2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 22, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Speaker's Statement

Birth of child to Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Doug Sigurdson

K. Corrigan

Introductions by Members

Statements

Withdrawal of comments

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Michael Lambert

S. Sullivan

Local shopping and Shop Local Victoria

C. James

Film industry activities in Richmond-Steveston area

J. Yap

Coombs Fair

S. Fraser

Pacific NorthWest Economic Region summit in Alaska

N. Letnick

Kispiox Valley Music Festival

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

Report on Burns Lake mill explosion and safety at B.C. mills

A. Dix

Hon. S. Bond

N. Macdonald

H. Bains

Fire services management and fire safety in rural B.C.

K. Corrigan

Hon. S. Anton

Funding for community mental health services

S. Hammell

Hon. T. Lake

J. Kwan

Petitions

G. Holman

Hon. S. Thomson

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

Hon. B. Bennett

K. Conroy

J. Horgan

Estimates: Ministry of Justice

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Natural Gas Development

R. Austin

Hon. R. Coleman

A. Weaver

D. Donaldson

V. Huntington

J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education

Hon. A. Virk

D. Eby

J. Shin

B. Ralston

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

[ Page 811 ]

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker's Statement

BIRTH OF CHILD TO

DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it's my privilege today to note the very happy news coming from the palace in London. I would ask members to join me in congratulating the delighted parents on the birth of their son and also to send our best regards to Her Majesty, the royal family and the Middleton family.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: In the House today, Madame Speaker, we are honoured to have with us a guest of yours, Dr. Charanjit Singh Atwal, the Hon. Speaker of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Dr. Atwal is in the members' gallery. He is accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Inderjit Kaur Atwal. He is accompanied by Mr. Devinder Kumar Sharma, the consul at the Consulate General of India in Vancouver.

Dr. Atwal attended the 51st Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Canadian Regional Conference in Edmonton last week and is here in Victoria today for official meetings.

As you know, British Columbia greatly values our close relationship with India, and we look forward to working with Dr. Atwal to strengthen the B.C.-Punjab relationship.

[1335]

I should add that Dr. Atwal is accompanied by numerous of his guests: his daughter Trepat Atwal; Jagdeep "Jag" Sanghera, who is the president of my riding association in Vancouver-Fraserview; Balbir Singh Sahota; Kirpal Singh Sahota; Mrs. Betty Hayer; Steven Sandhu; Asha Hayer Sandhu; Jatinder Kang; and Harinder Kang. I hope the House will give these guests a warm welcome.

H. Bains: It also is a great pleasure for me to stand here and join with the Attorney General in welcoming Mr. Atwal to this House and to this province. I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Atwal when he visited us last time here in British Columbia — my home province, my country. I always have one ear over on the other side of the ocean to see what's going on in that part of the world. Please join with me and welcome Mr. Atwal, his entourage and his wife to this beautiful place and beautiful province.

I also have a number of ex–army officers here from the Indian Army and Indian Air Force joining us in the House. With us today is Sgt. Sukhdev Singh Gadri, Indian Air Force; Naib Subedar Sarwan Singh Khaira, Indian Army Signals; Cpl. Raghbir Singh Parmar, Indian Army Signals. Please join with me and give them a warm welcome to this House.

Hon. A. Virk: I do want to reintroduce the same guests, who came all the way from the mainland. I think that in all democratic societies servicemen and soldiers who defend their countries have a special place in our hearts. I'd like to introduce the soldiers, who have come complete with medals and uniforms.

First of all, we have Brig.-Gen. Kuldip Singh Brar from infantry. We have Sgt. Sukhdev Singh Gadri; Nak Raghbir Singh Parmar; Naib Subedar Sarwan Singh Khaira; Capt. Mohinder Singh Jaswal; and Col. Darshan Singh Sidhu. These are brave soldiers who are now Canadians serving this country.

Tributes

DOUG SIGURDSON

K. Corrigan: Well, the circle of life goes around. We have a birth, but I also wanted to let this House know that on the weekend I attended the celebration of life for my good friend Doug Sigurdson, who was a truly amazing man.

Many people will know him as the well-respected of leader of ILWU Local 514 from 1976 to 2002 — very active in the community in many ways. He was an avid golfer and a wonderful winemaker. Of course, that meant a wonderful relationship with Doug and his wife, Dianne, with Derek and I. We spent many a happy day on the golf course together.

I hope the House will join me in passing on condolences to Dianne Sigurdson; his daughter, Jody; and his beloved grandson, Ante.

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: Madame Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I make an introduction on your behalf of Trina Isakson — an educator; strategist; researcher with interests in social innovation and community engagement; chair of the Canadian Women Voters Congress; and an instructor at SFU Centre for Sustainable Community Development, Adler School of Professional Psychology and UVic School of Public Administration. May this House make her truly welcome.

B. Ralston: I also wanted to join with my colleague from Surrey-Newton in welcoming, on behalf of the official opposition and joining with the Minister of

[ Page 812 ]

Advanced Education, Brig.-Gen. Kuldip Singh Brar, formerly of the Indian Army Infantry; Col. Darshan Singh Sidhu, formerly of the Indian Army Artillery; and Capt. Mohinder Singh Jaswal, formerly of the Indian Army Engineers. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Hunt: As you began this sitting, you commented that the baby watch in England is over. But in my constituency there's a baby watch that continues.

[1340]

I'm pleased to have two of my constituents here with me, Don and Gail Sullivan, who are anticipating the birth of their first grandchild. Also, as you notice, the name ends in Sullivan. They are, in fact, the brother and sister-in-law of the member for Vancouver–False Creek. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them here to these precincts.

C. Trevena: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Maja Groff. Maja is back in B.C. visiting family on the north Island. She is an international lawyer at the Hague, and while back here she wanted to take the opportunity to observe democracy B.C.-style, so I hope we don't disappoint. I hope the House will make Maja very welcome.

M. Morris: It's my pleasure today to have two of my constituents, who have driven all the way from Prince George down to visit this House — Bob and Beth Quesnel, along with their three grandchildren. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me make welcome two very dear friends from the Ladysmith area. They're David and Linda Brown. David Brown grew up in Jasper. He was a chemist and had a 33-year career with the Ministry of Environment.

He was one of the originators of the Ministry of Environment's lab, one of the developers. He became a

section head in Prince George and eventually became manager of environmental protection on Vancouver Island. He is a unique person who spent 16 years in government union positions and 16 years in management positions and was always a positive bridge between those two communities in our public service.

He's joined by Linda, his wife. She was born in St. Boniface, Manitoba. She's been here on Vancouver Island since she was 14 years old. She was a working mom — as if there's any other kind. In fact, she spent many years in the banking industry and then, in 1991, became an assistant to children with special needs and, eventually, adults with disabilities. She's a longtime volunteer in the Ladysmith area with seniors. She's a seniors advocate and leads the seniors tai chi classes every week in Ladysmith.

Can the House please make these two wonderful people, my dear friends David and Linda Brown, welcome to the House.

Hon. S. Anton: I would like to introduce members of my family who are here with us today. My brother Owen Williams; his son Alister, who is going to University of Toronto and, to the relief of his parents, has received a full scholarship from the university; his brother Lachlan, who is in grade 10 at St. Thomas More School in Burnaby; and his sister Bronwen, who is in grade 8 at St. Thomas More. They're joined by their friend Aidan Wright.

Now, over a hundred years ago my great-grandfather, actually, decamped from Vancouver to the Royal City — the Royal City; I'll emphasize that today — of New Westminster, because that's clearly where all the action was going to happen. My brother Owen has followed that tradition and has taken his family to New Westminster, where they've lived for a number of years now. I hope the House will give them a warm welcome today.

G. Holman: I would like to introduce to the House Anne McFarlane, vice-president of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, and her colleagues. Anne also happens to live in my constituency. The House may recall that I introduced them last week, but in fact, they weren't here, and I didn't realize that. My apologies to the House.

CIHI is an independent, not-for-profit entity funded by various levels of government and providing information to various levels of government to help decision-makers make better decisions around the Health file.

Hon. D. McRae: Madame Speaker, first of all, thank you for sharing the news about the birth of the royal baby, and if you'd pass it on, we have an extra stroller that we no longer need. We're moving to that next stage of childhood in my house.

More importantly, we also have some guests from the west coast of Vancouver Island joining us in the House today. We have Zoran Knezevic, the CEO for the Port Alberni Port Authority board. We have Darren DeLuca, who is the federal appointee to the port authority board. We have Jeff Cook, who is the chief councillor for the Huu-ay-aht First Nation.

[1345]

We have Ken McRae here. He is not my brother, nor is he my father, but he is a darn good McRae. He is the former mayor of Port Alberni and also a director of the board of the Port Alberni Port Authority. Lastly, we have Gillian Trumper, who is known to many of us in this room. She is the vice-chair of the port authority board, and she is a past MLA representing Port Alberni.

Would the House please make these great guests welcome.

M. Farnworth: In my riding there are many fine schools. One of those schools, B.C. Christian Academy, is visiting here today. There are 21 grade 5 students, accompanied by nine adults. Would the House please make their visit to these buildings a most welcome one.

[ Page 813 ]

S. Fraser: I'd also like to welcome the contingent from Port Alberni. They're here today dealing with some important issues around transportation. As the MLA for Alberni–Pacific Rim, I'd also like to make them feel very, very welcome.

Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Madame Speaker, during question period last Thursday I made some remarks which were intemperate, and I rise to apologize to this House for the tenor of those remarks. To the extent which the members opposite found any of those remarks offensive, I withdraw.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MICHAEL LAMBERT

S. Sullivan: In a few moments in the Christ Church Cathedral of Vancouver a service will begin to celebrate the memory of a wonderful citizen and cherished friend who passed away this week.

Michael Lambert was known by many as the long-serving manager of the Hotel Vancouver. He also had responsibilities for the Four Seasons Hotel, Chateau Whistler and Empress, among others. He managed in some of the celebrated hotels around the world but chose to retire in Vancouver, in British Columbia, because of his great love for this place.

Michael Lambert excelled in the hospitality industry because of his great love for the people. He inspired a generation of literally hundreds of young people, who learned under his guidance how to express professionally the sentiments of respect and affection for one's fellow human beings.

These, his many students, are one of the great legacies that he leaves this province. They reflect his dignity, his attention to detail, his profound humanity. Thousands of visitors to British Columbia experience his generous hospitality through them.

Michael Lambert served as a volunteer in numerous capacities, such as with the Museum of Vancouver and St. Paul's Hospital. Lynn and I will cherish the dinner that Michael and his beloved wife of 56 years, Sally, hosted several months ago. They were a great team, and Michael supported her energetic commitment to provide meals to the less fortunate through Christ Church Cathedral.

May this House join in expressing its appreciation to Michael Lambert and its condolences to Sally, family and friends as they prepare for the celebration of a life well lived.

LOCAL SHOPPING

AND SHOP LOCAL VICTORIA

C. James: When we shop locally, we're all putting our money where our hearts are. By spending our money where we live, we help create stronger, healthier communities. And when we choose to buy from locally owned businesses, two to three times as much of that money stays right here in the local economy.

Locally owned businesses invest more in local labour, local taxes and community-based events. Local stores help create vibrant, compact and walkable streets that cut down on vehicle use, reduce pollution and prevent urban sprawl.

Encouraging citizens to think local is at the heart of Shop Local Victoria, a not-for-profit society directed by local business owners. The society started over a year ago, but it's already up to 125 members' businesses. They know that just a small shift in consumer spending has the compounding effect of keeping the dollars in our community.

Small business owners are powerful job creators, responsible for 57 percent of private sector employment, according to StatsCan. Local businesses donate to local charities, sponsor sports teams and support arts and culture events. They're generous and committed to our city and to customer experience.

[1350]

Discoveries await — handmade chocolates, rare books, gourmet cheeses, fashion, gardening supplies, local fruits and veggies, kayaks, artwork. The list is endless.

Shop Local Victoria president and founding member Gayle Robinson is the third-generation owner of Robinson's Outdoor Store, in business for 84 years in our community. She says: "Local business people shop here, buy here, donate here and…keep this city vibrant, unique and alive."

Our local independent business owners are dynamic, diverse and caring. To learn more about Shop Local Victoria, go to shoplocalvictoria.com. I would encourage all members to shop local, but especially when you're right here in Victoria while the Legislature is sitting.

FILM INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES

IN RICHMOND-STEVESTON AREA

J. Yap: "Lights, camera, action" or "Quiet on the set." These are words frequently heard in my riding of Richmond-Steveston.

What do Godzilla, Charlie St. Cloud, Mission Impossible 4, Diary of a Wimpy Kid 3 and Once Upon a Time have in common? They're all major film and television productions that have been shot in my riding in the village of Steveston. In Godzilla the village was transformed into San Francisco. In Once Upon a Time it becomes the quaint Storybrooke, Maine, and Steveston

[ Page 814 ]

Outdoor Pool became the site of a pool party in Diary of a Wimpy Kid 3.

In Richmond we really have it all — from historical sites to modern high-density urban settings and lower-density urban neighbourhoods, agricultural lands, bog forests and waterfront parks, trails and beaches with scenic mountain backdrops and world-class recreation facilities — all of which provide ideal filming locations for productions from around the world.

In Richmond we're proud that there is an average of 50 film and television productions shot in our communities every year, including classics like X Files, Andromeda, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Smallville, Stargate SG-1, First Wave, to name a few. Richmond prides itself on being film-friendly, and the Richmond Film Office is a one-stop shop for the industry.

Much of this would not be possible without the hard work of the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of B.C. and its hard-working CEO Peter Leitch. I want to thank Peter for his efforts and work with our government to support our film industry.

The number and value of productions continues to grow annually as the city of Richmond earns its film-friendly reputation by building relationships with film-makers and industry representatives working to improve capacity locally.

COOMBS FAIR

S. Fraser: In 1913 a group of farmers from Saanich settled in the Hilliers area of Vancouver Island and decided to hold a fair that would show off the agricultural aspects of the community. Since then, only World War II has interrupted an otherwise annual event.

Fast-forward to 2013, and it's now the 100th anniversary of the famous Coombs Fair, the largest and arguably the best fair of its kind on Vancouver Island. People from all over the world know Coombs as a wonderful community where goats live on the roof.

To commemorate this 100th milestone, we honour Coombs's unofficial animal. You guessed it — the goat. This is a family affair, with lots to do and see and play at — from livestock to garden produce, arts and craft, photography, needlework and domestic science. Children and youth are an important part of keeping tradition and the local agricultural aspects of the community alive in these ever-changing times, and the 4-H is a huge component of the fair.

Activities include pancake breakfasts and, of course, chicken and duck races, the obligatory ladies nail-driving competition, a wacky gardening hat contest and spinners working at their wheels. Enjoy the live music, the good eats and the great company.

The Arrowsmith Agricultural Organization has been working hard to make this centennial the best Coombs Fair ever. So put it on your calendars, ladies and gentlemen — Saturday, August 10, to Sunday, August 11, on Highway 4A in the historic Vancouver Island community of Coombs. If you pass the goats on the roof, you know that you've gone too far. You don't want to miss the fun. That would be very baaad.

[1355]

PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION

SUMMIT IN ALASKA

N. Letnick: From goats to polar bears. Last week I had the privilege to represent our province in Anchorage at the 23rd annual Pacific NorthWest Economic Region summit, or PNWER for short. Sorry, I didn't see any polar bears.

PNWER is an organization designed to improve cooperation and address regional priorities with neighbouring governments in Canada and the U.S. and the private sector. By continually building relationships with leaders in neighbouring jurisdictions, we are able to pre-empt conflicts and also seek support for provincial priorities.

We use PNWER to ensure industry concerns are made known to decision-makers in both Canada and the American federal governments. For example, at the meeting last week our B.C. team reinforced the opportunities provided by liquefied natural gas resources that will benefit the whole country. A major challenge in developing our LNG industry is access to skilled workers, so we raised this issue at the PNWER summit and won the agreement of neighbouring jurisdictions to make this a priority.

PNWER's workforce and energy working groups will develop an inventory of needed skills and obstacles that the private sector is currently facing in getting the right people for the job. We will make sure our federal governments are made aware of our industry's needs and present solutions for their consideration.

Also, significant challenges to our tourism sector — like border congestion and duplicate requirements in visa issuance — were brought up. Our team made sure these concerns were raised with the federal officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and border agencies from both countries. We are currently working through PNWER to find innovative solutions such as harmonized visa pilot projects that will increase the potential for the two-nation vacation.

B.C. and the regional economic prosperity depends on our trade and increasing economic engagement with our partners. Through forums like PNWER, we can continue to support our strategy of creating jobs at home.

I look forward to a year of accomplishments on the many action items till next summer, when PNWER will be in Whistler, right here in British Columbia.

[ Page 815 ]

KISPIOX VALLEY MUSIC FESTIVAL

D. Donaldson: If you're travelling up the Kispiox Valley north of Hazelton this coming weekend, just after 20K a fantastic sight will unfold before your eyes. Along the banks of the Kispiox River will appear hundreds of colourful tents, numerous styles of campers and RVs and thousands of relaxed revellers. That's because July 26 to 28 is the 19th annual Kispiox Valley Music Festival. It's held in a natural amphitheatre with an incredible stage on the Kispiox Valley Community Grounds, with the clear waters of the Kispiox River, world-renowned for its steelhead sport fishing, flowing along in the background.

The festival got its start with a dedicated group of volunteers and the assistance of the Midsummer Festival in Smithers, which just celebrated its 30th anniversary earlier this month. There's a wide mix of music and performers at Kispiox, and most of those attending camp out for the long weekend on the grounds, adding to a pretty special feeling, because it keeps things small and in touch with the natural surroundings.

Festival organizers are always trying to mix it up. This year is no different, with a presentation over the dinner break on Saturday of the trailer for a new documentary on fracking in the northeast. It'll be followed by a discussion of proposals for LNG pipeline crossings in the upper part of the Kispiox River watershed, something that is of grave concern to many residents of the valley.

Later Saturday night the Racket will take to the mainstage of the festival, which is a local trio who just won the best teen band in B.C. contest in April — an example of the talent that can be found in remote northern communities in this province.

The Kispiox festival is about the music but also celebrating who we are and building a sense of community that helps us deal with the huge issues we are facing, such as questions on LNG development. That's why it's not just for the great music but for the relationships that these events build that makes them so important to remote, rural life.

Well done, Kispiox festival volunteers. Here's to a safe, fun and informative weekend.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION

AND SAFETY AT B.C. MILLS

A. Dix: Saturday marked 18 months since the tragic explosion at the Babine Forest Products mill. As the Deputy Premier and the minister responsible for the B.C. Safety Authority will know, on January 15 of this year the authority released a heavily censored version of its full report into the Babine explosion.

[1400]

The censored version comprised only ten pages of the full 100-page report. The Safety Authority still hasn't released the full report. Yet last week, a year and a half after the Babine explosion, we learned that 25 mills have dangerous levels of dust buildup sufficient to pose a risk of an explosion. That's 20 percent of the mills inspected by WorkSafe in the period in question. It underscores the critical need to disclose all possible information about the relationship between dust and danger in B.C. mills.

To the Deputy Premier: why does the government continue to sit on the investigation into the causes of the explosion of the Babine mill in Burns Lake, especially in light of the continued risks we are seeing in mills across British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Everyone in this House…. Certainly, me and my colleagues in particular, who actually live in Prince George, and those who live near to Burns Lake knew many of the families that were involved and have seen firsthand the impacts of the explosions that took place. Those are tragic circumstances that no one in this House or in this province will ever forget.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that since the day of those explosions, there has been a rigorous and concentrated effort to ensure that the sector understands the potential, the importance of monitoring, auditing and ensuring that their facilities are safe. I can assure you that WorkSafe has been rigorous, that all of the work that has been done will contribute to sawmill safety in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, we know that the release of the full report was scheduled for January 15, 2013. We know the Friday prior, January 11, an emergency meeting was held between the board of the B.C. Safety Authority and three ministers of the Crown: the current Deputy Premier, current Jobs Minister and the former Jobs Minister, Mr. Bell. As a result of that meeting, only ten pages of recommendations from the full report were released on January 15. Board members were instructed to "destroy any copies, excerpts or references to the BCSA's investigation report to prevent inadvertent disclosure. "

To the Deputy Premier: why was the full safety report censored, and why has the full report still not been released to this day?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the Leader of the Opposition should know very well that the B.C. Safety Authority actually issued a statement clarifying and answering exactly the question that the Leader of the Opposition is asking today.

Frankly, it's important that those words be read into this record, because the Safety Authority was very clear that any of the recommendations regarding the safety of

[ Page 816 ]

employees in those mills has been issued to the sector. All of those safety instructions were issued. There were directives, there were bulletins, and there were requirements of the sector. In fact, all of that information was released.

To the Leader of the Opposition, this is the statement made by the B.C. Safety Authority: "Upon completion of our investigation into the Babine Forest Products incident, BCSA prepared an investigation report. This report" — and, I add, contrary to what the member is suggesting — "has not been destroyed or compromised in any way. It remains completely intact, and we still intend to release it at the appropriate time."

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, it is a fact that there was a meeting between cabinet ministers and the Safety Authority. It is a fact that after that meeting…. What I quoted there wasn't from me. It's not what I was asserting. It's what the Safety Authority was asserting itself — not in a public statement defending the government but what it was actually asserting to members of the board of the Safety Authority.

[1405]

The full report provides much important and useful information that would be helpful to the industry in preventing just this kind of tragedy.

The full report cites the lack of air circulation as a contributing factor to the explosion, yet there is no mention of this in the censored report. The full report also cites a dust blowdown operation that was conducted just prior to the explosion. This dispersed dust within the mill was near potential sources of ignition. Again, there's no mention of this in the censored report.

The question is: to this day, when this issue continues to be a factor — this crucial issue of safety in mills across British Columbia, according to the government itself — why was this crucial information about the causes of this terrible, terrible accident…? I shared…. I was in Burns Lake. I met with those very families as well. Tell us why this information that was in the full report has still, to this day, been kept from the industry.

Hon. S. Bond: There is a very critical difference between the information that was released and the balance of the information that will be released. B.C. Safety Authority made it clear that the entire report will be released in due course.

The difference is that WorkSafe actually came to the B.C. Safety Authority and was very concerned about information that, in fact, might jeopardize possible criminal process.

So let me quote once again from the statement made by the B.C. Safety Authority: "We were approached by WorkSafe B.C. with concerns that the public release of the full BCSA report might jeopardize a future prosecution process based on WSBC's referral of their own investigation findings to Crown counsel. Therefore, WorkSafe B.C. requested we not release our full report until the conclusion of the Crown counsel review."

It is essential that all of the safety information that was necessary for mills to begin to make the changes in the sector was shared. That is precisely what occurred and, in fact, what is going on today.

The Leader of the Opposition may be interested in potentially jeopardizing that Crown review. I am not prepared to do that. What matters is that at the end of the day, the Crown counsel process continue in an unfettered way. At the appropriate time the entire report will be released.

N. Macdonald: The full safety report also identifies the likely source of ignition, the place where the accumulated dust was ignited and caused the explosion, as the motor control centre. The cabinet of the control centre was found to be open. A system designed to use air pressure in the cabinet to keep dust out was not being used. Again, no mention of this factor in the censored report. Again, we see critical information that would provide useful information to the industry, to workers, to mill managers across B.C. being withheld from public view.

If worker safety is the priority, what possible reason could the three ministers have had when they met with the Safety Authority board to demand that the board censor the report before release and withhold this critical information?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, let's go back to the statement issued by the B.C. Safety Authority. Perhaps we should actually consider the facts.

"The B.C. Safety Authority carefully considered the request from WorkSafe B.C. and determined that releasing the information necessary to enhance safety was paramount. We thereby proceeded to release a detailed set of recommendations in the report in lieu of the full report. Upon completion of our investigation…this report has not been destroyed or compromised…. It remains completely intact, and we still intend to release it at the appropriate time."

[1410]

All of the relevant safety recommendations that were contained in that report were released, and in fact, there has been rigorous work done with the sector. They have worked extremely hard to ensure that the mills are complying with the audits that are being demanded.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We have provided two examples from the report that were in the full report but have never been made public. If you go to the e-mail that was released, from January 14, it says, "Last Friday afternoon a teleconference was held with BCSA executive members, Peter Cook" and the current Deputy Premier, the current minister responsible for this file and Mr. Bell. As a result

[ Page 817 ]

of that meeting, instead of releasing the full report, we had a highly redacted report with only some of the details that are needed.

If safety is the concern…. And I accept that for the minister and for everyone in this House, safety is the main concern. So the question is: if that is the main concern, does it not make sense to have all of the information available to those that need it — workers, mill operators, those that are responsible for safety? That's the question for the minister. How is it that we do not have all of the information that we need to keep workers safe?

Hon. S. Bond: I've clearly outlined for the member opposite exactly what occurred. And yes, there was a call, at which time the information was shared with ministers about the decision-making process that I have outlined.

In fact, if the member opposite is calling into question the integrity of the B.C. Safety Authority, let's go back one more time, then, to the statement that they issued. The B.C. Safety Authority has widely shared the recommendations report with industry and with the public to provide the information necessary to promote technical system safety improvements.

What matters to us is that the safety information was shared immediately, thoroughly and appropriately.

The other aspect of this discussion is that there is a reference to Crown counsel. The report will be released in its entirety once Crown counsel has made its independent judgment about the reference of the files.

H. Bains: It's been 18 months since the Burns Lake tragedy, and improvements that could make the workplace safer for workers haven't been done. The report that could help save lives is stalled, and they have no idea when it's going to be released.

We know now that investigation took place from October 2012 to May 2013. Of 125 mills, 20 percent of those mills did not comply with the cleanup requirements — 20 percent. That is without the release of that report, so that actually heightened the safety concerns and worries for the workers.

Workers want to go to work and be safe. Their families expect them to come home in the same shape that they went to work. That's not asking too much, but this government, by suppressing that information, is not ensuring that.

My question is, again: can the minister tell the House if WorkSafe B.C. has turned over everything it has learned in its investigation so that we know that there is at least some progress on this file?

[1415]

Hon. S. Bond: I know one thing for sure. What those families have experienced is traumatic, and we want to make sure it never happens to families again in British Columbia. I know this. One thing they would not want would be for this to become a political issue.

On April 26 of last year WorkSafe issued a directive to sawmills requiring them to conduct a risk assessment and develop an approach for controlling combustible dust. To suggest that these safety recommendations have not been either followed or issued is absolutely incorrect. The member needs to think about that.

Following this order, WorkSafe visited 173 sawmills across this province to make sure that they were in compliance with those new recommendations. In the fall of 2012 WorkSafe inspectors revisited those sawmills. They visited 142 mills at that time. We know that it is essential that mills in this province comply, that they do audits and that they make changes. That work began immediately. Those directives were issued, and the sector is responding as they should.

H. Bains: Well, the reports only recently suggest that 20 percent of the mills have not complied with the cleanup requirements — 20 percent. That only adds to the concern in B.C. mills. In view of that investigation showing that in 20 percent of those mills workers are still subject to some of the same dangerous conditions that took four lives and injured dozens very seriously, again I ask the minister: will the minister do the right thing and release those safety reports?

Hon. S. Bond: What this government will not do is jeopardize a Crown counsel process that is underway. As the member has heard, the B.C. Safety Authority issued a statement that said all of the relevant safety directives were issued.

Frankly, I'm not even sure how to answer the member opposite. To think that employers in British Columbia don't want to improve safety standards in their mills, to suggest that there haven't been directives issued — that is just absolutely unbelievable.

Let's be clear. All of the relevant safety recommendations and directives were issued. In fact, WorkSafe British Columbia has undertaken the most rigorous undertaking in terms of safety that they have ever done.

All of the relevant information was released, and in fact, the report will be issued in due course, once the Crown counsel process has been completed.

Madame Speaker: If I might caution all members that the Chair needs to hear the question and the answer.

FIRE SERVICES MANAGEMENT AND

FIRE SAFETY IN RURAL B.C.

K. Corrigan: We actually have a report that goes back four years from the Fire Services Liaison Group, which says that the province needs to take more responsibility — four years ago — for inspection and coordination when it comes to rural B.C.

[ Page 818 ]

Now we have a more recent report, 2013, British Columbia Fire Training Needs Assessment . It concludes that many small communities don't have the firefighting capacity to respond to disasters like the tragedy that happened in Quebec or mill explosions in British Columbia.

The report notes that "responsibility for fire service has become extremely decentralized and fragmented. Responsibilities and activities have been downloaded from the office of the fire commissioner to the municipalities. Over 300 rural departments, representing close to half the population, are under-resourced to properly manage fire services."

[1420]

To the minister of public safety, can she please explain why her government continues to ignore the serious warnings and repeated reports that government off-loading is compromising the fire safety of rural British Columbia?

Hon. S. Anton: As the minister of public safety…. Public safety, of course, is a priority. The first line of defence for things — fires and problems in communities — is handled through the local community. Local communities are responsible to be the first response.

We work closely through my ministry with all communities in British Columbia to make sure that they do have the right resources on the ground to allow them to carry out that first response. If they do not have enough resources, the appropriate resources, they do ask Emergency Management B.C. for assistance, and Emergency Management B.C. goes in to assist.

If the problems are more serious than that, of course, it can get escalated up the line. Fundamentally, there is a plan in place for all communities in British Columbia around fires, wildfires, fires in their towns, disasters in their communities.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: This minister needs to get to know her file. We have two reports, 2009 and now 2013, that said exactly the opposite of what the minister has just said, that said the government is ignoring its responsibility to rural British Columbia.

We've known since 2009 that there are serious gaps and inconsistencies in the training provided to both paid and volunteer firefighters in communities across B.C. Yet since that time, the office of the fire commissioner, which is responsible, whose job it is to oversee fire services, has had more than half of its funding cut.

It's no wonder that the 2013 report found that variance in firefighter training is still "alarmingly high." Average funding for offices of fire commissioners across Canada is $2.99 per capita. In British Columbia it's 20 cents per person — less than 1/10.

Can the minister please explain why this government expects the office of the fire commissioner to properly ensure firefighters in B.C. get the training they need with a budget less than 1/10 of that of other provinces?

Hon. S. Anton: We have an integrated response in our province, starting with the local community and working up through Emergency Management B.C. There are specialist teams around the province, but there are particular specialist teams through Emergency Management B.C. who attend to help local communities where needed.

We are proud of the work that we do, working with local communities. We are in constant touch with them. There's a good response in British Columbia, and I think we should thank all the people who are part of that response.

FUNDING FOR

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

S. Hammell: Community mental health programs create a network of support for people with mental health needs across B.C. and are a line of defence against hospitalization. Through actions and outreach, they promote mental health, prevent substance abuse and provide support and treatment to individuals and families.

For each of the programs the government eliminates, there are countless numbers of British Columbians with mental health issues who become scattered and displaced, left without connections to the community resources they require to live stable lives. Why is the government reducing the capacity of local community organizations to support people with mental health needs?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

This government is committed to providing the best supports for people facing the challenges associated with mental health and substance use. In fact, in 2011-2012 the Ministry of Health spent $1.3 billion on mental health and substance use. That is an increase of 58 percent since 2000-2001.

On this side of the House we have made many, many investments in supporting people that face the challenge of mental health. We will continue to do that on behalf of all British Columbians.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The West Coast Mental Health Network is a peer-run organization that provides resource and support for people as they receive treatment for their mental illness. This unique organization offers one-to-one peer support and provides creative solutions to the

[ Page 819 ]

day-to-day challenges of living with mental illness. This is an example of "supported self-help programs that offer cost-effective forms of health" called for in the ten-year mental health plan. The cost of running the program is a mere $100 per person, per year, and the organization is staffed primarily by volunteers.

With such minimal organizational costs and operating costs and in light of the need for such cost-effective supports as described in your ten-year mental health program, how can this government claim the West Coast Mental Health Network is no longer affordable?

Hon. T. Lake: I agree with the member opposite that community-based programs are the most effective form of outreach for people facing challenges around mental health, which is why in April of this past year we announced $18.4 million in new community-based and grass-roots mental health funding.

I'll give some examples. We set aside $15 million for the Community Action Initiative to support local grants for organizations that work to support mental health and the well-being of people in their communities, $1 million to the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research to support mental health research, $1 million to the University of Victoria Centre for Addictions Research, $1.4 million to the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division.

On this side of the House we support communities, and we support those who face the challenges of mental health and substance use.

J. Kwan: If the minister actually agrees that community-based programs are effective, then the West Coast Mental Health Network program would not be cut, the program for Art Studios for people with mental illness would not be cut.

ACE students have written to the government begging them not to cut this program. In the words of one student, who states: "I cannot survive without ACE." To date no one from government has responded. The claim from the government, of course, is to say that they be referred to other ESL programs. The fact is ACE is one of its kind. There's no other program in British Columbia.

Cutting this program will only further isolate a vulnerable group of people, which could lead to hospitalization. This is bad for the families, bad for the individual, bad for taxpayers. Why would the government cut this program?

[1430]

Hon. T. Lake: We understand the challenge of those with mental health challenges. This was a decision made by Vancouver Coastal Health. It was a decision made on the basis of providing the very best with the resources available to Vancouver Coastal Health.

Vancouver Coastal Health has informed me that the ACE program is not geared to new immigrants. Many clients have been in Canada for ten years or more and have a support network in place.

Now, I know it was a former Health Minister who used to like to say that nothing should ever change in NDP world. On this side of the House we believe in using health care dollars efficiently. Vancouver Health is doing just that.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Order. The members will come to order.

Petitions

G. Holman: I want to present a petition here from over 500 residents of Pender Island in my constituency in support of Dr. Michael Thompson, who is working at the Pender Island Medical Clinic. The Vancouver Island Health Authority has served six months' notice, cancelling Dr. Thompson's contract.

The petitioners are concerned about the loss of a physician who has provided quality service at all hours of the day to his many appreciative patients, are concerned about a medical clinic that will be understaffed for a long period if this dismissal occurs and are requesting VIHA to reverse their decision and reinstate Dr. Thompson's contract.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd like to table a petition. This is from constituents of Kelowna-Mission. It's a petition concerning a brain protection strategy for people with PKU, phenylketonuria, and access to available resources and services.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In

Section B of this chamber, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, ultimately, that to be followed by the Ministry of Justice; in

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, Committee of Supply — Ministry of Natural Gas Development and Housing; and in the Birch Room,

[ Page 820 ]

Section C, Committee of Supply — the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1435-1440]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,219,000 (continued).

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry. Apologies to the member opposite. I got stuck out in the hall on smart meters, of all things, and couldn't get away. I apologize for the delay, hon. Chair.

I understand, having had a brief conversation with the opposition critic, that the order today will be Columbia River treaty, Columbia Basin Trust and then the Columbia Power Corporation. We'll have staff lined up to support me in each of those three areas of estimates.

I'm actually not planning on saying very much to get started with each of those three. I want the opposition critic or critics to have as much time as possible, but let me introduce my deputy minister, Dave Nikolejsin, who is sitting immediately behind me; the assistant deputy minister, Les MacLaren, in charge of electricity and alternative energy, who has been around and is very knowledgable about all three of these files; and to my left, Kathy Eichenberger, who is responsible to work with the Columbia River treaty.

[1445]

I'm sure the critic has had conversations directly with Kathy. So we'll start on the treaty. Again, I think the opposition critic and her colleagues in the West Kootenay, as well as myself and the MLA from Columbia River–Revelstoke, all have a keen interest in the treaty. I would say most of our major valleys in the Columbia Basin, which is primarily the Kootenay region of British Columbia, have been flooded up as a result of the Columbia River treaty.

There has been considerable disruption and dislocation over the past 50 years in our region and, as well, considerable benefits to our region, some of which we're going to discuss today in terms of Columbia Power Corporation and Columbia Basin Trust.

We'll get started on the treaty, and I'll let the member opposite decide when we're going to shift from the treaty to Columbia Basin Trust.

K. Conroy: First off, thanks to the minister for his time, because we only have two hours to get through all of this. I want to thank the staff, both Les MacLaren and Kathy Eichenberger, for the work that they've been doing on the treaty and the amount of time they gave for estimates briefing. It was very thorough, so it answered a lot of our questions. I want to thank them for that and also their willingness to work with not only the opposition but also the people of the basin — the amount of consultation that has been done.

As we all know, the first time this was done, back in the '60s, there was no consultation. The people of the basin were given a deal. It was concocted down in Victoria, and the people of the basin had to just accept it. The issues that arose from that are still issues we're facing today, and people of the basin still feel very strongly about it, especially families that are still there that watched their land be taken away or flooded. I know, still to this day, my husband talks about his grandfather's farm flooding. Where the actual Keenleyside dam sits now is where his grandfather's farm was.

I also want to put on the record, and I know the minister himself has mentioned the fact, that this is an apolitical situation, that it's something that for all the MLAs of the region is very near and dear to our hearts. Along that line, I understand that the actual draft report on what's going to happen with the negotiations will be going to cabinet sometime in late November, early December. I'm wondering if those other MLAs that are just as interested and concerned about this treaty as the minister and cabinet might have access to that report at the same time or shortly after.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm not going to speculate, and I don't think that any minister would speculate on when an issue or a file is taken to cabinet. But I will say a couple of things to the member.

First of all, there is reference to the Columbia River treaty in my mandate letter from the Premier. The Premier obviously recognized this as an issue of enormous importance to British Columbia, the future of our province and, certainly, our region — not just our region but to the whole province. So there is reference to the treaty in the mandate.

[1450]

I would also say that the Columbia River treaty has over the past, I would say, three years, achieved a much

[ Page 821 ]

higher profile in our government than it had before that. You know, when something is working well…. And from a flood control and power production point of view and from the point of view of British Columbia receiving considerable benefits overall from the treaty, it has actually been working very well — notwithstanding the member's accurate comments about people who were displaced and the lack of consultation back before the treaty was first signed.

I think now, as we get very close to the fall of 2014, at which time either party to the treaty can signal its intent to terminate the treaty, we are very much focused and engaged in the treaty. I'd like to say to the member that government is actually very interested in making sure that this time around we do the adequate consultations with people and that we figure out whether we are going to be able to improve upon what we consider to be a good treaty already.

Hopefully, that addressed all the questions that the member had. If not, then she'll tell me, and I'll try again.

K. Conroy: The crux of the question was actually whether the opposition MLAs would be consulted around the whole report that's going to cabinet, shortly after, so that we can have an opportunity to give a fulsome review of the report. That was the actual….

I mean, it's great that it's part of the minister's mandate. It's really important. And it should be important, not just to the people of the Kootenays but to the entire province. The downstream benefits coming back are $200 million to $300 million a year, right into the coffers of the province. So it affects everybody in this province, and it's something that all members of the Legislature should be interested in.

Definitely, those members — the three of us from the opposition…. That was where I was going with that. So I'm going to ask that — that the minister can add to that.

But also, I wanted to know if the minister was going to have opportunity for further consultations with people after the report was going to be released. Is the committee going to back out to the people of the Kootenays with further consultation once the report is drafted?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'm sorry. I misunderstood the first question, left off one of my answers, obviously. I'm happy to meet again with opposition members about the Columbia River treaty.

Right now what we have to discuss is the report that's entitled U.S. Benefits from the Columbia River Treaty — Past, Present and Future: A Province of British Columbia Perspective. That came out in June and is on the website. I could certainly meet, and we could discuss that. There are some pretty interesting statements and ideas in that.

There is also, however, a document coming out this summer that will be at least as important to me and to the opposition MLAs. It's essentially a threshold point for the consultation that has been taking place.

There will be a consultation report introduced, or released, into the basin, and people will have an opportunity to look at that consultation report and say: "Okay, I'm glad that somebody said this" or "I'm glad somebody said that" or "I wish somebody had brought up such-and-such." If there is something that they feel is deficient about the report, they'll have the opportunity to approach government and have it added to the consultation report.

[1455]

In terms of the three opposition members having some opportunity to influence what I take, as minister, to cabinet, I'm certainly happy to provide them with that opportunity. My suggestion would be that we meet after the consultation report has been released. We can look at the consultation report, we can have staff there to inform us of things that the minister won't think of, and we can also look at this other report that I mentioned, on the benefits to the U.S.

At that point, I'll be aware of what the opposition members want me to know before I go to cabinet. Again, I'm happy to do that.

K. Conroy: Once the report is released and it has gone to cabinet, will there be opportunity for further consultation in the basin — taking the report around and doing the same type of consultation? I guess it's: will there be funding for that consultation with people of the basin as well as the actual consultation happening?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, we will continue to consult in the basin. There has been extensive consultation done, as the member acknowledged.

With this consultation report, that will be an opportunity, I think, for people to decide, as I said a minute ago, what's not in it and will allow us to direct our further efforts to talking with people, listening to people, to obtain the information that they may feel is missing from the initial consultation that has taken place. Again, it's been quite extensive.

The member has referred to "the report," and the only report that's out right now is this report, which I mentioned a minute ago, on the impact on the U.S. from the treaty.

There is this second report, which I've mentioned a few times here this afternoon, about the consultation report. That's what will be in the public realm when I take recommendations to cabinet. So we will have done many rounds of public consultation. We will have worked with and listened carefully to local government, which is also preparing a report. So there's a third report that I think is soon to be completed. They will have their perspective, their ideas, and that would be another report that I would be happy to discuss with opposition members.

After we have had that discussion on those three reports, at some point — and I can't say when — I would take some recommendations from the ministry to cabinet.

[ Page 822 ]

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that all those reports, yes, will be compiled and taken to cabinet around decisions to be made and how the negotiations are going to be undertaken. So that's my understanding of what the final report is going to be, or the final draft report. I guess, it'll be the draft of many that will go to cabinet with a decision of how the government is going to proceed with the actual negotiations with the United States.

I just wondered who is actually going to take the lead in negotiations with the United States. Is it going to be staff doing that? Or is it going to be the minister? Who's going to be doing that?

[1500]

Hon. B. Bennett: The question is who — what party, what agency, what entity — will negotiate on behalf of Canada, if there is any negotiation to take place. The answer to that is: we don't know yet. We are thinking about it. The member asked whether it would be the minister. It won't be the minister. B.C. Hydro is officially the party that, on the operations and administrative side of things, has worked with the U.S. parties, but there has been no decision made as to whether it would be B.C. Hydro or whether government would hire professional negotiators.

There is also an issue — or a consideration, I would say — of how we bring the federal government into this, given that it's a transboundary treaty. Even though B.C. is in a very strong position to represent British Columbia interests in any discussions or any negotiations, the federal government, obviously, will have to be involved.

So we don't know yet for sure who will lead it. But it's a good question, and we'll answer it over the next, I would think, six or eight months.

K. Conroy: Are there funds in the budget to ensure that the consultation process can happen and this process will not be affected by, for instance, the core review or any of the other things that are happening with the ministry?

Hon. B. Bennett: The question is whether there is money in the budget to continue with appropriate levels of consultation and, of course, I'm going to say, discussions with the U.S. or potentially negotiation with the U.S. There are no plans to reduce the budget for this exercise. That's all I can tell the member at this point on that.

I can tell the member that as Minister Responsible for Core Review, I don't believe that there is any reason to think that the Columbia River treaty would ever get to that particular table. The process that we've been using over the last couple of years has been a good process, and the staff who have been engaged in that process have done a terrific job. But it's not a process that has involved a lot of money, and it's not something that I think is necessary to take to core review.

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that the Columbia Basin Trust is putting together a

summary of the consultation and the outreach that's happening in the States, and I'm going to ask the folks at Columbia Basin Trust when they come in.

Is the ministry doing anything similar? Or are they relying on the Columbia Basin Trust to pull together that monitoring of the army corps or their consultations in the States?

Hon. B. Bennett: The Columbia Basin Trust has, in fact, issued a release or a notice that they have looked at various U.S. websites and summarized some of the benefits of the treaty to both sides of the border. The ministry has done the same thing, and we have a similar piece on our website. What is, to me, more important than that is that the ministry has completed and made public this document that I mentioned a few minutes ago.

[1505]

It's called U.S. Benefits from the Columbia River Treaty: Past, Present and Future — A Province of British Columbia Perspective . To me, that was a very important and well-done piece of work by the ministry that really, I think, lays the groundwork for us to sit down with the U.S. and discuss how the treaty has operated over these last many decades and, particularly, how the treaty has assisted the U.S. in terms of flood control and power production.

Of course, the document goes into the so-called Canadian entitlement and the fact that there is some messaging, let's say, coming out of the U.S., that they would prefer not to pay as much for the Canadian entitlement. Certainly, this document is very clear that, in fact, the Canadian entitlement is worth every penny that B.C. gets paid, perhaps even more, given the alternative to having a treaty, particularly as that relates to flood control.

We haven't had major flood damage in the U.S. or Canada on the Columbia system, as I understand it — what you would characterize as major — since the treaty was entered into. This treaty was entered into originally — at least in part and probably for the most part — because of major flood damage in the U.S. and, to some extent, in Canada, particularly in Trail. I believe that this document I've mentioned three or four times now is an important starting point.

J. Horgan: I've been listening with interest to the minister and the member for Kootenay West. I recall quite vividly…. It's a shame that as we're having a non-partisan debate around this issue….

It was in the 1990s that the government of the day, a New Democrat government, entered into negotiations and renewed the treaty for 30 years, created the Columbia Basin Trust, established the Columbia Power Corporation, returned significant benefits to the region, returned significant benefits to the Crown and all British Columbians. I know that the minister will want to share

[ Page 823 ]

his thoughts on that as this debate unfolds.

But it was one of those moments, to the member and his staff, where I think we worked together. The member wasn't in this House at that time, but we worked reasonably well with the opposition of the day to realize a pretty significant undertaking.

As I'm hearing him correctly, the minister is making a similar overture to members on this side of the House to try and capture some of the expertise that resides over here in assisting the province to realize an even better win in this round of negotiations than we were able to receive and realize in 1996. Ironically, and I don't want to chew up too much time here, but it was a negotiation…. I don't get to talk about this too much, so I'm going to take the opportunity.

We negotiated, the government of the day, an agreement with Bonneville Power authority that they reneged on. That had a material impact on the 1996 budget.

Some of you may have heard of the 1996 budget. It has been referred to as the fudge-it budget ad nauseam, even though it was closer to actuals than any budget before or since. Nonetheless, it was reneging on that agreement by Bonneville that allowed us to negotiate a better deal two years later. That is, we've realized as a result, the minister knows, hundreds of millions — in fact we're into billions — of dollars now in returns from what is called the downstream benefits.

Although reminding myself of an interesting point in history where the New Democrats brought tremendous wealth back to British Columbia, my question is to the minister. Has he any plans in this round of negotiation to see what we can do about directing the Americans to build the transmission capacity necessary to return the downstream benefits to British Columbia, should we need them for industrial development?

[1510]

Hon. B. Bennett: I won't be able to communicate adequately the complex advice that I just received, but I shall do my very best for the member. I can say to the member that if B.C. told the U.S. entities that B.C. wanted the Canadian entitlement back in the form of energy, in the form of electricity, they would have to deliver it in the form of electricity.

Currently it's delivered, as the member knows, to the 49th parallel, where it is then sold by Powerex, to great benefit to the ratepayers of British Columbia. In fact, I think the net profit estimated for Powerex this year is $113 million, and they're already ahead of schedule. Not that that means they're going to exceed their expectations. But it has been good for British Columbia, generally, to be able to sell that power — that Canadian entitlement power.

However, there is a way to get it back into B.C., if B.C. wanted that. It's not necessary to have a separate and new transmission line to bring that power back. I understand that if B.C. demanded to have the electricity cross the border and come into B.C., there would be a loss of some rights that B.C. currently has going south, and that would be an issue. As I say, it's complicated, but that's as close an answer, the best answer, as I can give to the member.

Before he stands up, let me just say that I want to thank him. I knew he would give me this opportunity today on this file to acknowledge that I have grown to be a very strong supporter of both the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corporation.

It's not true that nothing good happened in the 1990s. This is one thing that happened in the 1990s that's very positive for our region. I would suggest to both members on the other side, however, that we might not want to talk too, too much about all the benefits, given that I think it's a unique situation in the province.

J. Horgan: Most of everything that I know about the Columbia treaty I learned from the fellow sitting to your right, Minister, so you couldn't have had a better adviser on this question. Again, this is twice now in a week that the minister has made me blush. I don't know what to say about that exactly, but we'll carry on.

My question was actually a technical one about the United States' ability to deliver the power. As I understand it — again, as it was explained to me many years ago now — we don't receive the power at Selkirk or Blaine, the two points identified by treaty. We take the power where it's generated and sell it there, or from there, so we don't wheel it to the border and then back somewhere.

At the time, my recollection was that it was a better outcome for the province and for B.C. Hydro to have the power sold at source because of the consequences of additional transmission to wheel power to the border. There wasn't room on the existing system. It would require a transmission line through sensitive areas in the United States' Okanogan.

That's the specific question. If I can't get a direct answer, I know I can maybe get that off line.

[1515]

The second question, and perhaps…. We know we've got the CBT and CPC people in a room outside, coming in later on. One of the motivators for the negotiations — and I was very proud to be part of that negotiation in the 1990s, in the establishment of the trust — was that people in the region felt that they wanted to be part and parcel of the discussions going forward. My colleague from Kootenay West has laid that out. I know the minister knows this very well.

In the East Kootenay the consequences on Koocanusa are obvious. Water use in the Kootenays, east and west, is a big issue. Anywhere you go, at barbecue season or at the hockey rink, people want to talk about water levels. The recreational opportunities that were promised in the '60s were largely not realized. It's a bathtub. It's a reservoir.

[ Page 824 ]

It's not a lake. The CBT, or the Columbia Basin Trust, in negotiating with the province, wanted to negotiate water and water use.

I'm wondering if the minister and his staff can advise what expectations the minister has with respect to addressing what the trust wanted to talk about, which was: "We'll buy water if you'll leave it in the reservoir so we can use it for other purposes." If that's not clear, I can ask the question again.

Hon. B. Bennett: I do want to just go back to the issue of wheeling electricity to the Canadian border. But before I do, there is a water use plan in place, and it's up for renewal and improvement in 2020. My advice on how it was created is that it was considered to be a Cadillac planning process at the time. There was enormous consultation in the Columbia Basin. Columbia Basin Trust was involved. That water plan and the water planning process augment the actual treaty, which of course focuses on power production and flood control.

We are, as the U.S. is, somewhat constrained on the management of water by the actual treaty itself. We are legislated — I don't mean by legislation — by the terms of the treaty around water that's released as it relates to flood control, water that's released and stored as it relates to the production of energy. Within the restrictions that both countries have accepted with the terms of the treaty, we have been allowed to do some comprehensive and detailed water use planning, and there is a plan in place.

I'm receiving no advice, and I can tell the member that I have no particular recollection, personally, of ever hearing Columbia Basin Trust say they wanted to buy water back. That's a new one for me. It may well go back to the member's time, when he was involved in this, but certainly in the last 15 years I've not heard that request.

I'll just say that with regard to wheeling electricity to the Canadian border, there are more details we can provide him on that. But essentially, the answer I gave before is correct. We can receive the electricity of the Canadian entitlement back in B.C., if that was our choice. More detail can be provided to the member.

[1520]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for both of those answers. Again, when the negotiation was underway, one of the issues that was on the table was water. A foot of water — what was that worth in terms of megawatt hours? What would the people of the region have to offer to a negotiation to ensure that water levels above the 49th parallel were sufficient to meet other economic and social needs in the basin?

One of the ways that government and community leaders at that time were able to convince the public to invest in hydroelectric assets like the Keenleyside powerhouse, the Brilliant and Waneta expansions was that that the stock-in-trade in the sector is electricity. And if we can produce, through Columbia Power and the trust and joint venture, electricity and trade that for water levels….

Your adviser will remember that discussion. If it's not current, then that's fine. I know there were those who argued at the time that once the people in the region became comfortable with a flow of revenue, then that would be more important than the flow of water. I don't know if that's the case now or not, and that's why I posed the question.

Hon. B. Bennett: It is a new idea to me. It's an interesting idea, and I won't give anything away in terms of whether I like the idea or not. It's an interesting idea that I'd be prepared to discuss with Columbia Basin Trust and the opposition, if Columbia Basin Trust is interested in the idea.

J. Horgan: I have one more question on this. I've been in contact with Vern Ruskin. I know the name will be familiar to the minister. He's a tireless advocate for the treaty and the benefits that have resulted to Canada. Mr. Ruskin came here on his own hook, took the Greyhound bus from his home in Vancouver to meet with me and other members of the Legislature.

I believe he would be 90 now, and he continues to be absolutely relentless on this question. I'm hopeful that the minister can advise that he and his staff are available for Mr. Ruskin and are looking for every opportunity to benefit from his significant expertise in this area so that again — in this non-partisan way, with an issue so vitally important, certainly to the people in the Columbia Basin but to all British Columbians — Mr. Ruskin's expertise will be called upon.

Hon. B. Bennett: I appreciate the member bringing forward Mr. Ruskin's situation. I've actually met with him personally, probably two or three years ago. The lady to my left, Kathy Eichenberger, as it happens, just had breakfast with Mr. Ruskin about a week ago, along with one of the more knowledgable B.C. Hydro folks. By all accounts, it was a useful and productive discussion.

The assistant deputy minister for the ministry, who, we all know, knows probably more about this file than everyone else in the House compounded, has spent a lot of time with Mr. Ruskin and corresponding with Mr. Ruskin and talking to Mr. Ruskin on the telephone.

I take this member's point that he's been around a long time and should be treated with respect. We'll continue to do that.

The Chair: The committee will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:24 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, one player has changed here at

[ Page 825 ]

the desk. The critic knows Neil Muth, who is the CEO of Columbia Basin Trust, I'm sure as well as I do.

I will simply say by way of introduction to this topic, the Columbia Basin Trust, that we are extremely fortunate in the Columbia Basin to have an organization that was created in the 1990s, that has accumulated significant so-called downstream benefits from the creation of reservoirs and dams and that received $250 million in, I think, around 1995 or thereabouts, which has been used to invest in hydroelectric assets in partnership with Columbia Power Corporation.

The benefits to the basin are beyond significant. I think I probably shouldn't say too much more than that; otherwise, we'll want the rest of the province having the same sort of thing. We're very fortunate to have it, and I look forward to the member's questions.

K. Conroy: I do also want to welcome Neil to the chamber and congratulate him on the work that he's done with the trust. We are incredibly proud of it in our region. It's done so many good things, and it continues to do good things. I'm glad the minister acknowledges that there were some good things in the '90s, because I think the Columbia Basin Trust was definitely one of those.

I wanted to warn Neil that…. Am I allowed to call you Neil in the House? I'm allowed; he's not a member. We only have a few hours to do all three sections. We've got you all the way to Victoria, but it won't be for a very long time.

[1530]

The Columbia Basin Trust is to roll off of what's happening with the Columbia River treaty. I understand that they're also working to put together a

summary of the outreach that was done in the United States around the Columbia River treaty. I wondered if that

summary was finished. I understand it's almost finished or coming out soon, and we just wondered what the status of that

summary was.

Hon. B. Bennett: Columbia Basin Trust just published on its website, I think last week, a paper that's about known U.S. perspectives on the Columbia River Treaty, which I think is what the member is referring to. It's up there and available to the public.

I asked the CEO of the trust whether or not that paper would be updated from time to time, and there has been no decision made on whether that will be required or not. But the paper is there today for everyone to go and have a look at.

K. Conroy: Can the minister let the chamber know how much staff time at the Columbia Basin Trust has actually been spent on the Columbia River treaty to date? What's the estimated time that is going to be spent in the future?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member may recall a conversation we had, I think, the first time that we met the opposition MLAs. I believe the member was there. I can't say for sure that she was there.

We said at the time that the Columbia Basin Trust would focus on education. There are 22 outreach sessions in the basin focused on education of the public as to the terms of the treaty and the history of the treaty, and very specifically and deliberately did not form consultation with the public.

It's the Crown's duty to consult with the public on this, and it's the Crown's desire to do that. Kathy Eichenberger, who was just to my left until a few minutes ago, of course, has been intimately involved with leading the Crown's consultation in the basin. That's paid for by the ministry, and she will continue to fulfil that role going forward.

Off the top here, I don't have a specific amount of money that the ministry is spending on this. But as I said earlier, we're not planning on reducing this portion of the ministry's budget.

[1535]

Back to the trust for a moment, to try to fully answer the member's question, the trust has an individual who I'm sure the member is familiar with, Kindy Gosal, who has led a lot of the education effort.

From time to time they hire consultants to help them with the outreach and education that's been done. Currently they're basically at a…. I don't want to say they're at a standstill currently, but they're not involved in any education efforts at the present time. So Kindy has gone back to what he normally does, working with water.

I'm happy to get further information from the CEO if the member wants it.

K. Conroy: Then at this time there's no staff time at all being spent on the Columbia River treaty. It's my understanding that there's absolutely nothing being done, as far as the river treaties and the staff, through the Columbia Basin Trust.

Hon. B. Bennett: There was staff time, particularly for Kindy Gosal — the time that went into the creation of the document that I referred to a minute ago, which is the known U.S. perspectives on the Columbia River Treaty. There was staff time that went into the creation of that document.

I want to say Mr. Gosal's terms of reference, but that's not quite the right expression for an employee. The terms of his employment include some focus on the Columbia River treaty, so he is watching what's happening in the U.S. and what government is doing, and has that kind of involvement. But he's not spending enormous amounts of time on the Columbia River treaty, as we speak.

The same would be true of…. I suppose that every now and again their communications division might note something having to do with the treaty, something that's

[ Page 826 ]

said or something that happens in the U.S. or Canada, but it's fairly minor activity at this point.

K. Conroy: How will the core review affect the Columbia Basin Trust?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's early for me to speculate. It was easier to answer that question with relation to the treaty, because the treaty is neither a Crown nor a ministry. I'm reasonably sure it won't be inside what we'll decide is the scope of the core review exercise.

I do not have final terms of reference, including scope, yet for the core review. What I can say to the member…. I don't want the member to go home and express concern to her constituents about the core review process as it relates to Columbia Basin Trust.

I can say that at the present time, it doesn't look like Columbia Basin Trust would be an entity that the core review process would be interested in, frankly. But given that the scope and the other terms of reference haven't been finalized yet, I would characterize what I just said as the minister's best guess at this time.

K. Conroy: There's the chair right now of the trust, Greg Deck, who was recently appointed as mayor of Jumbo, even though there's no real village or city or anything there. There is discussion in the basin that there could be perceived conflict in the future.

I want to know if the minister can guarantee that the Columbia Basin Trust will never be asked to invest in the Jumbo development, should that ever proceed anywhere.

[1540]

Hon. B. Bennett: Although it obviously has been a difficult thing for the opposition to get their heads wrapped around, there have, in fact, historically been many, many communities created in this province to facilitate the development of a large project.

Whether it is a large hydroelectric project in the case of Hudson Hope, or whether it's a mining project in the case of Elkford…. I'm just trying to think. Logan Lake is another example where municipalities have been created before there are people there. It facilitates land use, frankly, to do it that way. So as much as the opposition has struggled with this, it really isn't all that unusual.

As for what the trust invests in, I, as minister, will never, ever try to tell the trust what they should invest in. I really don't want to speculate on whether this particular project would qualify as the kind of project that the trust would invest in.

I think I can say that as long as Mr. Deck is chair of the Columbia Basin Trust, I don't think that project will come anywhere near the trust. I don't really want to speculate much more than that except to say to the member that there is no conspiracy to effect the kind of scenario that her question implies.

K. Conroy: More on conspiracy theories.

The investment portfolio that the trust has, has a policy. I'm not sure if it's one the minister is aware of, but I know that it has caused issues in the region. It's investing in seniors facilities.

There's a seniors facility in our region that would…. When I look at it firsthand, I look at the facility, and I think it's a perfect example of an investment that the trust should be making. It's a non-profit co-op — seniors that are investing in their own housing with a projection of ensuring that there's housing for them as their needs grow.

It's quite a unique operation that they have going there. The Grandview Heights is, I think, one of the only ones in the province right now where seniors actually own their own little apartments, and then they are hoping to move into a bigger facility. So it's that caring-in-place concept that is working well and people talk about in this province.

Grandview was turned down by the trust because they said that it was a direct conflict with other private housing investments they've made in the basin. I wondered if there was….

I mean, there's a need for seniors housing in the Kootenays. We know that there's going to be more need. It's not like there isn't a need. I think that not only has the group shown and other people have shown that it's not…. I think it's an investment that would generate good returns to the trust. I'm wondering if it's an actual policy and where it's coming from and if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that the seniors centre in Castlegar that the member references is having discussions with the Columbia Basin Trust, ongoing discussions. The CEO has offered to meet with the member and flesh out the details of that discussion. There are issues that will need to be resolved in order for them to be successful — if, in fact, it's possible for them to be successful.

[1545]

I am also advised, most importantly, that this issue of CBT having invested in other facilities and there being a conflict was a red herring that was expressed to this group early on when they first thought about applying, unfortunately. It has continued to be raised when, in fact, the trust has tried to make clear that that's not an issue. That's not a reason for the trust to say no to this group.

I think it's important for the member to know that and for the member to work constructively with the trust on behalf of her constituents and see what's possible.

K. Conroy: I think the people would be very happy to know that. Now it's on the record, and I think that they will be looking forward to moving forward to those discussions with the chair of the trust as well as myself, to help out.

[ Page 827 ]

J. Horgan: It's good to see representatives from the trust here. Perhaps I can ask the question again to the minister. If the trust has interests beyond the water use planning that's going on, have there been discussions with the board, senior managers about perhaps purchasing water levels through transferring revenues from electricity to the United States so that we can keep water levels higher in the various reservoirs in the region?

Hon. B. Bennett: There is no recollection on this side of the House, either with the CEO for the trust, the ADM for the ministry or the minister, who is probably the least likely to have heard of it. None of the three of us have heard of this before. I would guess that this is something, a discussion that was taking place that probably predates two of the three of us over here, anyways.

The Chair: The committee will take a brief recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:47 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: We've got some new folks with us. The current CEO of Columbia Power Corporation, Jane Bird, is to my left. The soon-to-be CEO, Frank Wszelaki, is sitting behind me. I think that on our vote on August 2 Mr. Wszelaki will become the acting CEO as Ms. Bird flies off to somewhere else.

By way of introduction of this final piece of estimates and just circling back to the introductions here for a second, let me say that Jane Bird has done a phenomenal job as CEO of Columbia Power Corporation. The Waneta expansion project has been, by all accounts — and it's not over yet — extremely successful, on budget, on time. It's a very important project for the region and, of course, the final project that was outlined for this entity back in the 1990s, the other three projects having been completed already. Jane is leaving, and Frank Wszelaki will take over. I wanted to get that on the record.

The Columbia Power Corporation, of course, was created in the 1990s by way of making sure that the region benefited from the flooding by the creation of the reservoirs. The Columbia Power Corporation has built, as I say, three projects, and they're in the throes of completing a fourth project.

Their 50 percent partner is the Columbia Basin Trust. The Columbia Power Corporation is a lean, very efficient organization that tends to manage the design and construction of projects without actually implementing the construction themselves, and also manages the operations of these hydroelectric facilities without actually being on the ground and managing themselves. They contract that part out to Fortis.

It's an interesting model for the province, and it has been very, very successful to date. With that, I'll allow my critic the opportunity to ask some questions.

K. Conroy: I'd like to welcome Jane and Frank here to the chamber. I also would like to wish her well in her new position working with the high commissioner in London. That's exciting. Thank you for your work done in your position as CEO with the Columbia Power Corp.

It is a great organization that's done a lot of good work, and the Waneta dam project is an exciting project in our region — lots of local hires. I understand that the community event that was recently held was well attended by local people. All three projects have had community events where the local people could come in and see them, and I know that local people are really excited about the work being done. So I thank her for her work on that.

My understanding is that Frank Wszelaki is in an acting position. I'm wondering if there will be an executive search for the CEO position, and when the permanent CEO will be hired.

[1555]

Hon. B. Bennett: There are no plans by the board of CPC to do an executive search. I actually met this morning with the board chair. I've had previous discussions with the board chair and, also, with the outgoing CEO about all kinds of issues, that being one of them.

Mr. Wszelaki has been part of the succession plan for the past two years. He was brought in specifically because the board knew that Jane Bird wouldn't be there forever — that as much as we might like to keep her there forever, she would eventually move on — and that's what's happening.

Mr. Wszelaki has gotten to know a lot of people in the region. He has moved his family to Castlegar. He's, I think, become a part of the community and looks forward to becoming an even stronger part of the community and of the region. I look forward to working with him.

K. Conroy: Going through the budget for the Columbia Power Corp, there's an expense item expensed to Ms. Bird in the financial statements — it's an "Other" — for $27,000. I'm wondering what that's for.

Hon. B. Bennett: I would have to provide the member opposite with a guesstimate. I'd prefer not to do that, so we are endeavouring to get the specific and accurate answer to that question, hopefully before the end of estimates, but if not, then as quickly as possible thereafter. We'll provide it in writing to the member if we can't do it here on the record.

K. Conroy: For information purposes it's $27,500 in the budget, and it just says "Other" — an expense of "Other." It's not a bonus. It's not salary. It's part of the total $321,000 compensation, and it's classified as "Other."

[ Page 828 ]

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Sorry. It's unfortunate I'm asking a budget question in estimates. I know it's rather unique and very odd. I know it's an odd one.

I want to know how many staff are at the Power Corp right now. How many are management, and how many are hourly?

[1600]

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm informed that there are approximately 42 people working at CPC right now, plus or minus a summer student or two. Of the 42, there are three vice-presidents that are included in that number.

K. Conroy: I understand that Debbie Martin was a former VP for human resources — she's retired, and I wish her well in her retirement — and that a new HR person has been hired. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's true that Ms. Martin has retired. There's a new HR person who's been hired, not at the VP level. Ms. Martin was at the VP level. The new person who has been hired is at a director level. The new person is somebody, probably, that the member would know — Frank Marino from Castlegar.

K. Conroy: I believe that's Trail, but close.

It's my understanding that Ms. Martin is still on a six-month contract. So then I would look at…. There are 42 employees in the organization, and you have 1.5 people doing human resources. I'm just curious why you'd hire a full-time human resources person and you still have Ms. Martin on a six-month contract after she's retired — for another six months.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that Ms. Martin is participating in a necessary role of helping with the succession of the new HR person to make sure that the new HR person gets up to speed. She's actually — Ms. Martin, that is — on retainer and is asked from time to time to spend time with the new HR person to make sure, again, as I said a minute ago, that the succession is smooth.

It's not the same as being hired full-time after she retires. She's on retainer. She works as needed to help with the transition. So that's that answer.

I do want to clarify. I've been advised by staff from outside of the chambers here that there are actually 49 CPC staff. That includes two summer students. Not much different than I said a minute ago, but there are a few more.

K. Conroy: Yes, I'm well aware of Frank Marino. He comes with a great deal of experience, having been the human resources manager for a number of very large organizations like the regional hospital, with hundreds of employees, and some seniors facilities in the region. I'm sure he'll do a great job of taking over at the Columbia Power Corp. That's a good choice.

In 2011 Gerry Duffy was a board member. His total cost to the organization was $16,000 for his stipends as a board member. In 2012 he became an adviser to the board at a cost of over $124,000. I'm just wondering what the rationale was to have a board member become a paid adviser to the board at such a substantial increase. What was the rationale behind that?

[1605]

Hon. B. Bennett: Gerry Duffy actually predates the current CEO and predates the incoming CEO. My advice as to his relationship with CPC is that he actually was hired to be acting CEO of CPC. I remember that myself from the last time I was Energy Minister in 2010. That could be where that $105,000 comes in, but it's nothing recent. It's nothing from the last….

I think I owe the member more detail on that one, given that the member has indicated the $105,000 is in the 2012 budget. I'll dig out whatever information we can find on that and provide it to the member after estimates today.

K. Conroy: To clarify, it was in the budget year ending 2012, and it was just over $124,000, the term — just to put that on to the record.

What are the term limits on the board? Are there any term limits on how long people can sit on the board of the Columbia Power Corp?

Hon. B. Bennett: The government has policy around how long individuals who are appointed by the province sit on the various Crown agencies. That policy states that we generally like people to serve a maximum of six years.

Having said that, it's a policy. It's not a law. I know in my years as an MLA that I have encountered a variety of circumstances where, frankly, you don't want that person who's been there for six years to leave.

There have been issues, I know, with Columbia Basin Trust around succession, where you just don't have people who are staying on the board long enough to learn to be the audit chair or to be a vice-chair and then move into the chair's position. Therefore, you decide that you're going to keep people on that board longer.

The same sort of circumstance, certainly, has applied with CPC. When you get a large project going, for example, it makes, I think, total sense to keep people on the board who know the project, know where the project came from and the history of the project and can provide stability and knowledge in their role. That situation is not all that unusual. But six years is what we shoot for.

K. Conroy: Out of curiosity, then, how long has Lee Doney been on the board?

[1610]

[ Page 829 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think Mr. Doney has been there for around seven years plus — I think a little more than seven years.

K. Conroy: Have there been any asset sales from the Columbia Power Corp that are not in the budget anywhere? Are there any asset sales considered for the future, or were any considered and then rejected?

Hon. B. Bennett: The CPC has not sold any major assets since its birth in the early '90s, but from time to time it does, I'm advised, sell things like rights-of-way, particularly to regional districts when regional districts need access.

There's a case of a right-of-way necessary around the Brilliant Suspension Bridge, and the regional district will apparently receive this right-of-way. It's rather minor, by the sounds of it. CPC does occasionally sell portions of their assets like that, but nothing on the scale of a power plant, a dam, etc.

K. Conroy: I'm assuming, by that answer, that there are no plans in the future for any sale of any significant assets. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Bennett: I am totally unaware of any plans to sell any assets in the future of CPC.

[1615]

K. Conroy: I just wonder, as I couldn't find it in the budget anywhere, how much, if any, the CPC has paid to the Pacific Carbon Trust to offset emissions?

Hon. B. Bennett: We're going to dig out the answer to that question and provide it to the member if not during the estimates, then certainly, after estimates. We'll provide it in writing.

K. Conroy: Thank you. I look forward to those answers. There are two now.

I just want to commend the CPC for the work they're doing with B.C. Hydro on the boat ramps up the Arrow Lakes. We've had really positive responses in the region to the three ramps, and I think it was great to see the collaboration to get those projects managed.

I want to acknowledge the staff that aren't here that have been doing the work on those boat ramps, because I know that the people in the region are really happy about it. It's something that's been a long time in coming. I'm glad that that collaboration could take place.

I'm wondering if there's any other future collaboration with B.C. Hydro on the docket that the Columbia Power Corp is looking at.

Hon. B. Bennett: CPC is currently scoping out two opportunities — nothing final. They're in, I'd say, the scoping stage of two projects right now that they could enter into an agreement with B.C. Hydro on.

One is at Duncan, which, the member knows, has no generation currently, and one is actually in the East Kootenay at a place called Elko. In the case of the Elko project, there's a dam there and generation facility, which is owned by B.C. Hydro. It is coming or has come to the end of its useful life. In fact, the dam was at some risk during the recent flooding that we had in the East Kootenay. It was only by the hands of employees of B.C. Hydro, I believe, that prevented that dam from breaching.

That's a project that B.C. Hydro will have to do because of the situation that I just described. So Columbia Power Corporation is scoping out the potential for it to take that project on, on behalf of B.C. Hydro.

The other one at Duncan is a little further down the list but is also a potential opportunity for CPC to work constructively with Hydro. Again, there's been no ink to paper. They're a long ways from entering into an agreement with B.C. Hydro. As I say, the ideas are being thought out, and the technical side of things is being looked at.

K. Conroy: I'm not sure if the minister can answer this question then. Would something like a local-hire policy, the same that was on the three dam projects that have just happened in the West Kootenays…? Would that policy be also incorporated into those projects?

Hon. B. Bennett: Given how early in the process this is, it would be premature to speculate on whether or not a local-hire policy would apply to either one of these or both of these projects. It's certainly something that CPC would look at if and when these projects with Hydro actually develop.

J. Horgan: I'd like to move now to a couple of ministry issues: the innovative clean energy fund as well as the current status of LiveSmart B.C. We only have a few minutes left, so we've agreed, by agreement — myself and the Government House Leader — to move through this fairly quickly.

[1620]

I'd like to know if the minister could advise, with the deputy and ADM available, just what the status is of one in particular that, of course, is important to me. That's the T'Sou-ke First Nation initiative that's being funded from the ICE. Could the minister advise on the T'Sou-ke First Nation project, but also how many projects have been approved, how many funds have been disbursed and what the future of the next 12-24 months is for the ICE?

Hon. B. Bennett: On the question with regard to the T'Sou-ke First Nation and the status of their project, the member will tell me if we're off base with this, but my advice is that that project is nearly complete. We can get

[ Page 830 ]

more details for the member, if he wants them, on that project.

With respect to the other part of the member's question, since 2008 the province, through the ICE fund, has approved more than $77 million for 62 clean energy projects across B.C., representing a value of $450 million in total project costs. Again, if the member didn't get those numbers, I can provide them to him.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for the response. Could the minister advise how the ICE is currently funded and what the plans are for future commitments?

Hon. B. Bennett: Two things, just back to the previous question. I just want to make sure that we're clear on this. I was informed after I gave the last answer that there was a second project that the T'sou-ke First Nation was interested in, and they have withdrawn their application for that project. That is the advice I have.

With respect to the financial circumstance of the ICE fund, with the reintroduction of provincial sales tax there'll be roughly $7 million collected and going into a special account that will be available to the ICE fund each year as we go forward.

J. Horgan: If the minister could correct me then. So the $7 million in annual revenue is a direct result of PST on energy purchases? Is it just through B.C. Hydro, or is it on Fortis bills as well?

[1625]

Hon. B. Bennett: The PST that's collected is on natural gas, fuel oil and propane, not on electricity. The amount that's collected is 0.4 percent. Any PST applied to those three fuels at 0.4 percent will go into the special fund. We estimate it to be about $7 million a year.

J. Horgan: The minister's original response — $77 million to 62 projects leveraging $450 million in activity. Can the minister advise, just broadly speaking, what the geographic distribution is of those 62 projects? I'm not asking for an inventory. We don't have the time for that. Would it be a safe characterization that every corner of the province has benefited from the ICE fund?

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm advised that the distribution of the proceeds from this fund has been spread across the whole province, every region.

J. Horgan: I'd like to move now to the current configuration of LiveSmart B.C. and the efficiency incentive program. Can the minister advise what the current status of LiveSmart B.C. is?

Hon. B. Bennett: The LiveSmart program, my recollection, was announced as a three-year program. It was very popular. The government extended it one year, so I believe it was in place for four years. There's no provincial government funding targeted for the program from this point forward.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

However, the utilities have stepped up, both Fortis and B.C. Hydro, and are providing incentives for insulation, and the government does continue to subsidize the cost of these energy audits that people get done. They cost roughly $150 each, and the province is continuing to pay for them.

There are two pilots in the project — I think the member will be familiar with one of them, because I think they're happening in his backyard — on bill financing. Fortis has one of those pilots, and B.C. Hydro has the other.

There may be more that we can flesh out, but right now that's what comes to mind in terms of the LiveSmart sort of approach.

[1630]

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his response. I know I've got in my hand the LiveSmart B.C. brochure that is now branded as B.C. Hydro–Power Smart–Fortis, but it still has LiveSmart B.C. and the B.C. government logo on it. As I leaf through this, I see that resources are available, certainly until March 31, 2014. If I understand the minister's response, that will be the last year for the program as we know it today. It will be in some new form through B.C. Hydro, through Fortis and without any provincial participation.

If that's the case, I would want to put in a good word for the program. I know my in-box — and I'm fairly certain the minister's, now that we're a couple of months on the job for him — will be filled with appeals from mostly small businesses who were providing either audit services or retrofits and upgrades for energy-inefficient buildings, homes and commercial entities as well.

This program wasn't just of benefit to energy users and, by extension, those companies that provide energy, but it was also a boon for small businesses. I know the minister's particular interest in growing the economy. This was one way to do that and, also, provide a net benefit to our utilities and our energy-providing companies to reduce the need for new sources of supply. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. B. Bennett: We certainly don't have any information that would make us think that the utilities are going to discontinue what they're doing today in terms of incentives for insulation, although I can't speak, certainly, for Fortis.

In terms of the $150 that the province is investing in energy audits, we have no plans to discontinue that. We

[ Page 831 ]

plan to continue that in the foreseeable future. I think that's important, because that's really the basis for what happens after someone determines their electricity usage. They can then decide what changes they want to make to conserve.

We're hopeful that the two pilot projects that are underway today will prove that that approach of customers basically financing conservation improvements over time on their bill will work for both residential ratepayers and business ratepayers.

J. Horgan: I, too, am interested in the outcome of the two pilots. I think if there's any way to spread those capital costs over a longer period of time and have utilities assist in that without a significant impact on bottom lines for those private and publicly owned companies, I agree. But we are early days in that endeavour and LiveSmart was wildly popular. I'll appeal to the minister again come February, when we're closer to the budget for the coming year, about where we go with that.

A couple more questions. We're awaiting the beginning of the next round of estimates. So I'll just ask the minister…. With the separation of LNG from the traditional energy, what I would like to ask the minister is….

[1635]

With the separation of oil and gas from the core responsibilities for what was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, it's difficult to keep track of who's who, who's doing what. I'm wondering if the minister could provide me with an organizational chart — you don't have to have names, but at least those positions that are currently filled and, if they're not filled, identify vacancies through the various silos within the ministry.

Again, it makes it easier for us on this side of the House and, I think, largely, for the public to understand what the consequences of the separation of the ministry really are. There's been a significant reduction, of course, in the blue book costs for the operations of your ministry. I believe that's a direct result of the separation out of most of that oil and gas activity.

Could the minister make a commitment to deliver that to me in a timely way?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes, we can do that.

I'd like to move Vote 19.

Vote 19: ministry operations, $19,219,000 — approved.

The Chair: Members, the committee has been instructed to deal with estimates for the Ministry of Justice, so we are having a few minutes recess until the minister arrives.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

On Vote 32: Attorney General operations, $368,402,000.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General wished to make an opening statement, as is customary, or whether she's going to just jump right in.

[1640]

Hon. S. Anton: It is my pleasure to be here for the first time as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia. I'd like to introduce the staff accompanying me today: Mr. Richard Fyfe, the Deputy Attorney General, and Ms. Lori Wanamaker, the Deputy Solicitor General. I also have with me Ms. Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer, and David Hoadley, chief financial officer. I have a number of other staff waiting in the wings, who I will introduce as time comes along.

I'd like to begin by making some introductory remarks about the ministry and our key priorities.

As with all the ministries in government, one of my priorities is to balance the ministry budget.

In Justice a high priority is to ensure timely and transparent justice and to maintain and build on key public safety initiatives, particularly those that are proven life-savers.

We are continuing the work underway in regard to the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. Our government is committed to creating a legacy of safety and security for vulnerable women, which is why we are prioritizing our response in terms of what we can achieve quickly and what will take longer, with women's safety as the paramount consideration.

The justice reform agenda is a priority for us. In most cases, citizens want quick answers and solutions, not long court cases that may be costly to them and the taxpayer. That's why, as set out in my mandate letter from Premier Christy Clark, our reforms are aimed at improving the system with an eye to making it more efficient for the people who use it and more cost-effective. We are looking at creative ways to take cases out of the courts where appropriate and achieve access to justice for British Columbians.

Immediate action has already been taken on recommendations from the comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, led by Geoffrey Cowper. Our two-part white paper sets measurable goals and presents innovative solutions that allowed us to begin work immediately on meaningful changes to the system, within the resources we currently have available. It focuses on ensuring that our justice system is timely, transparent and balanced. Many projects are underway.

Our new Family Law Act opens the door to innovation around resolving family disputes and supports out-of-court processes with its focus on mediation and

[ Page 832 ]

parenting coordination. This fall we're launching the first phase of a Victoria justice access centre, a one-stop shop for citizens seeking family and civil law information and services.

Some matters, of course, will still need to go to court, so we're working on a long-term expansion plan for the lower Fraser Valley municipalities. With five municipal partners, we're looking at how we can increase court capacity and improve access to justice in that rapidly growing region.

We are continuing to work with the Legal Services Society to expand its criminal and family legal aid services, as set out in my mandate letter. We are creating a strategy for the development of specialized courts in British Columbia, fulfilling a commitment made in our white paper. And great progress is being made on our civil resolution tribunal, the first of its kind in Canada. I might add that the rest of the country is looking on with some interest at this project. This on-line tribunal will allow citizens to solve common strata and small civil-claim disputes outside of the courts.

At the same time, we're working jointly with the judiciary to continue to ensure judges are available where they are needed. In fact, under our new Justice Reform and Transparency Act, we committed to working with the chief judge to develop a formula for determining the appropriate judicial complement for the Provincial Court. We have seen unprecedented collaboration and cooperation among our justice partners.

Our inaugural justice summit held in March is a prime example of that. Partners from many different roles within the criminal justice system came together to work towards the shared goal of improving the justice system for the citizens that we serve. I know the opposition critic for the Attorney General was able to attend part of that event and to witness the kind of collaborative dialogue we are seeking to foster. I very much appreciate his commitment to this approach.

On the public safety side, we are committed to enhancing public safety for all British Columbians. We are examining the structure of policing in the context of the policing plan consultation. We are examining the role of police and looking at models ranging from further integration to regional service delivery in metropolitan areas.

We are continuing efforts to fight gangs and organized crime. With the expertise of the hon. member for Abbotsford South as Parliamentary Secretary for Crime Reduction, we are studying opportunities to further reduce crime.

[1645]

We are completing the Okanagan correctional centre on time and on budget. It's still, of course, in the planning stages. Part of the largest capital expansion in British Columbia Corrections history, the Okanagan corrections centre will be a boon to the region, bringing with it approximately 240 near-full-time jobs. With the help of the hon. member for Chilliwack-Hope, as Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections, we'll be looking at other improvements in how we protect staff, inmates and the communities in which the provincial correctional facilities are located.

As well, the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, as Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform, will be consulting with British Columbians and the liquor industry on modernizing B.C.'s liquor legislation and regulations. We will focus on what's good for consumers, how we can work with industry to continue to grow our economy, and how we do this while remaining very conscious of health and public safety concerns.

We have an aggressive agenda for the coming year — continuing our work to ensure an effective and timely justice system and continuing our work to keep communities and families safe.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the ministry's workforce of over 6,000 employees for their dedication and tireless efforts in keeping British Columbians safe. They work every day and around the clock in communities across the province, and their work is very much appreciated.

I look forward to the questions from the hon. members.

L. Krog: First, let me congratulate the Attorney General on her appointment as Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I look forward to the estimates and hearing her responses to various questions that I and other members of the opposition will have, including my co-critic for the ministry.

Referring to the letter of direction from the Premier dated June 10, I'm very curious to know: when the Attorney General — along, I assume, with every other member of the executive council — was asked to "grow our economy and create high-paying jobs for British Columbians; I'm asking you to keep the ministry focused on the B.C. jobs plan," how did the Attorney General interpret that direction from the Premier? And what will she be doing to fulfil that very clear direction?

Hon. S. Anton: I wish I could say I was in charge of liquid natural gas and was going to bring tens of thousands of jobs into British Columbia, but my accomplishments, I think, in Justice will be slightly more modest than that. But I do believe that making the system more efficient does benefit everybody. We are aiming for numerous efficiencies in our ministry in terms of the delivery of justice, in our ministry and in the community.

For example, we are looking for a more efficient functioning of the courts. We are looking at taking things out of court that don't need to be in court. All of those things help people in terms of timeliness to justice and their access to justice. It increases productivity in business and in the public if people don't have to waste large amounts of time in court and waiting for court proceedings.

Certainly, in terms of liquor, we are considering changes to liquor policy. I think it's fairly wide open as to what comes

[ Page 833 ]

forward but, in terms of delivery of liquor, the possible creation of a Crown agency, again, creating efficiencies in the system and allowing for more productivity in the system.

[1650]

Further, in Corrections, we are still pursuing a very ambitious capital plan. We've spent $185 million in updates to corrections facilities and new corrections facilities recently, including the Surrey Pretrial Centre, including the extension to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, including the new beds in the Prince George corrections centre. And we will, of course, be bringing on the Okanagan correctional centre, which is in its planning stages right now and which will create 240 jobs.

Everything that we do focuses on balancing the budget, creating efficiencies and making British Columbians more productive.

L. Krog: I'm still not entirely sure — after listening to that long shopping list of all the wonderful things that are planned — exactly how that relates to the direction to keep this particular ministry focused on the B.C. jobs plan. Perhaps the minister might want to start off explaining: what is the B.C. jobs plan, and how does her ministry relate to it?

Hon. S. Anton: We have, in this ministry, more of a supporting role than a primary role in the jobs plan. But as I mentioned earlier, the theme of balancing the budget runs through all of government and is a very important theme in my ministry.

The efficient delivery of justice contributes to a well-functioning society. It contributes to people being able to use their resources in more profitable ways than wasting time and wasting money on things that they don't need to be spending time and money on.

Another important role of this ministry, though, is that we do provide legal advice to government and to the other ministries. There are, of course, numerous enormous initiatives going on in British Columbia — through, for example, the liquid natural gas initiatives, through energy, through other projects of that nature. It's the role of the legal counsel in my ministry to provide advice to those projects, to help keep those projects moving along. And of course, they are a high priority for our government.

L. Krog: To perhaps focus this in a little bit…. The Attorney General has indicated that part of her job is to make the system function more appropriately, keep people out of the courts, not detract from the court system, etc. I'm sure the Attorney General appreciates that in the modern working world, particularly for those British Columbians who are in the nine-to-five bracket, the cost of attending at court can be quite substantive and that fewer and fewer British Columbians are covered by collective agreements that would allow them to attend court proceedings during the day.

So I'm just wondering: has the Attorney General given any thought to having courts operate on far different hours than are presently the case? Society now tends to function on a 24-7 basis. Factories for a long time have done it that way. Mills, when we had more of them in British Columbia, certainly did.

If the Attorney General is concerned about ensuring that British Columbians can get into the workplace and continue to be productive, I'm wondering: has the ministry given any thought to that kind of proposition — in other words, that the courts don't function, basically, from 9:30 to four o'clock in Provincial Court or from ten till four in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal but actually function outside those hours?

I'm thinking, particularly, of people who are working in low-level jobs in our society, most often women, for whom taking a day off work is an enormous burden in addition to what they already face in ter