Michael Sather

 M. Sather: My school district, which is district 42, is in a serious deficit situation — like, I guess, many school districts are — looking a $2.5 million deficit, which I think is now about $2.2 million. They voted to change the calendar. Spring break is going to be stretched out to ten days, and there will another day with no school in November. These certainly aren’t good indicators for a positive education system, and I’m sure the minister must be concerned about that throughout the province and hopefully in my district as well.

They’ve done other measures too. They’ve gone to one-ply toilet paper. Car washes and bake sales are being done to try to make ends meet. I don’t know if the minister had the opportunity to hear all those details, but one of the trustees said to me: “You know, if it wasn’t so sad, it would be comical.”

I want to know from the minister if this is what schools are now forced to do to make ends meet.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member’s thoughtful intervention into the estimates debate of the Ministry of Education.

We’re talking here of school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Just so that we all understand what we’re talking about, in terms of enrolment, we have seen…. Back in 2001-2002 the school district had an enrolment of just over 15,000, and that’s where they peaked out.

We have seen that school district, since 2001-2002, decline now to likely just under 14,000. Notwithstanding that, this is a school district that has seen their funding grow from $85,640,430 in 2000-2001. It has now grown to $112,635,526. The per-pupil formula or grant has grown from $5,737 in 2000-2001 to $8,035 in 2011-2012. That’s the estimate of what it will be. The current is $7,929.

The member said that the school district is running a deficit. That is not so, hon. Chair. They did have a deficit in 2001 of $350,343, but since that time they have had accumulated operating fund surpluses every year. It has been in 2003, $3,522,544, growing as high as $4,975,954 in 2007.

They have, in response to the constructive suggestions of the Auditor General and the ministry, been gradually reducing their accumulated operating fund surplus over the years, but even in 2010 it remains $2,914,948. So while they are gradually reducing, and quite appropriately, their operating fund surplus, I see nothing in the suggestion that has been made by the member of underfunding of this school district by the ministry.

I’m glad once again — although I’ve done it a couple of times — to compare what has been funded by the province to what was promised by the NDP opposition in their campaign platform of 2009. But I won’t do that now unless the member really wants to hear it. I don’t know whether he’s been a part of the estimates previously during the times that I’ve recited that, but I’m glad to do it. I wanted to put the facts on the record.

M. Sather: Well, the school district knows of which they speak. These are the figures that come from the superintendent and the treasurer. They tell me that they’re in a shortfall, and you know, they wouldn’t be going about some of the measures that they’re having to do if they weren’t. They don’t do it joyfully. They don’t do it just because they want to. They do it because they have to.

Just recently there were a hundred students and parents that showed up at the school board office protesting the impending cuts that the board finds itself in the position of, probably — hopefully not, and the minister might be able to help — where they may have to make these cuts to the music programs both at the elementary level and at the secondary level.

I don’t know what the minister would have to say to them, but I did get an e-mail recently from Sarah Richards. She’s a student at school district 42, and she asked me some questions that I thought would be more useful to pass on to the minister for his response. You know, the parents and the kids understand the value of band and music programs. It keeps kids in school, it’s a socializing tool, and to lose those are very concerning to them.

Sarah asked me what I’ll pass on to the minister: “What are your thoughts on the decision that may have to be made by the district for them to lose their music programs?”

Hon. G. Abbott: Can the member tell me what the shortfall is that leads them to not provide the program that Sarah has participated in?

M. Sather: Well, I’m glad to repeat it. The school district is dealing with the requirement…. They’ve got to balance their budget by the end of June, as the minister knows. They’ve got $2½ million to go. They’ve got to find cuts somewhere, and unfortunately, this is one of the areas that they’re looking at.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, I would just observe that today we provided the school district with $146,554 that they had not anticipated in their budget. That’s why I asked the member what their band program cost or their music program cost. It’s always delightful to hear how there is not enough money, yet what I said at the start….

These were not figures that we made up. These figures from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, school district 42, are their figures. It shows that despite the declining enrolment in that district, there has been a substantial increase in operating funding and that this district has been gradually reducing, and I think very responsibly…. I don’t want to attribute any of the member’s thoughts on this to the school district. They seem to be operating very effectively to me.

M. Sather: Well, I’m not sure what the minister is talking about. It may have to do with the money that school boards have to have in abeyance to pay their teachers at a later time. I think the minister realizes those kinds of circumstances. I want to go on, because I’m sure the minister….

Interjection.

M. Sather: I hope the minister — and I hope the member opposite there — wants to hear from families in British Columbia.

This is a family. This is a grade 11 student, and she’s speaking for a whole bunch of families in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I would hope that the members opposite would be interested. So she asks the minister also: “What are your suggestions for improvements, and do you have a platform for action on this issue?”

Hon. G. Abbott: We haven’t heard from the school district that they require any assistance in respect of making appropriate decisions on behalf of the school district that they serve. But if they have some questions in that regard, we’d be glad to receive them. Generally, what we find is that school districts and school boards of education make thoughtful decisions in respect of the important matters that they are charged with.

This school district, by all appearances, given that they continue to have an accumulated operating fund surplus of almost $3 million…. It appears to me that they are doing a good job of managing.

What school districts will sometimes do is set out a very expansive agenda for the year ahead and then try to match the available funding, that is coming almost exclusively from the province, to that program. Sometimes they don’t get to do everything that they wanted to do. That is certainly a possibility, hon. Member, but I can tell you that this school district appears to be operating in a responsible fashion.

I’m sure that they’ll pick up the content of our discussion, but if they need any assistance in terms of making difficult decisions, we can provide that. But they haven’t requested it, hon. Member. Until they do, I am going to trust in them to make wise and responsible decisions on behalf of the taxpayers who elected them.

M. Sather: The minister talks about expansive programs. I mean, this is the band program, the music program they’ve had for years. This is nothing new.

They’re also looking at having to cut $180,000 out of the special education budget. I don’t know. Again, maybe that’s something that’s expansive and not particularly useful or required by the members opposite. I would hope that’s not the case, but it would appear that perhaps it may be the case. I don’t know of what the minister speaks, actually.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Continue, Member.

M. Sather: I don’t know that I’m going to get any satisfaction from the minister on this point, but he’s welcome to continue his suggestions on there.

Sarah’s last questions were: “What are the reasons for your suggestion, and how would that suggestion help?” Well, the minister hasn’t given any reasons for his suggestion other than to try to push it onto the school board. He knows very well that they’re in a very difficult situation. The minister is adept — I guess that’s a word one could use charitably — at avoiding responsibility in dealing with the education problems that we have in this province.

Nonetheless, I did want to ask the minister about something else. The minister has said that per-pupil funding averages $8,330 in the province. My district tells me — this is the superintendent and the treasurer; I have to believe they know what they’re talking about — that our per pupil funding is $6,850 in Maple Ridge. That’s some $1,500 or something like that less than the average. Why is the per-pupil funding in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows that much below the average?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member here has been arguing over and over again his thesis that somehow our government has been underfunding his school district, and it is simply not so. Again, you know, I hear this on occasion from people that we should be putting out more dollars to school districts than we are, despite the fact that year over year for the past decade, every year we have seen increases to every school district in the province, including the school district which is a portion of the member’s constituency.

In order to try to ground-proof the level of funding which has come from our government, I went back and looked at who would likely be as free a spending group as one would find in the province of British Columbia. Of course that’s the political party across the floor here — that group.

If anyone would outspend us on education, it’s got to be the NDP, particularly this member, who would advocate for pretty much everything under the sun. It’s bound to be the NDP that would outspend us — right? So I went and looked at their program for the 2009 election. To their credit, the NDP laid out a three-year funding plan for education for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Their incremental increases for the first year were $50 million, second year $75 million and third year $100 million, for an overall $225 million increase in education. So that’s good. That’s reasonable. That’s generous. I have no quarrel and no criticism of the NDP’s budget.

Then I looked, just to see how parsimonious we had been as a ministry and as a government in relation to that free-spending NDP. As it turns out, we have actually spent $254 million compared to the $225 million that the NDP proposed. Imagine that.

Imagine that. We had outspent the free-spending NDP by $29 million in this area. So I don’t want to have this member telling me anymore that we’re underfunding the system, because it’s a whole lot of nonsense. It is a whole lot of nonsense.

It appears that the member’s school district is monitoring this debate, because we’ve just received an e-mail from the school district officials saying that their school district advises that it is not cancelling — “not” underlined — the band program. They are restructuring the band program.

The member’s characterization is unfortunate and, I think, goes back to the reason why it is important to have all of the facts before forming conclusions in these important matters.

M. Sather: Well, it’s good to see the minister get going. He’s always such a quiet, passive sort of fellow. Once in a while, though, he gets up on his hind legs and actually makes a speech of some substance. So there you have it.

Our district is expecting $750,000 less next year from the province. That’s what they’re planning for.

The minister mentioned a little while ago that we got $145,000. That’s a long way from $2.2 million, Minister. Thanks for the drop in the bucket.

They’re also going to be facing $1½ million in additional costs next year, including increases to the MSP premiums. There’s no doubt that the reality is there that school districts, including 42, are facing considerable cost pressures.

I wanted to turn to the issue of full-time versus part-time students. I’m assuming that the funding level for a part-time student is less than for a full-time student. If you’re a half-time student, do you get half the funding that a full-time student gets?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member’s question, eight courses is the full-time-equivalent in the classroom. Each course is 12½ percent of a full full-time participation. Depending on how many courses a student may be taking, they are funded in proportion to the overall.

In terms of the member’s assertion with respect to the budget of school district 42, it would appear — and perhaps we’ll get a note from the school district confirming this — that the school district conservatively, and perhaps without any criticism, assumed that there may not be funding protection in the coming ’11-12 year. In fact, there will be funding protection of $829,000.

Obviously, the member is reflecting a more pessimistic or conservative assessment — although it’s hard to associate the term “conservative,” necessarily, with this member — of the budget.

M. Sather: This is another concern that my school district school board has expressed to me. Previously it was considered full-time if you took four courses. Now it’s eight. Still the district has to pay for the resources to support the students that are there in school whether they’re half-time or full-time.

They make the point that having to have eight courses to be full-time is unreasonable. Students may be taking courses on line — I expect more and more are — but they don’t count. That doesn’t count in the assessment.

The grad programs only require 80 credits, so why would students take 96? You know, 12 credits per course, I guess. Students may have seven courses, and they’re spending time, with a heavy course load, to take a free block of time. So that makes them also not a full-time student. But still, the burden is there for the school district.

They certainly don’t mind supporting their students. They want to do that. I’m just pointing out to the minister that for my district — and, I guess, across the province — this is another way that it’s made more difficult for school districts to be able to manage to serve the needs of our students.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to review for the member, we are going to be seeing in school district 42, Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, a reduction of a few hundred students, likely, year over year. Notwithstanding that, we are going to see an increase in the grant, from the province to the school district, of $829,000 — almost a million dollars — notwithstanding the fact that there are fewer students there. Again, that goes to the funding protection which the province has generously provided to the school district.

So the figure I cited in terms of number of courses is in reference to the minimum requirement for graduation. But what we find is that students will take a whole range of courses over and above what is minimally required for graduation. Over time we have undertaken a calculation of how we fund the full-time FTE per school district.

Now, if the member, on behalf of the official opposition, is suggesting that we should revisit or revise or change or amend the whole way in which grants to school districts are structured, I am glad to hear a submission from him on behalf of the opposition or perhaps from the Education critic, in this regard.

I’m glad to look at it, but again, regardless of how you might rearrange what is defined as full-time-equivalent, it is going to have the impact of just shifting dollars among school districts. I don’t know if there are more part-time students in one school district than another. I have no idea about that. We can look at that if it’s the position of the opposition that we ought to treat those matters differently. But in our view, that would really not accomplish anything of a valuable nature.

M. Sather: Well, my school district is telling me that these students are often those that are on the cusp, that may or may not stay in school. So they’re asking for all the kinds of support that they need to make sure that these kids do remain in school.

But I have one more question for the minister, and here, hopefully, we can end on a mutually positive note. My district says that they feel that they’re in the running for a new school. The minister will know that because of the structure of school district 42 — in half of the school district the classes may not be full; in the other half the schools are overflowing — it’s difficult, because of the formula, to get a new school. But they feel that they’re in the running, and I just want to know if the minister can confirm that we are and that we can look forward to a new school in school district 42.

Hon. G. Abbott: Can the member provide us with a reference to a school name?

M. Sather: I don’t know that there’s a name for the school as yet. There are several areas that they could use one. I know the Albion area district is one of the places that they’re looking at needing a new school.

Hon. G. Abbott: Two items, and I’ll get to the member’s last question in a moment. Just this important clarification, that the ministry does fund support blocks for secondary students who are vulnerable.

To the member’s question. If a special needs student were only taking a couple of courses, we would still fund over and above that because we recognize the issue of capacity. So the funding for those with special needs is over and above what it would be in other circumstances.

With respect to the member’s question about Albion, this has been and continues to be identified in the school district capital plan as their highest priority. We gave approval for the acquisition of the site by the district a couple of years ago. We respect that it remains their highest capital priority, and it is a project which remains under consideration.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

May 17, 2011

M. Sather: I want to start off by asking the minister some questions about aquaculture insofar as it relates to leases under his purview. Fish farms operate on a lease basis. That means that they lease the seabed beneath them, which is Crown land. How long are these leases for, and how long have some of them been expired?

Hon. S. Thomson: Most of the tenures are 20 years when they are provided. Currently there are 39 expired tenures, and we’re currently working through those with First Nations consultation. We’re working with the Attorney General and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on addressing those tenures. Those continue to operate now, currently, under a tenancy agreement which the tenure provides for on a month-to-month tenancy.
They’re paying their rents as we work through the required First Nations consultation. Staff are working diligently — and we realize that it’s a backlog — to address those, but there are significant First Nations and consultations to work through and complete.

M. Sather: Have there been any issues with regard to getting these leases renewed expressed by the federal government and, if so, what department of the federal government?

Hon. S. Thomson: No, there have been no specific concerns registered. We are continuing to work with both DFO and Transport Canada through a process that harmonizes the tenuring, harmonizes the First Nations consultation.
As you know, the federal government under the Fisheries Act provides the licensing, and for the time being, we continue to provide a business licence for the operations. That is simply so they can continue to operate as a business.
The staff in the ministry are working with both DFO and Transport Canada in moving forward as we go through those First Nations consultations, working ultimately to have an efficient harmonized process. There have been no concerns addressed specifically by the federal government. They recognize that we are working closely together.

M. Sather: Looking at the Cohen Commission hearings, there were questions about the role of viruses and the decline in the sockeye fishery. DFO scientist Dr. Kristi Miller concluded that an epidemic of a novel cancer-causing viral agent or disease, salmon leukemia virus or SLV, may be associated with wild salmon declines in B.C.
I’m just wondering if there has been testing for SLV in B.C. salmon farms and when that took place.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear for the member opposite in terms of our responsibility within the ministry, we are responsible for the Land Act tenures, the business licence that I mentioned and a fisheries licence for marine plants.
In terms of the specifics the member is requesting, those questions would need to be directed to the DFO. They have the responsibility for the licensing under federal fisheries.

M. Sather: I just thought it might be a determining factor with the minister about renewal given the health situation.
Just on one last thing on that. Alexandra Morton became aware of some 35 indications of another deadly salmon virus, and she had made efforts to discuss this. But through the Cohen Commission, there was interventions that disallowed her from making these reports public. I wanted to ask the minister if the provincial government and the fish farm industry were two of those interveners in that issue.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’d like to take that question under notice or advisement, and we’ll provide a response to it. There are a number of agencies involved in the process. Our ministry has limited involvement in the Cohen Commission process, so I’d want to make sure that I have the answer correct. We’ll undertake to get that answer to the member.

M. Sather: I want to move on to an area that a colleague has touched on earlier, and that’s the wildlife harvest allocation that has certainly been contentious lately. A report having been put out by Chris Trumpy that has caused a bit of a stir. The report says that incentive to use wildlife or lose quotas — we will use it or lose it — under the current policy will result in poor wildlife stewardship. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to explain the process, what we do under the process is set the allowable harvest, and that’s based on sustainability, the population, conservation — making sure that that allowable harvest takes all of those values into consideration. Then there’s an allocation process that allocates the amount that, you know, recognizes that sustainability and conservation.
The general approach has been that when that’s set, it is…. We do it on the basis that we expect that to be harvested. What has been identified is that in some cases, that doesn’t happen, and then you look at how you shift that. That’s what has become the focus of the discussion and the recommendations that Chris Trumpy has put forward.
As I was explaining earlier, there is an active process currently underway in discussions both between the guide-outfitters and between the wildlife federation and working with both of those organizations to see how the overall allocation policy can work most effectively, recognizing resident hunter priority in the process. Those discussions continue.
We have not accepted — and I’m not planning, at this point, on moving forward with — any of the recommendations in the Trumpy report specifically. We will be doing those in consultation with both of the organizations.
We’ve had a deadline in terms of response to all the recommendations. We’ve received that response from both interests. We’ve agreed that staff would review those responses. We’ve committed to re-engage both of those organizations when we have a sense of the overall responses to the recommendations and other issues around the allocation policy. We’ve received lots of input.
We are going to re-engage with the organizations. So at this point I am not saying that I agree with or disagree with any of the specific recommendations in the Trumpy report. Those were work that was done to help inform the discussions, to help address the concerns that had been brought forward by guide-outfitters. Obviously, we have to put that all in the mix and find a path forward and a process forward, respecting the interests. We recognize that both of the sectors have very, very important contributions to the province — you know, legitimate concerns of both parties.
The overall goal is to have an allocation policy that works, that recognizes conservation values and sustainability of populations, helps contribute to economic activity, helps provide opportunities for resident hunters. We’re clearly maintaining the resident hunter priority in the process, and we’re continuing to work with both organizations in the month or the six weeks ahead to find a resolution and make any adjustments to the policy that would be collectively agreed to.

M. Sather: The Trumpy report, in the conclusions, says that one of the challenges for guide-outfitters is a decline in the quality of the product. The report goes on to say that how much quality of product will be a factor depends on how wildlife is managed in the province in the future. So why is the quality declining, and what’s the minister going to do about improving wildlife management in the future?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think that this goes to…. The issue, really, in one respect is that quality is in the eye of the beholder. Some hunters are specifically looking for certain large animals, more of a trophy kind of hunt that would be portrayed. Others, when you look at the resident hunter priority, are focused on…. You’re allocating numbers there without affecting the overall sustainability of the population, to focus more on resident hunter priorities, which are about having some success. So you make a wider range available, and things.
It’s finding that balance between, you know, the focus on resident hunter priority and wanting people to have a successful hunt. That means they’re taking a broader range, potentially, of animals. Some people would see that as maybe reducing some opportunities in terms of the quality of animals from their perspective.
So it’s all about finding that balance, and that’s the purpose of the allocation policy. That’s why we do have a resident hunter priority policy. The work was not meant at all to deviate from that policy. We are working with both organizations to make sure that we have the appropriate balance.

M. Sather: The B.C. Wildlife Federation, as the minister knows, is not at all happy with the Trumpy report. They’ve done a report of their own called the Intended Consequences of Wildlife Allocations in British Columbia. I just wanted to read into the record their concluding paragraph. The B.C. Wildlife Federation report concludes by saying:
“It must therefore be assumed that losing hundreds of thousands of resident hunter…days, over $100 million dollars in daily expenditures that fuel rural economies, and half of the resident hunter population over the past 30 years, was intended. Decision-making to this effect does not benefit wildlife, resident hunters or the B.C. economy. If it is government’s true intent to increase the value of all hunting in British Columbia, efforts should be directed towards improved wildlife habitat, creating healthy and vital wildlife populations. Taking opportunity from resident hunters and damaging rural economies to subsidize one industry is not in the best interests of British Columbia.”
That’s a strong statement, and the minister will be aware, I’m sure, of their feelings.
In the interest of time, I’m going to move on to another subject, the Great Bear rain forest agreement. In 2009 the provincial government signed an agreement with First Nations, environmental groups and logging companies to protect the Great Bear rain forest, increase First Nations say in decisions affecting their territory and support sustainable economic practices in the region.
As part of this agreement, there was a five-year transition period established with the ecologically based logging regulations. Part of the transition plans were landscape reserve plans that outline where logging can and cannot take place in the Great Bear rain forest, which were supposed to have been in place by September 2009 but are not yet. Why haven’t these landscape reserve plans been completed?

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s a very active process, and there’s a lot of very significant, good progress that has been made. I think that it’s important to recognize that this needs to be done on a government-to-government basis, in terms of working with First Nations in fully implementing the ecosystem-based management.
I’m advised that the full implementation of the commitments announced in March 2009 must be achieved by March 2014, so we’re working actively through that process. Staff advise me they’ve had recent engagement with First Nations. They’ve agreed to re-kick-start the process to make sure that we can achieve that implementation by 2014.

M. Sather: There are also about to be interim agreements. You know, the government is continuing to permit roadbuilding and logging when these commitments have not been completed.
So will the government commit to not issuing any new permits for logging or roadbuilding until those plans are in place?

Hon. S. Thomson: This is a process around implementation of the ecosystem-based management. That includes economic, environmental and social values that have to be taken into all of those decisions. Those are taken into within any decision that’s made.
No, we would not commit to not issuing any further permits. We have got 80 out of the 120 land use reserves that have been completed or are to be completed by December. There are a number of others that have been modelled. That work continues, but in any decision in this area all of those important values are taken into consideration.

M. Sather: Well, I think the minister’s refusal to do that will be seen as an act of bad faith by the three environmental groups that were signatories to this agreement.
The government also named five focal species in the process of ensuring ecological integrity in the Great Bear rain forest. They are the northern goshawk, coastal subspecies, and marbled murrelet, both listed as threatened; grizzly bear and Pacific tailed frog, both listed as of special concern; and mountain goat, noted as being a very high priority for conservation.
The 2009 agreement was supposed to ensure that these focal species are currently being managed at least to a level that will allow for ongoing species persistence. Focal species gap analysis was supposed to determine if and where additional habitat needs to be set aside for each species to ensure that their habitats are maintained above the high-risk threshold during the five-year transition period.
The government committed to complete the first step, the scientific process to determine habitat needs, by June 2009. This hasn’t been done either. Can the minister explain why not?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that the high-risk thresholds for those focal species has been completed, the conservation gap analysis is underway, and that ministry and staff will be engaging with all the parties in terms of timelines and deliverables in the very near future. It’s important to recognize that the environmental organizations have been involved in the process and are at the table all the way through this.

M. Sather: Thank you to the minister for that.
I want to move on to an issue that is in my constituency on the north end of Pitt Lake, and it has to do with Pitt River Lodge, who have been operating quite a high-end lodge up there — Danny Gerak and his wife Lee — for quite a number of years. I know they’ve had the Canucks, and they’ve had movie stars, and the whole bit.
So they have a pretty good business going there, but they really have a problem in terms of having space to dock their boats and the seaplanes when they arrive.
They’re concerned about a licence of occupation turning into a long-term lease for Teal-Jones — Teal-Jones gets mentioned again in these estimates — who are logging up there. Mr. Gerak is very concerned that he has no security in terms of his operation. He says that: “Unless there is a designated spot for my commercial business that I can drop guests off and tie my boat at, I will not be able to operate in the summertime. When there are more boats than dock space and I return with guests and find my spot at the dock taken, what would you suggest I do?”
I wanted to ask the minister, you know, if he can assist the Geraks in this fairly long-standing issue.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’ve just received some advice on this particular situation that the member raises. Just to state clearly that there has been an active process of engagement with staff and Mr. Gerak and the tenure holder in the area. There is a negotiated access that is provided.
As I understand it, there are some concerns about that access — that the individual is not completely happy with the terms or the security of the negotiated access. I’m advised that staff continue to work with both the operator and the tenure holder in ensuring that that access is recognized. I’m advised that those discussions are ongoing.

M. Sather: Yeah. No, they’re not going very well. There’s some correspondence here with one of the ministry staff whom I won’t name, but Mr. Gerak says: “You have told me there’s nothing in place in this proposed agreement to ensure that I will have designated long-term moorage. Why should I have special treatment over lay people or general users? I’m still shocked at this comment. You told me directly that I’d have to fight for a spot at that dock like all the other users and asked me why I should have parking and not you.”
He also says that previously the former Premier, Gordon Campbell, had written to him saying that if they put in an application for their own dock, your office would address this issue and get us secure dock space. They did that. It cost them $7,000, but they did that application. He said it was all agreed on when a staff person named Andrea Lacasse from your office was working on it, but then later it kind of fell apart.
I’m hopeful, anyway, that the minister can help him because it’s a thriving business in my constituency and regionally. I’m sure the minister would want to assist that.
I’m going to move on. If he wants to comment on that further, by all means. I am going to move on to a few questions on the Quesnel Highland wolf control project and the report of 2005-2010, the progress report. I want to get some understanding here in terms of what is being done. I understand that wolves are being killed in this process, and I wanted to know if wolf pups in the den are being killed in this process.

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite is probably aware, this is a project or a process that was about a species recovery plan for mountain caribou. So there was a project underway. It involved a process around sterilization of wolves to see if that would have an effect in terms of reducing populations and reducing the reproductive capacity, which would assist in that species recovery around mountain caribou.
In terms of the specific question, I don’t have an answer to that. That is something I would have to follow up on and get back to the member. Clearly, the project was around. It was part of a mountain caribou recovery project.

M. Sather: Well, I’m very surprised that staff wouldn’t know that. That would be a pretty significant event. That should be a yes or no, I would think. But I will look forward to the minister’s response on that.
Under this program, is the ministry killing wolves in Wells Gray Park?And if so, I wonder if that’s also happening in other parks.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear again, the wolf removal program is to deal with species recovery, predation with respect to specific species in terms of species recovery, particularly mountain caribou, or in instances of livestock predation, it’s carried out through the legal hunting, legal trapping processes. I think that in terms of the specifics around numbers and areas and things, that’s a briefing that we could commit to provide to the member.

M. Sather: I did notify the minister’s office that I was going to be talking about this issue, so I was hoping to get a little more information. I will try again, though.
Looking at the report again, which is the Quesnel Highland Wolf Project Progress Report, it indicates that wolf control has only been in place for that area from about 2007 to 2010, as I read it. Now, on page 18 of that report it shows that caribou were stable or increasing since 2000. So the caribou were increasing for seven years before the wolf control program was implemented. Isn’t that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: I have not looked at the specifics the member is referencing in the report.
But just to note that the species recovery around this species…. It is quite possible that there may have been some increases or a stable population. That doesn’t mean, though, that that population is at a long-term sustainable level as to where you would want to see that population.
So that’s why the project is in place. That’s why we need to continue to work to address the predation issues that could impact the long-term sustainability of that species.

M. Sather: Well, in the discussion of this report it says that the 2010 census…. This is the caribou census, which found 230 caribou. And the 2006 and 2010 numbers show that they’re as high as they’ve been since 1997. It says:
“This census of the Wells Gray North mountain caribou subpopulation observed stable overall caribou numbers but a low calf recruitment of 9.5 percent. This calf recruitment value is well below Bergerud’s stabilizing recruitment of 16 percent” — so it’s below what is thought it should be — “in order to balance natural adult caribou mortality. The number of caribou observed in 2010 indicates that it is unlikely the population has experienced a significant decline since 2006.
“This fact, coupled with the recent success of the Quesnel Highland wolf project” — so they’ve got the number of wolves down — “to significantly reduce wolf densities in the last two years, appears to indicate that wolf predation is not the main or sole cause of low calf recruitment in 2010.”
So it seems to me that this report brings into question the efficacy of what the minister is doing there and, in fact, that it’s having the desired result. If the minister could comment on that.

Hon. S. Thomson: The overall plan and process of dealing with this particular species is part of an overall implementation plan, a recovery plan, dealing with this. It’s based on science. It has an advisory group, a scientific panel, that is informing that. Wolf predation is one part of it, but there are also very significant parts of the plan dealing with habitat — all of those parts of the overall plan.
We continue to meet with that group. We continue to be informed by the advisory group, by the scientific group. Decisions continue to be made based on science. That advisory group meets regularly, and it includes all interested parties, including environmental organizations that are part of that advisory group. It’s done in a transparent way. It reports out as evidenced by the report, so we will continue to take the advice of the advisory group.
The current advice is that predation continues to still be a risk factor for recovery, and so we need to continue to take that advice as we work on the overall plan.

M. Sather: Now, fairly briefly, I want to move on to management of another species, the cougar or mountain lion. I would like to know what the government’s estimate is for the number of cougar in British Columbia. Does the minister agree that the population on Vancouver Island has dropped from around 200 in 1979 to only about 300 or 400 in 2001, which is a few years ago? I don’t know if there’s not any further…. That’s the information I got. I don’t know if the…. Hopefully the government has some more recent information on the status of the population. I know they’re hard to count and all that — but whatever they’ve got.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m advised that staff don’t have the specific number with them. We’ll make sure that we get that. What I am advised is that there are, you know, somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 6,000 to 9,000 cougars in British Columbia. Vancouver Island is known to have some of the highest concentration of cougars, but in terms of the specific number we would need to research that and get back to the member with that specific estimate.

M. Sather: One last question on that subject. I’m curious if the ministry has done any surveys. Does the minister know of any surveys that determine the level of support among hunters for hunting carnivores for sport? I used to be an avid hunter, but I never wanted to hunt carnivores and never did, and I am finding out, actually, that there are quite a few hunters who feel the same way. I just wonder if the ministry has any information on the attitude of hunters towards hunting carnivores for sport.

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m not aware of any specific surveys, but what I do know is that hunters have the attitude and approach that harvesting or hunting has to continue to result in sustainable populations. That’s obviously an interest of theirs — that it’s done in a humane way. I know that the B.C. Wildlife Federation continues to support having access to and representing that broad base of hunters, continuing to have hunting for carnivores available, but they also very much are of the perspective that the hunting policy and everything must continue to result in sustainable populations.

M. Sather: The Enbridge pipeline proposal would bring crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to the port of Kitimat. It would introduce supertankers for the first time to the waters off the Great Bear rain forest, the largest intact temperate rain forest in the world and one of the planet’s rarest forest ecosystems.
Temperate rain forests cover less than 0.2 percent of Earth’s land surface. The Great Bear rain forest is home to grizzly bear, wolves, the rare white spirit bear, sea otters, eagles and many sea birds, including murrelets that nest in the forest.
The waters off coastal British Columbia, its famous Inside Passage, are home to large populations of salmon, halibut, cod, rockfish and shellfish that the bears, wolves and birds depend on. The waters off the Great Bear rain forest are also home to orcas, humpback whales and fin whales.
These mammals would be put at risk by supertankers, not only from the loss of their food source when a spill happens but by the fact that these supertankers are the largest source of underwater noise. This noise disrupts the ability of whales to communicate. Whales are also at risk of being struck by these supertankers.
The waters of the Inside Passage that the supertankers would traverse are much more dangerous to navigate than are the waters where the Exxon Valdez disastrously ran aground in Alaska. This wild coast is known for its hurricane-force winds, and First Nations report stronger storms out of the southeast than they’ve ever witnessed before.
Some may think that a major oil spill in the ocean is a rather localized event. Not so. The Exxon Valdez spill in the Gulf of Alaska covered 2,100 kilometres of coastline and 28,000 square kilometres of the ocean. Less than 10 percent of the spilled oil was recovered. Now, 22 years after the Exxon Valdez disaster, about 25,000 gallons of oil remain in the soil along the coast. Some 100,000 to 250,000 sea birds and at least 2,800 sea otters, 250 bald eagles and 22 killer whales were killed, and billions of salmon and herring eggs were destroyed.
One population of affected orcas appears to be on its way to extinction. Some 99 percent of Kittlitz’s murrelet have disappeared from the area in part due to the oil spill. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, a double hull on the Exxon Valdez would not have prevented the spill. To add insult to injury, Exxon Mobil has been able to avoid paying 90 percent of the $5 billion damage award that they were ordered to pay. Today oil companies like Enbridge do not own the oil tankers they use. They charter them. How much capability or responsibility would these charter companies actually assume?
Eighty percent of British Columbians support a ban on tankers carrying crude oil off the midcoast of British Columbia. It’s time the government recognized how utterly dangerous this proposal is, how devastating a spill will be to coastal communities, First Nations and wildlife, and put an end to Enbridge’s pipeline and crude oil tanker plans on our precious coast.

M. Sather: It is indeed my pleasure to respond to Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. Well, it definitely is a long, strange trip; it has been with the HST and continues to be. The people of British Columbia were led to believe — more correctly, misled — that there wasn’t going to be any HST, and then we saw the contortions the government went through to try to explain it.
But you know, as we move on to this phase of this fiasco, certainly we have to look to try to explain it.
But as we move on to this phase of this fiasco, certainly, we have to look to what Christy Clark, the current Premier of this province, has to say about it. This is what she said just last year:
“It’s an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in the tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way and then refuse to bother explaining why they did it properly. They can’t even be bothered to mount a defence. And I think that’s an insult.”
She went on to say that it seems impossible the tax wasn’t contemplated before the spring ballot. “I just don’t think it’s possible that that could be the case.”
There’s a clear condemnation of the genesis of this whole thing from Christy Clark, who is the current, albeit absent, Premier of this province. There’s a lot of explaining that needs to be done about this. No doubt about it.
The Premier herself, before she became Premier, had the idea: “Well, you know what?” She seemed to be quite anxious, quite hurried, to get rid of this whole affair. She said, “We’ll just have everybody go back to the House and revote it; we’ll revote on the HST,” although some of her colleagues had to then remind her: “Well, you know what? We’ve already done that three times.”
So I don’t know if there was a caucus revolt or what the dynamics of it were, but lo and behold, the Premier then decided: “Well, no, I guess maybe we won’t have that vote just after the election that I had and when I get my members back into the House, albeit very belatedly.”
So we went from there to a decision that she made to say that we will have the vote on June 24. We agreed to that, on this side of the House. We thought it would be straightforward. The Premier said it will be held like an election. If you have an election, you have an election day, you vote, the votes are counted that night, and it’s all over with.
Then again, there was another twist and turn in the journey led by the erstwhile Premier. She said: “Oh no, we’re not going to do it that way after all. We’re going to do a mail-in ballot.” The mail-in ballot, as has been explained, will take place between June 23, with all the ballots having to be in by July 2, and will be counted sometime in August.
So all of this contortion to move the date back from September to June — which is a good idea, given all of the uncertainty not only amongst business but also amongst consumers about whether or not to do their renovations or whether or not to wait until after the HST vote — is going to be I don’t know what. They moved it back by a month, maybe — that is assuming the postal strike doesn’t get in the way, as the previous speaker just mentioned.
Interjection.
M. Sather: So it’s a peculiar rendition of reality, and I know that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson agrees with me wholeheartedly. It’s good to see his support again in this House, Madame Speaker.
The spending, however, is something else. I mean, right out of the hopper there’s $500,000 to be split between the yes and the no sides. Sounds pretty darn reasonable. Everybody gets the same amount.
It was too good to be true, unfortunately, because then the Premier went on to explain — and the B.C. Liberals explained — that there will be an additional $500,000 to universities, colleges and institutes. Now, I don’t know what institutes those will be. I’m looking forward to finding that out. I wonder if it’s going to be the Fraser Institute, for example, that’s going to be one of those institutes that will be — in an unbiased fashion, I’m sure — explaining the HST to British Columbians. If that’s so, I know that this government, because they are committed to fairness, will also let the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have a go at it as part of that $500,000.
Then we mustn’t forget — and the people of British Columbia don’t — $700,000 down the drain from a pamphlet. A pamphlet that the…. Sorry, the $700,000 is the voters’ guide. Now, that is another thing that the government is going to be unbiased about, we’re absolutely certain, and we look forward to that.
Then we mustn’t forget — and the people of British Columbia don’t — $700,000 down the drain from a pamphlet, a pamphlet that the…. Oh no, sorry, the $700,000 is the voters’ guide. Now, that is another thing that the government is going to be unbiased about, we’re absolutely certain. We look forward to that, albeit I don’t think the taxpayers particularly do, particularly on the spending side. The government has informed us that they’re going to do up factual, unbiased information.
We’ve got the Talking Tax tour of the Ministers of Finance and Transportation, and that one got off to a pretty rocky start too, I must say, where the Finance Minister said, “Well, you know what? We might talk about knocking back the HST a percent,” and then the Premier said: “Oh, wait a minute; we’re not going to be doing that.” She says: “We aren’t going to be talking about trying to reduce it by a point or two before the referendum.” I mean, I think people will see that as buying them with their own money.
We have to agree with Christy Clark on this one. One of these days…. I’m sure when she does get into the House eventually that they will get on the same page about what they’re doing with regard to policy. I know some of the members opposite, some of them who ran for leadership themselves, have some questions about the capability of the minister and the terms of the governing end of things. I remember watching her on television in the ’90s. She was a very able opposition member. That doesn’t translate, though, unfortunately, into being a good leader. I think that’s what the members opposite are now finding.
You know, there was $780,000 — that’s what the amount was, not $700,000 — on the scrapped pamphlet that the government threw in the recycling. Let’s hope it wasn’t in the garbage. Last fall, there was $48,000 of government spending for polling and $70,000 more for two pro-HST websites. That’s not to mention, of course — which other speakers have already talked about — the amount of third-party business advertising that’s going to take place. So much for the fair and balanced referendum campaign.
You know, all I can say is that we need to have the leadership. We need to know what Christy Clark, the Premier, actually thinks about these issues. We would like to see her here in this House. It’s been over two months — over two months, Madam Speaker — since she was elected, and she’s not here yet. If she’s fortunate enough to get elected during the May 11 vote, then there’s the return-of-the-writ period. I mean, we may not see her for more than four days this whole session.
Interjection.
M. Sather: Yeah, if we’re lucky. We should feel so fortunate if she shows up for four days.
I think that’s the way she wants it, which is really disappointing, because I thought Christy Clark had a lot of jam. I thought she would want to be in the House, but she seems to be avoiding this House in all ways possible, kind of taking a leaf out of the book of the former Premier, who was…. You know, he was in the House from time to time; I have to give him that. Although when he came to Maple Ridge, I know it was always skulkingly — nobody ever knew he was there — the hiding-out methodology of governing. I don’t think it’s the way to go.
The Premier doesn’t even want to debate in the by-election. She’s out there modelling various uniforms and this sort of thing. I don’t think that’s what the people of British Columbia want to see. They want to see a Premier who takes the business of the people seriously, who will come into this House and will address the issue of the HST, will address all the other important issues. That’s what we’re looking forward to: some kind of leadership. We’re not seeing it yet.