3.

Our emphasis will be on early learning, and we're talking about

programs that would encourage school districts to resource both the child and

the family because we think that you need to help parents help their children.

We are looking at a new provincial program specifically across the province

which would deal with early learning opportunities for families.

[1035]

In addition to that, we've added significant dollars in a number

of ways in terms of literacy over the last number of years. One of the things

we've done is that we have continually added $5 million blocks of funding to the

K-to-12 system to support innovative literacy strategies, and it's really making

a difference.

I have visited schools where they have taken the grants that they

have received and done, for example, intensive reading programs in

inner-city-type schools in particular cities. The results are very dramatic —

things like using guided reading programs where children are brought together by

their skill level instead of by their grade or by their age.

The results from those kinds of innovative teaching strategies

have been significant. What we're looking for is new practices. We're

financially incenting districts to consider those, and then taking that best

practice and looking at how we see that expand across the province. So two of

the initiatives, anyway, of real, new focus on early learning and early

literacy, and also supporting innovative teaching strategies….

D. Cubberley: That's a very interesting direction, and I

think one that is to be supported and lauded.

I'm just wondering whether at this point there are some

best-practice strategies that are beginning to emerge, which might be looked at

across the system so that it wouldn't simply be a matter of school districts

showing initiative and getting some funding for a pilot project, but something

which is showing enough promise that we are looking at the possibility of

implementing it across school districts.

Hon. S. Bond: A number of things, and I think a point

well-taken. I think this is about more than pilot projects, and the member is

absolutely correct. We want to take that best practice and see that move across

districts.

One of the things we've done is collected the results and the

strategies. We now share that information across school districts so that if we

learn something from one of those pilot projects, we now look at seeing how we

move that across the province.

We're also bringing people together and connecting them on the

subject of literacy far more frequently than used to take place. One of my staff

reminds me of the kindergarten assessment project. We're working on a project

that looks at what the best way is to assess kindergarten students in terms of

literacy skills so that we can find better tools to actually do that assessment

at the kindergarten stage.

The other thing we will be doing as we create our StrongStart

centres, which I referenced earlier in terms of that new program, is that every

school district in the province will have a StrongStart centre — at least one.

There are multiple numbers being created across the province. We will be able to

assign PEN numbers to the children who attend StrongStart, which will give us

the ability to track those students and look at their progress moving through

their early years.

I think we are thinking very strategically. We are learning from

the best-practice strategies and innovations, and we are moving them beyond the

pilot stages.

D. Cubberley: I get the sense that it's not in the

minister's mind, or in the ministry's mind, a question of simply doing more of

what we have been doing but actually adding additional types of both assessment

tools and programs to try and accomplish a better outcome.

I guess one question would be whether any jurisdiction — not just

limiting it to Canada — has developed a better approach, has established

templates that are showing better results and whether we are playing a role in

bringing those templates into our system at least in a pilot form.

[1040]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the challenges we face, and I think we

have to keep reminding ourselves of this…. When you look at us globally — in

fact, if you were just to begin with Canada — our results are still very good.

Really, we have a system that's working for a lot of people, and we always have

to remember that. But is there room to improve? Absolutely.

I would heartily agree with the member opposite. Our strategy in

this ministry, led by this great team, is that you can't keep doing things the

same way forever and hope the outcomes will change. We just have to be bold,

look at how we can challenge the status quo and say: "Can we do this

differently?" I think that really is what we are trying to do.

One of the areas that we have looked at is Finland. Finland has

some remarkable strategies when it comes to literacy, but one of the things most

interesting about it is that they are community-based. It really is a cultural

perspective where everyone is working together — from all levels of government

to community organizations to schools. Government and schools are just a part of

[ Page 6765 ]

the strategy, and I think that's what we're trying to incorporate here in

B.C. when we look at the mandate of school boards and at linking them to

community resources.

We are looking at best practices around the world. Part of the

challenge we face is that many people look at us for best practice because our

results are very good in British Columbia. We're absolutely open to models from

elsewhere. I know the member spends a lot of time researching and looking at

those kinds of things. If he becomes aware of places or models, we are more than

willing to have a look at those. We want to put students first, and we're not at

all shy about saying that if some people do that better than we do, we want to

know how they do it.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the openness to all of that. I

wanted, just for my own sake, to understand better the role that FSA plays in

triggering additional interventions. So if Johnny and Janey do poorly on FSA and

it indicates that they're not reading at an age-appropriate level, when that

shows up, does it trigger supplementary intervention in some fashion? Is that

intervention supported by resources? Is it mandated by policy? How does that

work?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we discussed what FSAs are useful for,

why we have them and why we think they're important. Exactly what the member

opposite said is what should happen. It is a tool that allows for an individual

classroom teacher, a school or a school district to analyze individual results.

If there is a gap here or a weakness here, it should at least trigger a

conversation about what the strategy for improvement is.

That's what we think the value of the FSA is. It's to say: where

are the gaps? That's one of the tools. I think I've tried to be very candid

about that. It's not the only tool; it's not the only thing we should rely on.

Obviously, classroom assessment goes on every single day in this province. It's

valid and important. But FSA is just one of those places where you can touch

bases and say: "Johnny has a struggle in this area." It does allow us…. It's the

kind of tool that actually can help us pinpoint.

One of the things we have taken on as a ministry is that we have

just recently asked school districts, giving them the names of children who have

not been successful in a particular area, to follow up on every one of those

students to say what the strategy is for John to make sure that he actually can

have that gap closed. I think the member has articulated exactly what we hope

FSA would do.

D. Cubberley: I know the minister will not be unaware of

this, because she hears about it every day, but there is obviously a struggle

for resources within schools. The expectation is that schools will at some level

be all things to all people — public schools in particular — which is very, very

challenging.

I wonder, though, if we have looked at the idea of earmarking

funding. I know the minister mentioned the $5 million grants for innovative

practices.

I'm thinking of something that is, if you will, more

institutionalized across school districts and that earmarks funding for

interventions when Johnny or Janey shows up on the FSA test as being below grade

level in reading — so that it isn't a question of the teacher or some other

advocate fighting for resources to try to intervene to address that deficiency

on a kind of school-by-school or almost a class-by-class basis but so that there

is some pool of money earmarked for those kinds of interventions as a strategy

for trying to lift kids to grade-level reading.

[1045]

Hon. S. Bond: We have not contemplated that. Ultimately

it's because, when we first started working with school boards in 2001, one of

the biggest concerns we heard was: "Please don't target. Please don't." I can

understand that the member opposite is suggesting there be sort of an additional

pot of money, but boards basically said to us: "Please give us the money, and

give us flexibility to go with it."

Our belief is that…. What is more important in a school district

than individual incremental achievement and making that the number one priority

of your school district? We would assume that with funding that we send to

school boards, the number one priority should absolutely be about making sure

John and Jane are successful and looking at that at the individual level.

I should point out that in the comment that I made previously…. I

got a frantic note here, basically saying….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: Oh, it was accurate. It was just that we

wanted to narrow the scope a tiny bit.

In terms of getting individual information to a school district,

we are piloting that in one school district. We shouldn't have people running

out now and thinking: where are our names and numbers? We want to try that.

Back to the member opposite's: "Can we do things differently?" We

have given that information to one school district to say: "Work with us on

this, and how we can make this happen?"

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that. I'll have staff rewrite

that news release that I asked them to put out.

Okay. I want to come back to low-literacy adults. I'm jumping

around a little bit here, but it kind of follows from the mandate. I think the

minister appreciates that there is an inherent connection between the situation

that adults find themselves in — ultimately not having the literacy skills — and

how many of them have performed or not performed in high school. But there are

some differences.

It is certainly not the case that the K-to-12 system generates

most of our low-literacy adults, although I think those who don't succeed

contribute, obviously, to that group of people. Probably the most significant

[ Page 6766 ]

source of the lowest-literacy adults in British Columbia is new immigration.

If you were to look at level 1 and level 2, adult immigrants with high school

and post-secondary qualifications are significantly overrepresented, especially

in level 1, low-literacy skills.

I mentioned before that there are just under a million British

Columbians who are at level 1 or level 2. If we look at level 1, of the 391,000

people in that group, 64 percent of them are immigrants. That's 248,000. Nearly

half the people, or a little over half, in level 1 are unemployed. Less than

half of them have less than high school, which is interesting, 36 percent of

them have completed high school, and 19 percent of them have post-secondary.

I guess that at the front end I want to ask if the minister would

agree with a statement that it is, in fact, an incredible waste of human capital

to bring skilled adults into Canada and then have them languish in economic

slots that are so far beneath their pre-existing skill level, especially when we

privilege those adults and give them entry based on the fact that they have

credentials that we apparently wish to use in our economy.

[1050]

Does the minister see that as a waste of human capital? What might

she be considering by way of new initiatives to begin to address that problem?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I think that anytime someone,

regardless of whether they live in British Columbia or not…. If they don't have

the opportunity to meet their full potential, obviously we have work to do. That

would be said by any level of government in any jurisdiction. The question is:

what do we do about that? One of the things we have recognized is that, first of

all, we need to have a coordinated approach to that in government. We have to

actually work together to solve the problem.

Right now we are in the process of developing, as I referenced

somewhat fleetingly previously, an adult strategy. We're doing that in

collaboration with the Attorney General, obviously, because of his key role in

multiculturalism and those areas, and with the Minister of Advanced Education.

We are looking at a new series of strategies that would provide new

opportunities for adults. We're in the very developmental phases of that.

Much of that research would have been based on the adult literacy

conference that the Canadian Ministers of Education held here in British

Columbia, and so we're using that information as a resource to create the

strategy. It is a work-in-progress. We know that much of that is connecting

individuals with community-based resources. I think it's so important, and we

is about us working with communities, service providers, school districts and

post-secondary institutions.

To the member opposite: we are very much involved in creating a

strategy around adult opportunities, working particularly closely with the

Attorney General, to focus on the very group of people that the member opposite

has brought to our attention.

D. Cubberley: I guess a couple of things. In breaking out

the immigrant population within the low-literacy adults and shining a bit of a

spotlight on that, it's in large part because these are people that have

relatively high levels of schooling when they arrive here. Many of them these

days have post-secondary or a trade, and there's very clear evidence that that

group of people is not getting to work at their skill level in our economy.

One of the more disturbing things that we saw in presentations

made to the Education Committee, which was dealing with adult literacy, was the

persistence of that fact over time. They land in the low-wage sector upon

arrival, irrespective of their skills, and if you look at it ten years later,

they're not moving out of those slots. That has to be a significant concern

because it is a waste of human capital.

I would suggest that it's something that we have to begin

addressing immediately because of the labour market situation we're in. We're an

economy that's growing jobs. The government is the first to let us know about

that, and it's definitely good news. I see colleagues on the other side smiling

at that. It is good news. But there are some challenges imbedded in that.

The numbers we have suggest that by 2011 new labour market

entrants are going to be fewer in number than those who are leaving the labour

force. That's just around the corner. In fact, we're probably getting very close

to them not offsetting one another as we speak today.

[1055]

It's also clear that if there's going to be growth in the future,

it will be because of in-migration, and the people we bring in to grow our

labour market will be substantially from offshore, because the same situation

exists in the rest of Canada. That is, we're not generating enough kids from

those who live here already to supply the labour force that we need. So

immigrants coming in are going to be the source of labour power.

Some 70 percent of the jobs we're creating require level 3

competence in literacy to access them. Most of the immigration policy that we

have today, apart from refugee policies, would privilege people who have

pre-existing skill levels.

When we look at the low-literacy numbers, we see that there are

far too many immigrants sitting in the low-literacy categories. It's true of

level 2, as well, although less extreme. It's a much larger group of people;

590,000 people have level 2, which is just below the level of competence needed

to get into the economy effectively and start earning real money. But 32 percent

of them are immigrants.

The majority of those people — only 28 percent of the group of

level 2 low-literacy people — have less than full high school completion. All

the rest have high school. I think close to a majority, 34, have post-secondary

education, and they're stuck. Immigrants are a substantial portion of both those

two groups.

[ Page 6767 ]

I think it begs the question: what is it about what we're doing

now that is not equipping immigrants with the literacy skills they need to

unleash their other skills, the productive assets they bring with them — the

human capital, the reason that we bring them here? What is it about that?

Hon. S. Bond: I think that's exactly the question we're

asking ourselves. What is it that we're not doing, or what is it that we can do

differently to meet the needs of these individuals?

It would be wrong to leave with the impression that we're not

doing anything, in the sense that we are seeing communities, governments and

institutions really work very hard to capture this group of people and find ways

to meet their needs.

Absolutely right. We have an enormous gap. We have a million new

jobs that will be created over the next decade or less. Probably at 2017, if you

look at 12 years from now, that will give us about 600,000 graduates if we

graduated every one of them that went into the job market. So we have a natural

gap.

Again, absolutely right. We have a gap, and how are we going to

help those people who arrive in our province to fill some of those labour gaps?

One of the things we have done recently — and it was the first

time it's been done, and it's a bit surprising that it hasn't happened before —

is that we brought college presidents and superintendents together to say: "What

can we do together to deal with….? First of all, identify the gaps. What are the

issues that we're trying to face here, and how do we help each other to make

sure we're moving that forward?" We're going to have a follow-up meeting with

them near the end of April — a second time.

The other groups that we absolutely have to connect with — and

we're doing this work as well — are groups like the chamber of commerce and

industry, because not only are we facing an immigrant population who may need

help with their literacy levels when they arrive; we have people who are

transitioning through four, five and six jobs in their careers, some of which

require on-the-job upgrading when it comes to the necessary literacy level.

There are a whole complex range of places where we need to do

more. More importantly, I think we need to do it differently.

[1100]

As we work together, particularly with the Minister of Advanced

Education, I would certainly urge the member to also canvass both the Advanced

Education and Economic Development Ministries as they come through, because they

would have a far more up-to-date version of where they're at with the strategies

we're working on together. My job is obviously the coordinating role for that.

Absolutely right. Identify the gaps. What are we going to do?

We look at some things. We've created a new program called

LearnNow B.C., which allows students and adult students to actually take

distributed-learning courses to upgrade. So we have a number of initiatives

underway, but we are in the process of creating the adult strategy that will

look at new opportunities. One of the targeted groups would be immigrant British

Columbians.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

D. Cubberley: I had mentioned that by 2011 all growth in

labour force participation is going to come from immigration — but in fact,

growth and enrolment in the school system will also primarily come from

immigration — and that currently 90 percent of those arriving lack any

My question is: what role does the minister see free access to

immigrants are integrated into our society and our economy?

Hon. S. Bond: We actually don't have direct responsibility

for adults and ESL programs, so I think it's incumbent upon us to work with our

colleagues — particularly the two ministries that I've noted before, the

Attorney General and the Minister of Advanced Education — to make sure that

we're dealing with our particular roles, which would be transition from K-to-12

to post-secondary and looking at enhancing those opportunities for a community

approach to this. But in essence, we are not directly responsible as a ministry

for the ESL-adult component.

D. Cubberley: I understand that and am perhaps pushing up a

little bit against the limits in asking the question. But it strikes me that you

are responsible for literacy overall and for coordinating, so the content of

programs delivered is obviously something that you would have opinions about.

One might be expecting that you would be an advocate for a particular direction.

So it's in that sense that I ask.

There's also another connection as a result of the way the system

services for adults, up to a very minimal level. There are some serious problems

with that in a number of aspects, one of which is that there are long waiting

lists in some locations to get into the programs. So we don't have smooth

The second is that it's limited in the level of proficiency that

is being generated. Level 3-4, I believe, is what the cutoff is currently for

fee-free access to those services, after which people are assumed, and quite

wrongly assumed, to be capable of going out into the labour market and

performing. At that level, which adult basic educators tell us is equivalent to

an employer might provide them about what they should or shouldn't do around a

set of gas pumps — let alone be able to advance themselves in the labour market.

One of the things that happens — and this is the way that it does

come back to the K-to-12 system or its extension through adult basic education —

is that

[ Page 6768 ]

under this regime, there is a tendency for immigrant adults who want to go

survival level.

[1105]

My question really is: is the ministry aware that this is

happening and that the ABE system is not set up in any way, shape or form to

receive and teach people who are arriving with the equivalent of grade 5

access to ELSA and with community colleges and universities, which are the other

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's fair to say that we are

certainly aware of the challenges around ESL and how we provide that and of the

issues that the member has raised. I think we are trying to get at the heart of

that by working with college presidents, who often are in the place of offering

those programs.

We are trying to look at a more coordinated strategy, so I can

assure the member opposite that an issue such as the one he's raised would be

discussed in putting the strategy together. We will make sure that as we have

those discussions and consider that…. Obviously, that is something we're aware

of. The member's brought that to our attention today.

I also think it would be helpful to canvass the Minister of

Advanced Education to clarify some of the actual technical delivery of those

programs. It's not something that I would be as familiar with as he is.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that response from the minister.

It is very important, I think, to recognize the situation that adult educators

are finding themselves in. These are people who are very, very committed to

dealing with students who are often severely challenged in passing through the

normal educational system. Adult basic educators are a very skilled and a very

committed group of people who often subsidize the teaching they do with their

own labours — as do all educators, which is something I find admirable.

The system itself as currently set up is not set up to receive and

teach these people. Individuals are taking it upon themselves to try and do this

because they don't wish to turn anybody away who arrives, and they support the

potential for learning in every person who shows up. The fact of the matter is —

and they bring this home to us — that the reason they are going into adult basic

education is because there are no fees attached to it. Generally speaking, these

are people who are impoverished by their circumstance — not necessarily by their

abilities but by their circumstance.

I would ask that the minister keep that in mind when she is moving

through her deliberations. The challenge, I believe, is that in British Columbia

services for adults.

The real question is — and I will try to make this open-ended

not done to a level that's adequate to allow them to fully participate

economically. They wind up in entry-level jobs, and it isn't enough to allow

educated immigrants to access other parts of the educational spectrum and begin

translating the skills they have in their home language into skills in our

economy.

The cure, or part of the cure — and it's not a cure-all but part

adults to a higher level of Canadian benchmarks. Level 7-8 is what's advocated.

That would enable them. That would then become a passport — that level of

college system to allow them to credentialize what they already have in Canadian

terms.

[1110]

We are receiving this year, I believe, a significant amount of new

money from the federal government for settlement services. My question would

be…. I don't want to trap the minister on this, but would the minister be

willing to look at advocating extending fee-free ELSA to level 7/8 benchmarks,

which are recognized by everyone who works in the area of second languages as

being what is required for economic participation?

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly appreciate the challenge and the

question from the member opposite. I must say that I very much agree that we

need to be very conscious of our immigrant population and of finding ways to

move them more quickly into appropriate levels in the workforce.

In my own constituency I have had countless examples of people who

There are a number of issues with that. So what I can commit to…. I wish I could

commit to the other, but I'm sure the member opposite understands that I need to

work with the Attorney General.

We are having discussions about the very kinds of questions that

have been raised today. How do we better serve the needs of

whether funding through to level 7/8 is something that would be supported or

not, but there is a discussion about a number of avenues, including, as I

referenced yesterday, things like school support workers. When you think about

having settlement officers in schools…. That's a big step in the right

direction, helping not only the student but their family as well.

Those are the kinds of innovative strategies we are looking at. I

can assure the member opposite that we will make sure that the suggestion….

Moving to the Canadian benchmarks is something that was suggested here. I can't

commit to that today but certainly can commit to having a discussion about that

very issue.

D. Cubberley: The minister, I hope, will forgive me.

Whenever I see a pot of money appear, I always ask myself how it might best be

spent in order to accomplish the ends that we share.

[ Page 6769 ]

I do think, passionately, from the point of view of social

justice, that we want to give the immigrants we bring here the opportunity to

work to their full potential. Equally, from the point of view of self-interest,

given that we have a productivity lag in British Columbia over the average in

Canada and that there is such a huge gain to lifting people to higher literacy,

it makes real sense for us, with immigrants supplying the growth in our labour

force, to focus on that group of people and create the transition process into

effective employment which liberates them from being stuck in low-quality jobs,

where so many find themselves.

Even if one were looking at it from a far narrower perspective,

those societies that have tolerated or encouraged, whether advertently or

inadvertently, the marginalization of newcomers into the society have seen, over

time, significant social unrest. That is something which we have never had to

contend with to any great degree in Canada. In fact, Canada is a country which

is looked upon as the country that has best handled the creation of a

multicultural and integrated society in which all people find opportunity.

My own personal feeling is that the challenge to continue doing

that is changing as we become more truly multicultural and we find the 90-odd

language groups showing up in our school system or among people who are trying

way in the economy and become as independent in fact as we know they are likely

to be in their spirit — and so to participate in the freedoms that we enjoy — is

a fundamental priority.

I'm looking to bolster the minister's resolve, because I can tell

you everything that we heard on the literacy committee from people who work in

this area suggests the importance of that initial gift of giving them skills in

way, and they will integrate into society.

[1115]

I would suggest to the Minister of Education that it's a twofer,

because you're creating the family that can then support the child — who is an

ESL learner in your school — and creating the outcome you want there. I would

ask the minister to support the direction towards increasing access to ELSA

fee-free.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to say to the member opposite that

he's certainly persuasive in his arguments. Obviously I can't commit to adopting

that thinking today, but I share his passion for ensuring that people who come

to British Columbia have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

I guess the complexity of the circumstance we face is that while I

immigrant population, we also have enormous gaps for first nations people in

British Columbia, who are vastly underrepresented in the workforce as well. I

also have significant concerns for women and the disabled, in the sense that we

have other issues that we need to deal with when we look at an equal playing

field in the workforce. So I think that I share the member opposite's concern

strategy that looks at first nations representation and how we deal with

K-to-12.

I can simply say to the member opposite that we are committed to

looking at the dollars we receive from the federal government, finding the way

to best utilize those. Certainly access and capacity are big parts of that, and

I think we have to look at the wait-lists and the needs. That needs to be done

across British Columbia; this is not a lower mainland program or problem. I see

it in my own community in northern British Columbia.

I think it's just a matter of trying to put all the pieces in

place, but the emphasis with federal dollars will be on things like capacity and

innovation and, I hope, making a difference and not simply providing survival

the province, but again we need to do that within the complexity of the other

groups that we need to serve as well.

D. Cubberley: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister

about the absolute necessity for a focus on first nations people in British

Columbia because their economic circumstance is more dire in many cases than any

other citizens in this society. I would encourage and urge that. But I suspect

that there are possibilities for making strategic investments on behalf of first

nations literacy that need not force a choice between them and focusing on

immigrant populations. It's in part because the issue of our relationship with

first nations has been raised consciously by government to a higher level — that

stands in front of us as an obligation that we need to respond to — and in part

because there are opportunities to work in partnership with the federal

government, at least as a source of funding, to enable new initiatives to be put

in the field. I would certainly urge that that be expedited as quickly as

possible.

It remains the case though with immigrants that they are a new

building block coming into our society on an ongoing basis, and it is essential

that we find a way to make that transition work on their behalf and on our

behalf. It's both in our self-interest collectively, and it's an important point

of social justice, if we bring people here, to give them that chance.

One of the things I'd like to suggest along the way — because I

don't see this that much — is to create stronger connections between the idea of

the economic advantage of making these investments and the argument that the

money should be allocated. I think it would be not that difficult, with

information that is available publicly, to show what the added costs to society

are of not integrating people effectively into the economy versus the cost of

equipping them with the language skills that would allow them to make their own

way.

[1120]

That would then give you a cost-benefit analysis for the

investments for those who look at bottom lines —

[ Page 6770 ]

and as decision-makers, we have to look at bottom lines. That would create a

rationale for prioritizing the investment.

I have to think that the federal government, being what it is by

its nature, is a pocket for investing in things that the government of the day

sees as being important to invest in. I think British Columbia should lead in

marshalling support from the federal government for initiatives in these

directions.

Be a leader, be a groundbreaker, and focus on the fact that a

1-percent lift in the overall literacy level in the society is going to

translate into $1.5 billion in addition to our GDP every year.

If you think about who is in that level-two population of 600,000

people in B.C. who are just below the level…. They have the technical

qualifications in education. Two-thirds of them already are just below the level

of being able to be effective. Bringing them up into your level 3 population,

freeing them to take

part in economic growth…. That would be, amongst a whole

range of strategies you need, one important focus, I believe, to have in

addressing low literacy amongst adults.

I'll give the minister a chance to comment on that before passing

on to other things.

Hon. S. Bond: I hope I didn't imply this, because I

certainly would never mean to do that, but it is absolutely not about either/or

matter of how we do that plus more. Because we would absolutely agree on this

side that improving literacy does exactly what the member opposite has said.

It's not just about a better quality of life, about reaching one's

potential. It is better for a province. It's better for an economy and a

country. I think there are lots of compelling arguments for investing in

literacy. When I look at our investment over the last…. I think it's been since

2001 that