B. Simpson: An e-mail from the Deputy Minister of FLNRO went out last week with more news of staff changes and reassignments of responsibilities in that ministry. In the middle of the e-mail is a statement that the assistant deputy minister for land tenures, forest tenures, forest initiatives, competitiveness and innovation, compensation and business analysis, and Crown land opportunities and restoration will now have to add to his workload the responsibilities of being B.C.’s temporary chief forester for the next 18 to 24 months.

At a time when the B.C. forests have been devastated by the mountain pine beetle and fires, when our inventory system can’t be trusted, when we’ve got a short-term log supply crisis, why is the minister allowing a further downgrading of the responsibilities and the role of the chief forester of B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: The role of the chief forester is one that is very, very important. The Forest Act clearly outlines the responsibilities of the chief forester. It’s a quasi-independent position that acts in the public interest. I have confidence in the professional capabilities of the individual who has been tasked with that position to represent the interests of the chief forester.

Again, as we go through the process with the special legislative committee looking at the midterm timber supply issue, which we appreciate the cooperation of the members opposite in doing. We’ve provided the support of the two former chief foresters in that process to ensure that those obligations and those responsibilities are recognized as they consider the options.

The experience that is placed in those two individuals, providing technical support to that legislative committee, will be critical to ensure that that role is recognized and the responsibilities of the chief forester are recognized all the way through the process.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: In 1913 B.C.’s first chief forester warned that a comprehensive knowledge of the quality, condition and extent of the forest resources is essential to the efficient administration of public forests. Today the Auditor General, the Forest Practices Board and the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals say that we don’t have the inventory to effectively and efficiently manage our forests.

Yet instead of responding appropriately to that, this government, on the 100th anniversary of the B.C. Forest Service, has effectively killed the Forest Service in the name of integration and is now further downgrading the role of the independent chief forester.

B.C.’s forests are the province’s largest asset, valued at one-quarter of a trillion dollars, but their state of health is in question, and our ability to effectively administer them is as weak as it’s ever been.

I ask the minister responsible, who I believe genuinely wants to do the right thing for B.C. forests: would he consider today, rather than downgrading further the role of the chief forester, to create the chief forester function as an independent officer of this Legislature reporting to the Legislature, not to the politicians of the day?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I outlined in my first response, the role of the chief forester is clearly outlined in the Forest Act. It’s a quasi-independent position and acts in the public interest. I believe the responsibility is in that role and in the legislation: act in the public interest. I do not see the need for the chief forester to be an independent officer of the Legislature.

“One hundred years ago, we established the BC Forest Service and an independent Chief Forester to manage BC’s largest natural asset for future generations. Today, both the Forest Service and the Chief Forester function have been virtually eliminated by the current government,” said Independent MLA Bob Simpson.

In question period, Simpson challenged the Minister responsible to establish the Chief Forester as an independent Officer of the Legislature like the Auditor General or the Ombudsperson.

“A Chief Forester selected by and reporting directly to the Legislature, with statutory authority to ensure BC’s largest public asset is being managed in the public interest, is the only way to protect forest management decisions from the politics of the day. It will ensure we are managing our forests as healthy, resilient, and adaptable ecosystems for future generations,” said Simpson.

Simpson also called on the government to use the feedback and criticism it has received on the state of BC’s forest inventory to create a work plan and assign resources to re-inventory BC’s public forests. The Auditor General, Forest Practices Board, and the Association of BC Forest Professionals have all expressed concerns about the current forest inventory.

“BC’s first Chief Forester told the government of 1913 that ‘comprehensive knowledge of the quality, condition, and extent of forest resources’ is the foundation of good forest management,” said Simpson. “We no longer have the level of comprehensive knowledge required to manage our forests, and that shortcoming must be addressed immediately.”

The Independent MLA also called for changes to forestry legislation in order to restore a higher level of management and planning in harvesting activities.

“The lack of landscape-level planning by government is becoming a significant problem, and it’s undermining the government’s ability to protect a wide range of non-timber values,” said Simpson. “For example, I’m being told that in most areas in the mountain pine beetle zone we may have already logged in the protected areas (or ‘forest reserves’) that the government is going to ask permission to harvest through the new Standing Committee.”

The Independent MLA for Cariboo North said he believes the establishment of the Chief Forester as an independent Officer of the Legislature, a complete re-inventorying of BC’s public forests, and the restoration of landscape-level planning in the Forest Act is the only way to ensure that BC’s forests can and will be managed wisely for future generations.

British Columbia’s dwindling timber supply will be evaluated by a special government committee, after a leaked report warned about thousands of job losses due to a declining amount of wood caused by the ravages of the pine beetle epidemic.

Forests Minister Steve Thomson says the committee will hold public meetings to look for new ways to expand timber supplies, including possible changes to harvest rates, forest tenures and land use policies.

“Time is of the essence and this is about finding options to increase the timber supply,” he said.

The seven-member, all-party committee has until Aug. 15 to produce a report.

‘Unfortunately I do think it’s the 11th hour’—MLA Bob Simpson

A government report leaked last month warned the mountain pine beetle epidemic could wreak havoc on communities in B.C.’s Interior and cost the region thousands of jobs in the coming years.

The Feb. 29, 2012 document suggested that as part of a mitigation strategy, the government should consider harvesting smaller trees and logging areas currently managed for their biodiversity, wildlife and scenic values.

Independent MLA Bob Simpson, who raised the timber supply issue in the legislature, said the formation of the committee may be too little too late.

He said the report warned his hometown of Quesnel could lose up to 1,600 forest industry jobs as available timber supplies run out, possibly in as little as 18 months.

“It’s good that they are finally going to go out and consult with the communities, unfortunately I do think it’s the 11th hour,” said Simpson.

Opposition New Democrat forests critic Norm Macdonald said the committee doesn’t have much time to find solutions. He said the Opposition wants to help communities suffering through forest industry declines.

An estimated 18.1 million hectares — an area more than five times the size of Vancouver Island — have been affected to some degree by the mountain pine beetle.

Along with the expansion of the Gibraltar and Mount Polley mines, opportunities exist for both new and expanded hard rock and placer operations.

Every mineral opportunity realized will create jobs and bring additional economic benefits to Cariboo communities.

In order to realize this potential, however, mining must adhere to three basic principles: minimal ecological footprint, respect for First Nations rights and title, and maximum economic and social returns to British Columbians, who are the true owners of BC’s mineral resources.

The evolving relationship between Mount Polley Mine and the Williams Lake Indian Band serves as an example of how companies can have productive relationships with First Nations. Spanish Mountain Gold provides another example.

The Government has also recently taken a leadership role in addressing the First Nations referral backlog in the Cariboo region by assigning a specific staff person to this function for placer operations.

However, the mining community has informed me that they still have “permitting angst” – that the permitting process is still understaffed and economic opportunities in both mineral exploration and extraction are being lost as a result.

The industry also has concerns about a growing skilled labour shortage and fears that without a plan to address this, more temporary foreign workers will need to be used, limiting the social and economic benefits that local communities will receive from mining activity.

A final concern I’ve heard from the mining community in the Cariboo is the increasing regulation and fees imposed on mineral exploration and on small and medium-sized placer operations.

As we celebrate Mining Week, my hope is that the government will make sure the issues that may prevent us from realizing the full potential of mining in the Cariboo region are addressed, in partnership with miners, First Nations, and local communities.

Bob delivered this speech as a two minute statement in the House. Video of the speech is available here.

He suggested that both parties could agree to a reasonable schedule in advance of the introduction of legislation, which could include an agreement to run a third chamber when necessary. Bob also suggested broader changes to the debate process. Currently, when Ministers are asked questions they consult with staff before responding to the opposition member. “Bills and estimates should be debated in a way that we can get access to the expertise that created [them] and stop the political filter,” said Bob.  Allowing MLAs to ask staff members these questions directly would increase the amount of time spent on meaningful debate.

Finally, Bob suggested that government backbenchers should be allowed to ask questions during these debates, because they are accountable to their constituents as well. The transcript of his speech follows.

Additional Chamber for Debate

I want to start off by thanking members on both sides who have recognized that independents are in sort of a different situation with respect to the two motions in front of us.

We’re talking about a motion just now to add an additional section, and then there’s a motion coming up to add additional time. It is a bit strange to stand and to offer some words in a debate to add more time to get more debate on the substantive materials in front of the House, so I’ll try and keep my comments as brief as possible.

Here’s the issue. We have seven days left counting today. Today is a half day, so I guess 6½ days then — 21 bills, including the PST bill that we just got yesterday, one more bill to come, three estimates left to go. The real question is: how best do we do the people’s work with that amount of work that’s left for us?

There are two principles that I believe we should be guided by, Madam Speaker. The first is an old one. I think it was Bill Bennett who said it: “Not a dime without debate.” I think the estimates just now seem to be going along. Although I have to say, over the years I have struggled with the degree of detail we are now able to drill down to in estimates debate. I think that we’re at a very, very high level these days. We can’t drill down, service plan formats change, the measurable outcomes change. It’s very difficult to understand clearly what’s going on year-over-year and whether or not the government is spending the taxpayers’ money wisely. But in estimates debate, the last few spring sessions, we seem to have managed our way through that without a quarrel or a quibble.

So not a dime without debate. The second principle really should be no laws without clause by clause. That’s really where we’re at just now. Is it reasonable, given 6½ days, to be able to get through the legislation that’s in front of us, including the provincial sales tax bill that was tabled yesterday and is 160 pages long?

In my time here I’ve seen lots of bills come before us that have been declared as housekeeping bills. When I spoke with some folks about the struggles we’re having here around legislation, some people, including some of the media, said: “Well, a lot of it is just housekeeping.” But the reality is that even in housekeeping bills, miscellaneous statutes amendments act, like Bill 41, you have to be very, very careful because there are substantive changes that are made that without the clause-by-clause analysis, without asking questions of the minister, you don’t get to see what the implications of that are.

In the case of Bill 41, of course, we’ve got the attempted reinstitution of the election gag law as well as the contentious clauses around the resort municipalities.

But we’ve also seen in this House that when a bill comes into the House, it may not be complete in and of itself, and therefore, we get amendments on the order paper from government. We get amendments offered by opposition members who have read the bill and gone to the minister, put forward amendments that become government amendments.

We’ve had a couple of classic examples of that. The member for Cowichan Valley substantively changed one bill in forestry that had an egregious oversight when it was introduced. When that oversight was revealed to him, the minister clearly understood that it was an oversight and fixed the bill. Kudos to both the opposition deputy critic and the minister on that.

In this session we’ve seen the same with the member for Saanich South and the animal protection act where two amendments were put forward to try to make that bill better.

So there is real work to be done, but unfortunately, a lot of time on bills is spent in second reading — and I’ll speak on that in a moment — where the real work is actually done in committee stage, where it’s not as politicized and where there’s clear and evident desire to understand what we’re doing to British Columbians in the form of legislation.

In response to the 6½ days left — 21 plus one more bill coming, including the PST; the three estimates; etc. — the Government House Leader has come forward with two motions that there was an attempt last week to make a unanimous motion on the part of the House so we could get at it last week. But that was rejected by the opposition.

The two motions are to add a third section. So the third section…. We would have this chamber debating a bill. We would have another committee room debating a bill, and we would have a committee room continuing with the estimates debate, as is our normal practice. Our normal practice is legislation in this chamber and a committee for estimates.

The Government House Leader indicated that a substantive change on the part of government was to avoid legislation by exhaustion by going to the fixed calendar. I guess that my response to that would be the government uses the fixed calendar as a guideline. Why can’t we use it as a guideline now? It’s not fixed as an end date. We should simply sit until we believe that a comprehensive debate in committee stage of each of the pieces of legislation in front of us has been completed.

Now, the government is attempting to do this by committee, and so on. But I still think that we’ll end up with some kind of closure or guillotine or something, because we’re simply not going to get through the legislation. Even with the motions in front of us, that won’t happen.

That’s unfortunate. I stood in this House and was the only member to vote against the Yale treaty, in part on the simple principle that we got four or five pages into a 400-page treaty…. I think we actually got to 20, to be fair, of a 400-page treaty in which the only public scrutiny done on that treaty was in this chamber. And yet, through closure, that treaty was passed. I think that that is a diminishment of our democratic process.

… The Government House Leader indicated that he believes that there are seasoned critics on the part of the opposition, and I would agree with that. I am struggling to understand the opposition’s contention that we can’t have an additional chamber.

I will be voting against the motion because I believe that it’s the eleventh hour in adding that additional chamber. But I do believe that we need to look at the possibilities of us, in a heavy legislative session — where the government knows that there’s going to be a heavy legislative agenda — having an upfront discussion about making sure that legislation does get full scrutiny. That includes the possibility of a third chamber. I don’t have a problem with that. I think it is an appropriate step to take by consensus, by collaboration, in agreement at the beginning of the session, but not at the eleventh hour.

Partisanship Interfering with Debate

As a response to the two motions, the opposition House Leader offers that it’s an abuse, that the government does abuse the fixed calendar when it suits its purposes, that it’s not democratic to go to a third section. Everybody has spoken to that. But there’s also the question of the mismanagement of the legislative calendar. I have to say that I believe that we have a time management issue on both sides of the House, that both political parties have to really think long and hard about the hyperpartisanship that has come to characterize not just this House but many legislative chambers.

What we do is we spend an inordinate amount of time on second reading of bills — which is the political stage, if you will. It’s where both parties get to make ideological arguments, partisan arguments, browbeat each other. This side, the opposition side throws the “decade of deceit” against the “dismal decade” from the government side. That, I believe, doesn’t serve our democracy well.

It’s not necessary. If we go back and look at how much time is spent in second reading of bills without a substantive or a constructive contribution to the bill itself — a lot of talk about politics…. I think there’s time that we could save and could have saved, even in this session. But notwithstanding that, it is inconceivable that even fixing that and moving to committee stage faster — having the critics speak and a couple opposition members speak on substantive aspects of the bill that are important and moving to committee stage, the clause-by-clause stage….

This government introduced legislation very, very late in this session. That either shows gross mismanagement on the government’s side or a lack of clarity on what their agenda is. Hence, we have the grammatical errors and the syntax errors and things in the bills that just don’t make sense. That suggests that there may be errors and omissions in the bills as well.

…I think that we need to end the partisanship. I think British Columbians want that of us. I’m convinced of that. I think it’s why people don’t show up at the polls. I think it’s why people think that this place is an anachronism and has no value in it anymore, because that’s what they see, just this constant partisanship.

If we were more constructive, more deliberate in between elections — so that every four years we’ve got that 28-day window, where we have to go back at each other, and count back, say, 40 days before that…. But in between that if we actually worked together as much as we could to govern and constrained ourselves to constructive debate in this chamber, I think we could claw back some interest and could claw back some voters during the election window. That would serve British Columbians well and serve our democracy well.

Committee Reform

I would hope that what we end up seeing…. The Government House Leader said that a third chamber is the next evolution for our democracy. I think the next evolution for our democracy is substantively changing the way we do politics but also substantively changing committees.

I think that we should stop with sessional committees that keep having to be struck over and over again and/or get a mandate or not. We should have permanent standing committees associated with the sitting of the Legislature. We should have committees structured in a way, as the Deputy Speaker and the MLA for Richmond East has pointed out in an article in the parliamentary journal, that allows us to ask questions of staff.

I think that in both estimates debate and in bill debate it is absolutely unnecessary for us to continue to have a question asked by an opposition member, have the government minister then turn to his or her staff and get a briefing on the answer to the question and then turn back, and if they can’t figure out what the answer is, give a political answer instead of a substantive one. That takes up a whole lot of time. In estimates debate and in bill debate a lot of time is wasted in that transfer of knowledge from staff to the minister and from the minister to the opposition critic — who then asks another question, and you repeat it all over again.

We need to look at a committee structure where we can get access to staff, we can get access to experts to help us to understand the legislation in front of us and to help us more clearly understand the bills. That is what many jurisdictions do. They have that relationship. It builds a stronger relationship between the government members and the opposition members with the bureaucracy and cuts out a lot of the politics associated with debate on legislation and with debate on estimates.

I would also suggest that Liberal backbenchers, the government backbenchers in the general case, should also be allowed to ask questions in bill debate and ask questions in estimates debate because they, too, are accountable to their people.

So committees need to change. The bills and estimates should be debated in a way that we can get access to the expertise that created it and stop the political filter.

Cross-Party Agreements

I guess the final comment that I would like to make, Madam Speaker, is that if this place actually operated in a more consensual and collaborative fashion, then we would have House Leaders and Whips and leaders that would actually sit down at the beginning of a session and say: “Here’s where we’re going.” They don’t have to reveal all of the bits and pieces. They don’t have to reveal the details of the various pieces of legislation. “In the spring we have a heavy legislative calendar, and we have the budget debates. Can we agree on a third chamber?”

The third chamber comes in at X time, and we’re not, in the 11th hour, debating a motion like this. We know that we’re going to go to evening sittings, and if necessary, the fixed end date for that session will be struck, taken away, and we will extend the session to get the work done.

Quite frankly, everybody believes that this is the place that we’re supposed to be here to do work, and if there’s work to be done, we should be doing it on as non-political and non-partisan basis as possible into the substance of bills and estimates. We should do it until we believe that that substance has been fully canvassed in the best interests of British Columbians.

This is too late in the day. I do support — I signal to government — third chamber. We can figure it out as independents. We can figure out how to manage our time and use our staffs to do that, but it has to be done a lot earlier than the 11th hour. I do believe that we need democratic reform of this place so that we can get to substance more quickly.

I read the Hansard transcript exchange between the minister and the critic, and I don’t want to repeat that. As to other areas…. The minister indicated it is a complex public policy issue with a lot of different things at play. Some of it, some jurisdictions point out, is staffing.

I was wondering if either the province or the federal government is looking at what other jurisdictions are doing to nip the promotion of these drugs for use with dementia patients in the bud. The United States’ Attorneys General are looking at going after the pharmaceutical companies and to stop the promotion of antipsychotics for use with dementia patients. The U.K. is actually establishing benchmarks for use and going after the doctors. If the doctors continue to use it, then there will be punitive measures taken against the doctors.

It seems, in a very complicated issue, in terms of the inner workings of our seniors care facilities and hospitals, that may be a straightforward way of dealing with things, where you stop the use of these drugs for the purpose they were not designed to be used for. I’m sure the minister knows both the FDA and Health Canada have said that these drugs are not supposed to be used for this purpose. So there may be other ways of doing that.

I’m just curious if the minister is having any dialogue with Canada around alternate measures to nip this in the bud.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I guess it’s about balance and just canvassing. The item did come up the last time the provincial and federal Health ministers met for discussions. Now, I don’t…. When I say it came up, there was a discussion about the challenge this represents across the country. I don’t want to leave the member, though, with the impression that we’re on the verge of some Department of Justice–led investigation, because I didn’t get any indication that that was in the works.

What we are doing here is recognizing that there are various players in here.

The clinicians are being reminded of the need to be guided by the ethical requirements of their professions, whether they are doctors, nurses or pharmacists. To that end, we are continuing to develop and evolve more detailed guidelines around the use of an antipsychotic. The balance comes in when one considers that there are probably some circumstances where they are appropriate and necessary. But we have, as the member knows from his review of Hansard, talked about the rate of usage and how that compares with other jurisdictions. And that is troubling.

There are additional regulatory steps that the province might consider that relate to building in requirements for special authorizations. There’s a shift in culture that we are probably discussing here. That is never easy, but with the comprehensive monitoring that has been established more recently, coupled with the establishment of the guidelines, we are hoping that we can see the trend lines for usage move in the right direction, not the wrong direction.

B. Simpson: Thanks to the minister. Again, as the minister is well aware, Health Canada and the FDA have pointed out that inappropriate use…. There is appropriate use when the diagnosis substantiates the use of antipsychotics, for whatever age an individual is. But for restraints, it has caused early death. There are scientific indications of that. I think it is something that needs to be controlled.

The other aspect of this, in terms of a complicating factor — and I wonder if the minister could just speak to it; it’s in the review and in the dialogue around this — is the issue of families who reject the use of antipsychotics. They have a representation agreement, a power of attorney or some kind of legal framework to reject them, and then a health authority certifies the patient under the Mental Health Act and supersedes the representation agreement. I know the minister is aware of one such case, but there are other such cases out there.

What is it the government is doing about that particular nuance to this complicated issue? If families say no, if families reject that it is the correct drug to use in a specific circumstance — and they have the legal right to say no — what is government going to do to stop health authorities from certifying that patient in order to give them the drugs that the family does not want them given?

Hon. M. de Jong: I was trying to get as much information as I could. A couple of things come to mind, starting at the front end.

The focus of late, particularly in the aftermath of the review that took place, is to emphasize in the strongest terms possible the importance of establishing the dialogue and the relationship between the caregivers, the clinicians and the patient — and, if not the patient, the family support network — and embedding in the culture of care the realization that before one can make a decision about something as significant as prescribing an antipsychotic — which, by its very definition, is behavioural-changing — there needs to be that dialogue.

My sense is that as that work takes root — as the education that, I’m reminded, is taking place with physicians through UBC and dementia identification and treatment — once those lines of communications are better established, the incidence of the kind of disagreement that the member has described will reduce.

I think they’ll still occur. I think there will still be times when, from a practical point of view, a family takes issue with a diagnosis and a prescription for an antipsychotic.

The member correctly points out one of the pathways that can follow where, in the wake of that dispute, application is made by the facility. The first thing I’d say is — I don’t say this to be insensitive or unrealistic — there is always the option for a family of removing a family member from a particular facility. In some instances, that may or may not be realistic, but that is the first thing. They have that option.

In a case where a dispute arises around the mental health or competencies of patient, there are provisions, of course, for fairly immediate short-term certification on the basis of the opinions of treating clinicians, but the family, in those cases, would have a fairly immediate short-term means by which to challenge that assessment and that diagnosis.

None of that is optimum. None of that is the route you really want to go here.

You do want to get to a point where clinicians understand that part of the extraordinary process around the prescribing of antipsychotics is to ensure that there is a comprehensive understanding — on the part of if not the patient then the patient’s caregivers, family members — as to why that makes sense and why that is the appropriate route to go. So there’s a bit of a sketch of what’s taking place and where the off-ramps may be.

Let me try to clear up some of the confusion and address people’s anger.

First, the numbers are not mine. The timber supply documents released to the public come from internal government assessments of the state of our pine beetle ravaged forests. The documents clearly indicate that all the companies operating in our area played a major role in this analysis and that it was the companies that were raising the alarm about log shortages in the near future. These documents are available on both my website and the government’s.

Second, the government and industry’s assessment has been confirmed by independent analysis done for the International Wood Markets consulting firm; a firm that advises investors about the state of our forest industry. In fact, Wood Markets’ first assessment of the immediacy of the reduction in cut levels in our region was made public in 2010, so the looming log shortage issue is not “news” to the investment community.

Third, the major confusion surrounding the timber supply numbers stems from the difference between the “available timber,” which determines the annual allowable cut, and the “commercially viable timber,” which, in today’s market conditions, actually determines how far the mills can go to get the available timber and how economic it is to run the beetle killed wood. Both the government report and the independent analysis show that while we have “available” timber to keep our mills running  out to 2020, industry clearly informed government that the weakening of the Chinese market, the failure of the US market to return to strong demand, and the increasing costs of obtaining and processing the beetle wood means we may face log shortages much sooner than predicted.

Let me emphasize this: despite what some companies are now telling their employees and contractors, the government documents make it clear that it is industry that is telling them we may face log shortages and mill closures sooner than expected because of poor market conditions.

Fourth, the job loss numbers in the government documents are confusing and unnecessarily alarming. The government uses peak production numbers to project possible job losses in our area, but, as the independent analysis shows, a lot of this production capacity has already been shut down due to market conditions, especially in the Williams Lake area. Still, everyone agrees that Quesnel will be the hardest hit and needs the most support to design a transition strategy.

I urge everyone to actually read the government’s summary document and International Wood Markets’ overview of their report so we can all be informed about the nature of the challenges we’re facing. We cannot begin to address these challenges if we choose to remain ignorant of the facts or susceptible to someone giving us false and misleading information.

My only goal in all of this is to ensure we can have an informed dialogue about our options and that we can plan our communities’ transitions together. There are plenty of opportunities for us to recreate our forestry industry, grow our mining, tourism and agriculture sectors, and develop our community infrastructure to retain and attract people, but this work must be energized and framed in the reality of the immediate challenges we face.

If you’re still confused or angry about this situation I urge you to contact my office so I can address your concerns more directly.

Bob was seeking clarification about how the Pacific Carbon Trust will affect school districts, as well as broader issues about carbon neutrality and double taxation. He requested a briefing with Ministry of Finance staff to obtain additional details about how the PCT will operate moving forward, and what this will mean for public sector organizations.

Estimates: Ministry of Education

B. Simpson: I will wrap around some of the questions I have about Pacific Carbon Trust. I did listen to the exchange with the Environment critic for the opposition. I just want to clarify that under the change that has occurred, school districts are not going to have to pay for the tool now. But they will still calculate their GHG emissions above their zero baseline, and they will still write a cheque to the Pacific Carbon Trust equivalent to $25 a tonne for that emissions calculation.

They’re still going to individually, as school districts, write a cheque to the Pacific Carbon Trust each year for their so-called offset fee. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, we believe that to be correct. I just wanted to note that I had the pleasure of visiting Quesnel school district a few weeks ago, and I was very much impressed by what I saw there. …

B. Simpson: … Just to be clear, the money that is now going to be in a special fund…. I listened as the minister indicated there’s still some policy work being done and distribution of that fund, etc. But is there any guarantee, as the minister understands it to date, that the money will flow back, if you will, on a quid pro quo basis? You give $50,000 to Pacific Carbon Trust to buy your offsets, and you’re going to see $50,000 come back to you. So it nets out, and therefore, that offset burden on your operating funds is netted out somehow.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member’s important question. In terms of the flow of dollars in and out, every year the dollars into the fund will be equivalent to the dollars out of the fund at the sector level but not necessarily at the school district level. Projects will be approved on a priority basis.

For example, the Quesnel school district this year comes up with a great project. They may get more than their — let’s say, hypothetically — $50,000 in that year when their project gets approved. Another year they may get less. Over time the aim is going to be to see those funds distributed equitably. Obviously, we’ll be keeping score along the way to try to make sure that there is equitable disbursement of the dollars.

The other thing we’re looking at…. I think this is a very important piece to look at as well. Every year, as the member knows, we provide annual facilities grants for the maintenance and, in some cases, replacement of boilers and those kinds of equipment purchases. That’s $110 million. So what we’re looking at is how we might partner the new fund with the existing AFG.

Quesnel might, for example, come with a proposal that said: “You know, we want to put a boiler in, and it’s a little bit more than what we get in AFG.” We’d like to, because it’s consistent with the goals of the carbon offset funds…. That’s the kind of strategy we’re looking at developing around this.

B. Simpson: That’s helpful. I don’t have the time to canvass this. My understanding is that the minister’s leadership really kind of made this adjustment happen. That’s what I’ve been told — that the minister did go to bat over this. I think, unfortunately, it’s a bolt-on. We’ve had this conversation in the last estimates, etc. There’s still money coming from operating funds to the Pacific Carbon Trust and flowing back as, potentially, additional capital funds or towards, as the minister indicated, special projects, etc.

Both school districts 27 and 28, I have been led to understand, were not able to take advantage of PSECA because of course they’re maintaining buildings. If they don’t have the ability to do a funky, interesting additional project, then they don’t put themselves in the position to get that.

It’s also interesting, I think, that this effectively negates the claim of carbon neutrality for school districts now, because they’re not buying offsets with the money. They’re flowing it back to the school districts, and of course, the whole principle behind offsets is to leverage money in another sector somewhere and contribute 5 percent towards the project. So I think it’s a bolt-on solution. It’s not an ultimate solution to some of the problems with the Pacific Carbon Trust.

But if I could just wrap two together so that I’m clear. Is the Pacific Carbon Trust at all involved in the disbursement of the money? My understanding is that they’ll give a shareholder dividend or something to government. The shareholder is the Minister of Finance, so he gets a dividend. That dividend is going to be targeted to a specific account. But is the Pacific Carbon Trust in any way going to hold on to a role in the disbursement?

And the second: is this a permanent change? Going forward, will this be a permanent change to the structure of the trust?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer. Is it a permanent change? Our understanding is yes.

Is the Pacific Carbon Trust involved in allocation decisions? We understand the answer there to be no. They will be disbursing the funds to the Ministry of Education, and we will be working with our partners in the school districts to appropriately disburse those funds — again, along the lines that we discussed in your previous question.

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

B. Simpson: Just in terms of the time frame here, I am going to ask some questions about a pet subject of mine, the Pacific Carbon Trust. Given that we are time-constrained and will have to adjourn here, I ask the minister’s assistance in trying to get through some of these questions. Then, if necessary, maybe what we’ll do is a briefing. My preference is to get it on the public record.

I’m just going to cut to the chase without a lot of preamble. My first question has to do with the adjustment made to the structure of the Pacific Carbon Trust relative to the school districts. I canvassed it with the Education Minister, but I need to know how the money flows through the Pacific Carbon Trust and back to government.

So to confirm the Education Minister, all the school districts still calculate what their GHG emissions are, net of zero, and pay for the offsets individually to the Pacific Carbon Trust. The Pacific Carbon Trust then, through some mechanism, flows that explicit amount — this year it’s rounded up to $5 million, but I guess the intention is to do it as an equivalency — back to government to go into a special fund for them. I’m not clear on what the mechanism is for that flowback.

Hon. K. Falcon: The schools still count their emissions. They still pay for the offsets — about $4.4 million last year, as I understand, as I’m advised. For every dollar they pay, they get an equivalent dollar that goes to the K-to-12 sector for energy improvements that will reduce their costs, whether it’s better windows or whatever other investments are deemed appropriate. That is managed through the capital branch of the Ministry of Education, in cooperation with the school districts.

B. Simpson: Maybe I didn’t clarify. So the intent of the Pacific Carbon Trust and the carbon offset regime and the declaration of carbon-neutral government is that you charge a tonnage to the public sector…. Unfortunately, it’s out of their operating budgets, which they’re supposed to be delivering a public service with. That’s clawed back and goes back to the Pacific Carbon Trust on a per-tonnage basis, $25 a tonne.

Pacific Carbon Trust then is supposed to use that money to leverage greenhouse gas reductions equivalent to the total produced by the public sector — last year about 700,000 tonnes. This year a change was made where school districts, which get their carbon tax rebated to them….

Now, my understanding is their money coming into the trust will now be rebated to them as well, through what I believe will be a shareholder dividend or some kind of transfer from the Pacific Carbon Trust back to government.

Yes, it goes into capital fund, and there’s that transfer from operating into capital and all of that stuff. What I’m trying to understand is that no longer will the school district’s money buy GHG reductions in the private sector, and there is no way that the $5 million — or short of $5 million — is going to buy enough carbon reduction in the school district system to declare schools carbon-neutral.

So how is the carbon neutrality…? It’s not just the money. Last year the school districts paid for 176,000 tonnes, basically buying carbon forgiveness at $25 a tonne. Now that their money is going to be flowed back to them, what I’m curious about is how does the Pacific Carbon Trust say, then, that schools are declared carbon-neutral anymore, given that their money is returned to them and they’ll never reduce 176,000 tonnes in the school system?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, as the member knows — I think the funding ran out last year — we provided $75 million to the public sector — $75 million so that the broad public sector could undertake investments that would help reduce their annual energy costs. My understanding is the annual energy cost savings are now approaching $13 million and annual GHG reductions of some 35,000 tonnes, which is obviously some progress.

With respect to the school districts, the easiest way it’s been explained to me is that the school districts are still making a $5 million contribution to Pacific Carbon Trust which purchases carbon credits, and government, in a separate transaction out of our capital program, is providing the school districts an equivalent amount of $5 million so that they can engage in making additional investments to reduce further their energy costs. The result of all this is that we still have our entire public sector in a position of being carbon-neutral across government.

B. Simpson: Let’s just clarify. A very specific question: is the minister of an understanding that the money — that $5 million that’s going to be directed to the school districts — is not coming from the Pacific Carbon Trust? Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct. It comes out of the capital program of government.

B. Simpson: I’ll move on to something else. There is different information out there, and I’ll track it down. It’s my understanding that that money will come from the Pacific Carbon Trust. I’ll track that down and give that to the minister.

The second question…. I’m going to have to truncate this, and I may follow up with the minister’s office and ask for a more comprehensive briefing.

The school districts are going to get a bit of a quid pro quo. It’s still a transfer from operating funds to capital. As the Education Minister indicated, not all the districts cutting cheques to the Pacific Carbon Trust will actually see that capital. They’re going to have to do a structure to try and figure that out.

My districts weren’t able to take advantage of PSECA, because PSECA actually was a contribution towards projects. If they didn’t have the capital or maintenance budgets to do the projects, they didn’t get the contribution. That issue will still be out there.

Let me ask this question. The health authorities, who don’t get a carbon tax rebate for the fuel, will now be paying, as of this summer, $30 a tonne on fuel. They will then have to pay for the offset. I know that Health has had a lift in its budget and all that stuff. I’m actually just getting to the principle of the issue. The principle here is that you’ve got all the other sectors except school districts, but in particular, let’s focus on Health as an example, that will start paying $30 a tonne on fuel and then pay $25 a tonne on the emissions from that fuel.

Is there any other jurisdiction that double-taxes that way under the name of carbon neutrality or greenhouse gas emission reductions, where you’re taxed on the front end on the fuel and you’re taxed on the emissions from the fuel? Does any other jurisdiction have a situation like that?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, one of the principles is that we recognize the K-to-12 sector as a sector where certainly we want to make sure every possible dollar is going towards the education of our children. We all understand the pressures they have to deal with. It is not that those pressures are absent in the health authorities, but the health authorities are managing budgets of about $10½ billion. I don’t want to say it’s a rounding error, but in Health terms it’s pretty much a rounding error.

The question is: what other jurisdictions are following that? Well, actually, nobody, because we’re the only jurisdiction in the world that is carbon-neutral, the only other government that has successfully achieved carbon neutrality. The member for Cariboo North will know, because we had discussions early on when I was first becoming acquainted with this, that there is probably no greater skeptic on these issues than the individual standing before you today.

But I am satisfied, as I have gotten deeper into this, first of all, that I do think that the position of leadership that British Columbia has taken in both the carbon tax and in becoming a carbon-neutral government is actually of value and is being recognized internationally. I know I saw a recent Ipsos-Reid survey that suggested 80 percent of British Columbians support B.C.’s leadership in reducing emissions, and I think it was like 3 percent that opposed. I mean, there was a very strong element of support for this.

That does not mean we have a perfect model. That was perhaps no better exemplified than in the concerns the member appropriately raised with respect to the K-to-12 sector. The response to that was exactly what we talked about previously — government recognizing that we still want them to make their contribution. Those credits will be still be purchased through Pacific Carbon Trust.

We will still be able to achieve carbon neutrality, but government, in a separate program, is providing an additional matching equivalent of $5 million of capital for the Ministry of Education to work with the K-to-12 sector and the school districts to make additional investments to help offset the costs.

I do think it’s worth noting that the public sector, it’s estimated, spends close to $400 million per year on their energy costs. By having a focus on energy reductions, we have an opportunity to have the public sector significantly reduce future operating costs. If public sector organizations can simply save 5 to 10 percent of that annualized $400 million cost, you’re looking at a potential of $20 million to $40 million a year in savings.

That’s what we’re striving to achieve through carbon neutrality — to put a spotlight on these costs so that decisions could be made in an effort to reduce those costs and show the kind of global leadership that we’re trying to show in British Columbia.

I do want to say, though, Member, that with respect to your previous question, my deputy actually has an answer. He’ll talk to you right after this, given that we’re challenged for time. I’m happy to canvass this more tomorrow if you wish, so I’ll hold off on this.

B. Simpson: Thank you for the chair’s forbearance, and the minister…. I’m at an event tomorrow, so I can’t ask the question. I wouldn’t mind a conversation with the minister about this, because this isn’t about actually energy savings in the public sector, it is about money from the public sector going to the private sector to do that. There is an attempt to do some sort of a of a fix on the public sector side.

Again, I have asked the Auditor General to look at this. I will be going back to him again. I’m not convinced that any of the projects that were purchased last year were actually incremental GHG reductions. I think what we have is a derivative scheme writ large that will be proved to be so very shortly here.

Let me ask the straight-up question to close off this debate. I asked it last time. There is still not an answer forthcoming. Out to 2014-15, the trust will be accruing, according to their service plan, $37.8 million in retained earnings. I think that money could be better used elsewhere. That’s after everything is netted out — costs, purchases, etc.

Will the government do something to claw that back and potentially get the energy savings that the minister wants to see by directing that and refreshing PSECA? The $37.8 million is not chump change.

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. We’ll have a brief discussion after this, too. I think, from government’s point of view, the Pacific Carbon Trust is within the GRE, so it’s within the entity. The fact that they have retained earnings all drop to the bottom line and consolidate, so it actually makes no difference from a Finance Minister point of view. All of it is consolidated within the entity, so I will just make that comment.

The second thing I will say is that they’re purchasing carbon credits. I think it is fair for people to raise doubts and ask questions, as the member for Cariboo North is quite rightly doing, because we are leading the world here. Just by its very nature, that means we ought to be asking questions.

The one thing I am advised by is that to ensure these reductions are real and the credits are real, all the projects must be validated and verified to international standards by qualified independent third-party auditors, which is required by the B.C. emission offsets regulation.

That is ensuring that the accredited auditors — I think they represent two of the major accounting firms in the world, certainly British Columbia and Canada — have to be qualified to perform their audits in accordance to an ISO standard, the International Standards Organization. Not that that may solve every concern or question the member may have, but it is something that at least provides a measure of independent validation.

With ten days left to go in this spring session, we have over 20 pieces of legislation still requiring substantive debate. The flood of new bills over the past few days has been overwhelming, and it includes legislation for coordinating police forces, managing animal health, re-establishing provincial park boundaries, and changing the school calendar. Legislation to get rid of the HST and to restore the PST also needs to be waded through before we wind up at the end of May.

Simply put, the amount of late legislation is either gross incompetence on the part of the government or a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny of these bills, especially the HST/PST legislation. There is no conceivable way MLAs of any stripe can give enough attention to the bills before us to vote on them in an informed way.

The legislation before us has been so hastily drafted that some of the bills are full of spelling and grammatical errors and have obviously been cut and pasted from other jurisdictions. That suggests that the civil servants who wrote the bills haven’t been given time to do their due diligence, putting even more onus on MLAs to pay close attention to the language, content, and intent of these bills. The Finance Minister has publicly stated that the PST and HST legislation is complex and was still being drafted right up to its introduction in the House, clearly signaling that every MLA will have to pay very close attention to how the government is going to unwind their own HST nightmare.

Unfortunately, the Premier says she won’t extend the session to fully debate these bills; however, we owe it to British Columbians to give due diligence to this legislation. I believe the NDP could help by committing to stop the over-the-top speechifying that has become the norm for them and by committing to move bills quickly to committee stage debate (clause by clause), where the real scrutinizing work is done. With this promise, the Premier should then extend the session for as long as is necessary for all MLAs to do the primary job they were elected to do: to read, analyze, debate and ask questions about the government’s proposed legislation, make amendments where necessary, and vote on each bill in an informed manner with the interests of all British Columbians in mind.

The Tsilhqot’in National Government has slammed Taseko Mines Ltd. president Russell Hallbauer for what it calls a “deeply offensive” letter he sent to Ottawa last November.

After the Prosperity Mine project was found to be environmentally unacceptable by the federal government upon review panel recommendations last year, Taseko was granted a second environmental review for its revised plan.

In a letter addressed to federal Environment Minister Peter Kent, Hallbauer asks for restrictions to be placed on the new panel regarding Aboriginal involvement, ceremony, spirituality and membership.

These include requesting Kent decline any Aboriginals who ask to be on the new panel, or having group representatives on it.

Hallbauer also asks Kent to disallow any prayer ceremonies, skits or films that aren’t subject to panel questions or scientific proof of validity, and he pointed to examples of those from the last review.

“… We are concerned that some of the steps that the panel took or allowed others to take had the effect of giving priority status to the interests and perspectives [of] Aboriginal people who were appearing before the panel.

“In our view, these actions go well beyond conducting a culturally inclusive process, and stray into areas where a reasonable perception of bias begins to exist.”

A Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG) release states the content of the letter raises fears that Taseko’s lobbying could “weaken” the federal review to mimic British Columbia’s “rubber stamp” process that approved the project’s first review.

“First Nations are alarmed the draft terms of reference for the new panel, which are expected to be finalized any day, would drastically reduce or even remove the new panel’s mandate to consider impacts on Aboriginal rights.”

Battison defends letter

Brian Battison, Taseko vice-president of corporate affairs, says the letter was intended to prevent or remove elements of bias from the panel and review process.

The federal environmental assessment (EA) process is prescribed by law, he explains, as a science-based examination of the biophysical effects changes have on the environment that is “very specific.”

“Spirituality is not part of the legal requirement. Spirituality is many things to many people and is not something that can be measured in science, which is what an EA is supposed to do.”

Battison adds those aspects can and should be examined by government separately, such as when Kent takes the panel report before cabinet, but not in the review panel where it can apply bias to a recommending body.

“We want the process to be fair and balanced; we want the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to be adhered to. That seems reasonable; I think people would agree with that.”

In his letter, Hallbauer requests panel selections be made on the same basis as for other projects, “whether they be Aboriginal or not.”

MLA echoes concerns

Hallbauer’s letter was obtained by Independent Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson through a Freedom of Information request, and then publicized.

Simpson says the only route to forming productive relationships between companies and First Nations is by resolving rights and title claims, or else the resulting uncertainty “poisons” both these relationships and the project approval process.

“I’ve warned Taseko on a number of occasions that they need to rethink their relationship with the TNG. I’ve even asked that they appoint new people to the project who will take a totally different approach to the TNG, one that is more respectful and more productive.”

The TNG release states the profound spiritual importance of this area to its people was a significant factor in the first federal panel’s rejection of the original proposal, partly due to “permanent, high magnitude impacts” on Tsilhqot’in culture and cultural heritage.

TNG tribal Chief Joe Alphonse says the lack of reassurance from Ottawa that the EA rules won’t change leaves potential worries that “the fix is in.”

“… We are not surprised that Mr. Hallbauer would write such an offensive letter. We have warned over and over again that this company does not understand or respect First Nations or our issues.”