Hansard — Wednesday, November 23, 2005 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		2139

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2139
	Day of Remembrance and Action to Stop Violence Against Women
	D. Thorne
	Abreast in a Boat teams for breast cancer survivors
	L. Mayencourt
	Iron Horse Youth Safe House
	M. Sather
	Scrabble champion Dean Saldana
	J. Yap
	Hope Haven Transition House in Prince Rupert
	G. Coons
	B.C. Special Olympics
	K. Krueger

Oral Questions		2141
	Annual reporting by B.C. Coroners Service
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	Impact of government funding on B.C. Coroners Service
	A. Dix
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Austin
	Handling of child death review of Cody Fontaine
	L. Krog
	Hon. J. Les
	Call for reinstatement of independent children's commissioner
	L. Krog
	Hon. J. Les
	Impact of B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement on ranchers
	C. Wyse
	Hon. K. Falcon
	CN Rail response to public concerns on proposed Lac la Hache log sort
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	B. Simpson
	CN Rail response to concerns of Cariboo regional district
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. K. Falcon
	S. Simpson
	Handling of child death review of Cody Fontaine
	Hon. J. Les

Tabling Documents		2146
	Child and youth officer for British Columbia, annual report, 2004-2005

Motions without Notice		2146
	Powers and role of Crown Corporations Committee
	Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents		2147
	Fact sheet summary of statement of expenditures for Air India trial

Committee of Supply		2147
	Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services (continued)
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. M. de Jong
	H. Lali
	Estimates: Officers of the Legislature
	Estimates: Legislation
	Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Brar
	N. Macdonald
	Estimates: Management of public funds and debt
	Estimates: Other appropriations

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2174
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)
	G. Gentner
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	K. Conroy
	A. Dix

C. James: Today in the gallery I'm very pleased to introduce my niece Victoria Salt, a student at Maple Ridge Secondary School, who is here today watching the Legislature and looking at how we work. I would like the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my great pleasure today to introduce the Hon. Benoît Pelletier, a minister for the province of Quebec. He is the Minister Responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs and Francophones within Canada. Minister Pelletier has travelled to British Columbia to sign the agreement for cooperation and exchange on francophone affairs, the memorandum of understanding between the government of Quebec and the government of British Columbia. Accompanying Minister Pelletier from Quebec is Claude Longpré, attaché politique. I would also like to welcome Paul Deroy from the Federation of Francophones of British Columbia. To them all I would say:

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Kat Hartwig. She's with Wildsight, and she is here from Brisco in my riding. I would like you to join me in making her feel welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House today two political junkies, both friends of mine, both happily retired teachers: Gerry Galey and David Hobson. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me real pleasure today to introduce two constituents of mine: Brett and Marylynn Rakuson. Brett is the president of my constituency association, and Marylynn is well known throughout the Interior Health Authority for her passionate advocacy on behalf of health care. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Gentner: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House two constituents of mine: Jill Paisley and Andrew Quick. To Jill and Andrew, I want to make it sure. It's the electoral commission that got it wrong. I am from North Delta, but I sit here as Delta North.

R. Fleming: I rise in the House today to introduce some guests who are with us in the gallery from the Four Corners Language Institute based here in Victoria. With us is Carlos Serra, teacher, owner and director of the school. He's also a prominent volunteer soccer coach in our community, I might add, and not a bad player. He is joined by head teacher Adina Appenhiemer, teacher Paul Cox and ten students from Mexico, Japan and Korea. Could the House please make them all feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Another day and another fundraising auction. Today I had the pleasure of dining with some friends from the Port Alberni area and the vast alternative education program. Joining us today in the gallery are Nathalie Ladouceur-Thomas, educator; Marcus Payne, student; Ben Konning, student — two fine young men who are doing great work in the alternative program. Also joining them from la belle province is a member of the Katimavik program, Jessica Gauthier. Could you make the four of them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: I would like to introduce 23 students in grades eight to 12 from the Traditional Learning Academy home school. Their teachers are Mr. Linder, Mr. Hewlett and Ms. Gladhill. Six parents are also joining them today. The school was established in 1989 and is located in Surrey right on 136th Street. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome today.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to rise in the House to introduce three very special people in my life. First, I would like to introduce, from the riding of Comox, two significant people: my brother-in-law Kevin McAreavy and his wife Jeannie.

Also, to my colleagues I would like to introduce a very extraordinary person of significance in my life, from Cariboo North. It is with great pleasure I introduce to the House the love of my life for 40 years, my wife Sheila. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: In the gallery today I have a constituent and friend — and a neighbour, because New Westminster is so small — and a great activist in our community. We're certainly valued to have her as a resident of New Westminster. Please welcome Sharon Bard.

L. Mayencourt: Today in the gallery we have Valdine Zevediuk, Elaine Fisher, Etienent Souldre, Pat Smart, Mary Vaive and Beth Wilhelm. These women have come today to talk to members of caucus about something they're involved in, called Island BreastStrokers. They are all survivors of breast cancer, and they are inspiring the world. I ask that all of us make them feel very, very welcome today.

D. Thorne: On December 6, 1989, at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, 14 young female engineering students were murdered by a lone gunman because of

their gender. In 1991 the Canadian Parliament passed a private member's bill which was brought forward by a B.C. NDP MP called Dawn Black, which enshrined December 6 as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

Beyond commemorating the loss of these 14 young lives, this day represents a time for all of us to pause and reflect on the phenomenon of violence against women in our society and to think about the women and girls who live daily with the threat of violence or who have died as a result of gender-based violence.

Last but not least, it's a day for all of us to reflect on concrete actions that we can take to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls — our daughters, our partners, mothers and sisters.

We have made some significant changes. There are fewer firearm-related deaths. Our police forces now receive training on domestic violence, and we have raised public awareness through such political activities as white ribbon campaigns across Canada. However, we have also seen many setbacks, including reduced funding for women's shelters and decreased social assistance. Every year our own memories of this horrible event fade.

This December 6 we must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that violence against women is eliminated and that all women and girls can live in dignity with respect and full equality in our society. On December 6 many communities across B.C. have special events. I ask all the members of this House today to please take the time to attend one of these events this year.

L. Mayencourt: In 1994 while I was building a wellness centre in the West End, I met a woman by the name of Judy Riemer. Judy wanted to create a quilt to tell the story of breast cancer survivors. Judy was a survivor herself. I was very impressed with her story, her courage and her stamina. So I, along with two of her girlfriends, started the life quilt for breast cancer.

In the ensuing years, the life quilt travelled across Canada, and thousands of people — men and women — stitched their stories into the life quilt. Judy died a couple of years ago, but the quilt lives on and continues to speak to women and families across this country.

About the same time as the life quilt was created, Dr. Don Mckenzie at UBC did something unthinkable. He took 20 women and stuck them in a dragon boat, gave them some paddles and said: "You go, girl." This was unthinkable because in the old days, women with breast cancer were supposed to stay at home and rest. But these women were proof that exercise could be undertaken by these women.

Today there are over 100 dragon boat teams in British Columbia. Last year I was able to host or be part of the Dragon Boat Festival Abreast in a Boat in my riding where 5,000 women from across the world paddled in False Creek, and it was a wonderful experience. These women are an inspiration to all of us. They are survivors. They work together. They provide each other with emotional, spiritual and psychological support.

Next year Abreast in a Boat will take place in Singapore. The women that I introduced a little earlier from the Island BreastStrokers will be one of the teams that will be there. I take my hat off to the women of the dragon boats, and I thank you very much for this opportunity to acknowledge them.

M. Sather: The Alouette Home Start Society is a coalition of dedicated community service providers and individuals that are working together to find community-wide solutions to address issues of homelessness in the communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The society formed the Iron Horse Youth Safe House in June of this year to address youth homelessness in our area and beyond. The Iron Horse Youth Safe House supports the universal rights of youth to safe housing, adequate food, proper legal representation, accessible education and health care. Their staff advocate for and assist youth in accessing community resources, other professionals, employers and local merchants.

The safe house is geared for youth between the ages of 13 to 18. The maximum stay is 30 days. As soon as a youth arrives at the Iron Horse they're given the opportunity to sleep, eat, shower and get to know the staff and other residents. Once they're settled into the house, staff assist them to start achieving the goals that have been established. Thirty-seven percent of youth gain employment during their stay, and 42 percent enrol or are attending school.

The Iron Horse has already had many successes. One of those is the case of Jane Doe. Jane grew up in foster care and was rapidly reaching the age of independence. She arrived at the safe house with a youth agreement but still needed to secure employment and housing within 30 days. Jane had few contacts in Maple Ridge but had found excellent supports through a local church. During her stay at the safe house, she obtained full-time employment with the help of Bowman Employment Services. She was also referred to a youth worker to help in apartment hunting. Jane is currently living in Maple Ridge on her own in her own apartment and is holding down a full-time job. She's been independent for almost two months.

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about Richmond's best Scrabble player. Dean Saldana is a 23-year-old business student at Kwantlen University College in Richmond. While he is young, he has a great talent and passion for the game of Scrabble. Dean competed in the world championship of Scrabble held this month in London,

England. This meant he had to play eight games a day for three days against the best players in the world — certainly not an easy task.

In 2003 he placed 73rd in Malaysia as the youngest member of the Canadian team to compete at the World Scrabble Championship that year, which is certainly an impressive result. But this year he did much better. I'm proud to report that after 24 gruelling rounds of shuffling letters and looking for anagrams to make the best scores possible with the letters dealt to him, Dean did much better this time round. In London he finished in 13th place, proving that a lot of smart people come from Richmond.

I'd also like to congratulate Montreal's Adam Logan, who won the event, and Dorval's David Boys, who placed seventh. Both were also members of Canada's Scrabble team in this event.

I'm sure that this young man continues to play Scrabble, and he'll improve further. I hope to report to the House in two years at the next world championships that Richmond has a new world champion.

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize a vital service that has operated in my community of Prince Rupert for close to 25 years. The Hope Haven Transition House opened in Prince Rupert in March 1981, following three years of hard work by a group of local dedicated feminists. Prince Rupert Options for Women became concerned about the issues of battering when they were approached in 1978 to act as advocates for a local woman who was assaulted by her husband. An application was made to the Secretary of State for a grant to study the incidence of wife assault in our community. This study was carried out, and as a result, Options for Women began canvassing for local support. These women also began taking victims of family violence into their own homes on referral from the RCMP and local hospital.

After one year of operating this emergency shelter system, it was found to be inadequate for several reasons and was discontinued. In March of 1980 the Prince Rupert Transition House Society was founded. On March 8, 1981, Maud Bevan House, as it was then named, opened its doors.

The Hope Haven Transition House Society is a feminist organization committed to addressing family violence with and on behalf of our community. It is dedicated to the empowerment of women and children. To this end they provide safe, secure and confidential refuge to women and children. They advocate social changes towards a non-violent society. They provide and promote community awareness and education on violence against women and children, and ongoing support for women and their children to make independent decisions about their future. The provision of these services is non-judgmental, supportive, empowering, confidential and unconditional.

I'd like to take this moment to honour some of the founding heroes of this society: Janet Northcott, Susan Tixon, Ellen Little, Kathy Booth and Pat Wilson. I would also like to commend the entire staff at Hope Haven Transition House for their energy, hard work and dedication to the women and children in need.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago this week on November 26, 1980, the British Columbia Special Olympics was created to embrace individuals with an intellectual disability and celebrate their personal achievements. The B.C. Special Olympics organization has worked hard to provide sports programs and competitions to meet the needs and goals of these individuals. In 49 communities across British Columbia, B.C. Special Olympics offers year-round programs to 3,500 participants in 14 sports as well as local, provincial, national and international competitive opportunities.

This is about more than just the physical benefits of improved health and athletic ability. The participation in sports gives athletes the chance to develop social skills, cultivate friendships, strive for and achieve goals and increase their self-esteem, enabling athletes to win in sports and in life. None of this would be possible without the thousands of coaches and other volunteers who give their time to make these events and programs a reality, and also the generous donations from supporters, corporations and foundations.

To acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the B.C. Special Olympics, the Premier hosted a celebration on November 15 at the Legislature. With athletes, volunteers and sponsors from Vancouver Island in attendance, this ceremony celebrated the ongoing achievements of the organization and the participants.

The Premier also unveiled a proclamation making November 20 to 26 of this year B.C. Special Olympics 25th Anniversary Week. Joanna Steele from Nanaimo was present and shared her Special Olympics experience, saying: "I finally feel I belong somewhere and am accepted for who I am."

I'd like to congratulate the B.C. Special Olympics for their 25 years of making it possible for these wonderful athletes to achieve their goals.

C. James: In 2001 the annual report of the B.C. Coroners Service stated its responsibilities as the following: "Ensuring that no death is overlooked, concealed or ignored." My question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General explain why the B.C. Coroners Service has not released a single annual report since 2001?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, it continues to be the case in British Columbia that no death is overlooked and no death is ignored. The B.C. Coroners Service is a profes-

sional organization of men and women around the province who investigate every death when it occurs and make sure that British Columbians' needs are looked after in that way.

Frankly, I think it's irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that these people are not doing their job.

C. James: I think it's irresponsible for the minister and the government to point fingers everywhere else, particularly at staff, instead of themselves. You would think that someone, anyone, in government might ask the question about why there hadn't been a coroner's report since 2001. We know that 713 child death files have been overlooked or ignored. We know that 546 secondary child death reviews have been neglected and concealed. The Coroners Service budget was cut by 15 percent by this government. It's clear now that 1,259 child death reviews fell through the cracks.

So my question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain what else has fallen through the cracks because of the financial squeeze that this government put on the Coroners Service?

Hon. J. Les: Nothing is falling through the cracks. All deaths in British Columbia are appropriately, professionally and carefully reviewed by the Coroners Service. That includes all child deaths in British Columbia. Those, too, are properly, carefully and professionally reviewed by the Coroners Service.

We have already canvassed the fact that 713 files did not receive the second stage of review. We have committed to ensuring that that review happens in a timely way, as quickly as that can be done. We recognize that in some of those cases, that will take time because of other processes that are underway. With respect to the 546 cases the member refers to, those reviews have been done, and they will be reported out on as soon as the Coroners Service is able to do that.

C. James: It's clear from the minister's own comments that 713 files went missing. It's clear from the direction here that since 2001, there has not been a report from the Coroners Service. So I question how the minister can say that everything is just fine.

Let's take a look at the Coroners Service and take a look at what they have changed. In 2002 an information bulletin from the Coroners Service says: "In response to the need to reduce expenditures, part of our strategy has been to reduce the number of autopsy and toxicology examinations."

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain what impact reducing autopsy and toxicology examinations has had on the coroner's ability to determine cause of death and make recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: This much I know for certain, Mr. Speaker — that the professionals in the British Columbia Coroners Service will in no way compromise the level of professionalism that is required to properly conduct their obligations.

A. Dix: The same document from the chief coroner says: "We may not always be in a position to answer all questions that may arise without the benefit of autopsy and toxicology results." They can't have those because the Solicitor General and his colleagues cut their budget.

After these changes the Coroners Service no longer needs to show the definitive cause of death and only a reasonable, presumptive cause of death. B.C. Liberal policies are to lower standards. The Coroners Service, by policy, is not getting all the answers.

Can the Solicitor General explain how best guesses will help formulate recommendations for the public and government to prevent future deaths?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's highly unfortunate that members opposite continue to impugn the reputation of members of the Coroners Service in British Columbia. This is a professional group of people who do excellent work on behalf of British Columbians. I should also point out to the member that in four out of the last five years, the coroner's budget was actually underspent. This year there was a $1.4 million increase to the coroner's budget, and the coroner has made us aware that he will require some additional funding so that he can perform the reporting function more fulsomely. That funding will be provided as well.

A. Dix: Just a few minutes ago the Solicitor General said in this House that nothing has fallen through the cracks. After the last two weeks, after his admissions around 713 child death cases, that's an extraordinary thing to say. The Coroners Service has cut the number of inquests by two-thirds. They've cut the number of autopsies. They've cut the number of toxicology reports. B.C. physicians are so frustrated that many of them are refusing to sign death certificates. There has been no annual report — a question the minister didn't answer — and 1,259 child death reviews have been shelved or kept from the public. These are children like Austin Martel and Brandon Seymour. Their parents want answers, but they can't get any because this government's Coroners Service has become dysfunctional.

Will the minister admit that budget cuts have put the financial squeeze on the B.C. Coroners Service and they can no longer do their work adequately?

Hon. J. Les: We have already made clear that there evidently were issues around the transition from the Children's Commission to the child death review unit within the Coroners Service. We're developing that information to see what went wrong and why those 713 cases were not reviewed by the child death review unit.

What the members opposite continue to do is characterize those 713 files as having gone completely unreviewed. That is patently false. The appropriate coroner's review or medical doctor's review was done in each of those cases. I think it is important for members opposite to finally get that. I thought for a while that they simply didn't understand that fact, but today I think I'm forced to come to the conclusion that they simply don't care what the facts are.

R. Austin: Coroner's inquests under this government are also losing ground. In 1997, 34 coroner's inquests were held, and the average time between the date of death and the inquest was 6.4 months. Only 13 inquests were held in 2004, and they are taking much longer to be held. In cases like Jeff Berg and Harvey Charlie's granddaughter, it took years. One still hasn't been called into the death of Savannah Hall.

Can the Solicitor General explain why the Coroners Service has been subjecting families to such long delays?

Hon. J. Les: Again, we have a member who is impugning the reputation of the Coroners Service. The Coroners Service does not subject British Columbia families to any undue delay or discomfort. As the member well knows, there are cases where it takes some considerable time before an inquest or other proceedings of that nature can actually happen. Sometimes there are criminal investigations, and sometimes there are other processes that need to occur first before an inquest can be held.

It is obviously inappropriate for any of us to insert ourselves politically into those matters. I do not propose to do so. I think the member should respect that it is going to take, actually, in some cases a number of years before those processes can be completed.

R. Austin: Let me quote the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. "The coroner is no substitute for reviews." It was this government that cut the coroner's budget and downloaded extra costs. As a result, fewer inquests are being held, and they're taking longer. In addition, autopsies that would have been necessary in the past are no longer being done, and families are left without answers.

I will ask the Solicitor General again: why has this government allowed B.C. Coroners Service to become so dysfunctional?

Hon. J. Les: I reject categorically the assertion by the member opposite that the Coroners Service in British Columbia is dysfunctional. It simply isn't so. We have a professional Coroners Service within British Columbia that is serving British Columbians well.

L. Krog: I want to talk about one of these outstanding cases. Little Cody Fontaine was only three years old when he was attacked and killed by Rottweilers in his Maple Ridge home just after Christmas in 2004. Two days following that attack, his grandmother questioned whether Cody's mother, a convicted drug trafficker, was capable of caring for Cody. The child and youth officer said she and the coroner would both investigate. There has been no public reporting since. It's been ten months now.

Can the Attorney General confirm that his office asked the child and youth officer to investigate, and can he explain what progress, if any, has been made?

Hon. J. Les: I do not have a specific answer to the member's question, and I will take it on notice.

L. Krog: There obviously have been no answers and no recommendations in the Cody Fontaine case. Brandon Seymour's mother is still waiting. Harvey Charlie has tried for years to get the government to pay attention to his granddaughter's death. Austin Martel's family was told in a letter that his case would simply be dropped. And Daniel Smith's family was told that if a fuller review is ever done, it won't go public.

This government shut down the Children's Commission, and this government cut the coroner's budget. The result is that parents and families are not getting answers, and this government is not learning.

Will anyone on that side of the House commit to the families and parents of these children and to this House that they will reinstate an independent Children's Commission so the public can finally get some answers?

Hon. J. Les: I want to reiterate once again that all child deaths in British Columbia are appropriately and professionally and carefully reviewed by the Coroners Service. Then they go on to a second-stage review process in the child death review unit, which has been functioning within the coroner's office since January of 2003. All of those reviews will be reported on publicly. As I've said previously, they will be reported on individually or in aggregate. We've already seen one report that comments on infant deaths, for example, from

January of 2003 to June of 2004. I would commend it to the member for his review. I think it's indeed a commendable document.

Those files from prior to 2003 that unfortunately did not receive that second-stage review will be reviewed. They will be commented on publicly. Everything will be completed as it should be.

C. Wyse: I have a rancher in my constituency by the name of Marvin Monical, who says this government's offloading of the costs of privatization has hurt his business. Prior to CN buying B.C. Rail, the construction and maintenance of fencing that helped to keep cattle off the rail was done by B.C. Rail. Ranchers were compensated for cattle that were killed on the rail lines, and B.C. Rail was required to upkeep the fencing.

According to Mr. Monical, he followed procedure, identified his dead cattle, took pictures and sent that information to CN for reimbursement. He has heard nothing from CN to date.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What has the minister planned for area ranchers, already hit by hard times in the industry, as far as compensation for dead cattle on the rail lines formerly owned by B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. CN and CP have a policy in place — both federally regulated railways, of course — of maintaining fences along the rail lines.

It would help the member to know that Transport Canada is actually working on a new regulation with the railways that will more clearly define — because, frankly, it's not very clearly defined — what the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the respective parties are with respect to fencing. I can assure the member that we will take an active part in that discussion and ensure that the ultimate regulation will be done in a way that benefits ranchers across this province.

C. Wyse: I do. I appreciate that the minister is going to get involved at this late date. I wish he had been involved, along with his government, before this problem got downloaded onto my constituents. Before they were not involved, there was a clear process in place. B.C. Rail looked after these problems.

The cost of privatization of B.C. Rail has been completely offloaded onto ordinary British Columbians. Government hasn't looked after individual landowners' interests, only itself. Now ranchers who have rail lines through their ranch land are being negatively impacted. Ranchers who have been fighting for their viability through the BSE crisis are now facing the offloading burden put upon them by this government.

The Minister of Transportation has said in this House that the financial impacts of the sale of B.C. Rail have been good for northern communities. Can the minister stand in the House today and tell B.C. ranchers that the privatization of B.C. Rail has been good for their business?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the member opposite to actually go talk to the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. The president will tell him that this government — this government here, actually — came in with a $9 million fencing program, a program that will help ranchers in their fencing to ensure that they keep their cattle and livestock off of the highway system. That was something that was very, very positively received.

The other thing I would say is that this member always just looks at one side of the equation and conveniently forgets the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of benefit — like the northern development fund, the investment in the port of Prince Rupert, over 1,000 new railcars and benefits right across the province.

D. Chudnovsky: It's interesting. This minister seems to think that if he only talks louder, British Columbians won't notice that he isn't answering their questions. But British Columbians are noticing that he isn't answering their questions, and here's another one.

There's an industrial site in Lac la Hache that's been vacant for 20 years. B.C. Rail owned the property. CN is now going ahead with plans for a log-sort operation on this site. The site is surrounded by residential homes. CN says it doesn't need the okay from people in the area because they're governed federally. Last Thursday at a public meeting in Lac la Hache, residents expressed their concern and opposition. The minister constantly tells this House and the people of B.C. that the privatization of B.C. Rail was good for the province, but here's another case where the deal creates problems for British Columbians.

Hon. K. Falcon: I believe the piece of land that the member is referring to actually operated as a sawmill for over 50 years on that particular site. There's actually nothing new to industrial processes taking place along the lands alongside railways. There are often complaints against the attendant noise associated with that, whether it's car-shunting, log-sorting or the operation of sawmills or what have you. I imagine this member's duty over the next few years will be to hunt down every possible complaint he can find.

But I can tell him that this land operated as industrial land for well over 50 years as a sawmill. There was

a public process. People had an opportunity to air their concerns. We'll let that process work.

D. Chudnovsky: For the information of the minister, that industrial site hasn't operated as a sawmill for over 20 years, and it is now surrounded by residential homes. That's the issue. That's the problem that the people of Lac la Hache have. That's why they met last Thursday night. That's why they're asking for help from this minister.

Is the minister going to tell those people in Lac la Hache the way he has told British Columbians about level crossings and about derailments and about fencing? Is he going to tell them that the solution for British Columbians is to go to Ottawa and have their problem solved? Or is he going to do something about it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, the member is right. The sawmill hasn't been operating for many years. Sadly, like so many sawmills that that member's government drove out of business, that's not an unusual…

Hon. K. Falcon: …situation. I'm sure that members are very well used to seeing businesses….

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, the issue here that I think the member, in all seriousness, should be aware of is that we have a pine beetle kill operation in process in British Columbia. That is creating extraordinary strains and extraordinary requirements, and the applicant has put forward, as I understand, an application for some log sorting. That is something that is going to be increasingly important in this province as we try to deal with the impacts of the beetle kill.

I think that we have to develop a sense of perspective about this. Yes, there will always be concerns raised by residents regarding any of the industrial uses that are typically associated with lands alongside a railway. But there was a public hearing held. Folks had their opportunity to speak both for and against this, as I understand, and we'll let that process work.

B. Simpson: I find it quite hysterical that the minister, in order to try to find some way of dodging this question…. He's got to take the dismal decade and expand it back ten more years.

B. Simpson: The point that the minister is missing…. This is not an issue of industrial expansion in Lac la Hache. In fact, the residents in Lac la Hache have said they would like more industrial activity. This is an issue of public policy. It is an issue of what rights the public have with respect to CN's use of what used to be B.C. Rail property.

In 2004 this minister stated in this House: "We retain public ownership of the railbeds and rights-of-way — total public ownership through the B.C. Railway Co." Total public ownership.

So if we retain total public ownership of the railbed and rights-of-way, why is it that the public's concerns expressed last Thursday in Lac la Hache will not be considered by CN in this particular case?

Hon. K. Falcon: Naturally, of course their comments will inform the decision that is ultimately made. But I think this member well knows, whether it was under B.C. Rail or whether it is under CN, that any of the lands alongside a railway have always been exempt from local zoning control. The member should know that, should be aware of that, and that a lot of the industrial-type activities that take place along railways have taken place for as long as railways have been in operation.

In fact, I believe there was a previous application under B.C. Rail for the same kind of re-log or log-sorting operation some ten years ago, so this is not unusual at all. A public hearing was held by residents. They had an opportunity to speak both for and against, and I have no doubt that input will help inform the ultimate decision.

B. Simpson: I'm glad the minister mentioned the previous application and the fact that it was in fact turned down when British Columbia owned the railbed and the rights-of-way. Then British Columbians had the ability to have their voices heard, which they do not now.

This government claims that they have total public ownership over the railbed and the rights-of-way. The fact is that CN is acting as if they own that property. CN did not attend the meeting on Thursday. CN is

brushing off public concerns. That's the issue here. I want to know what this minister is going to do about it.

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess I am, once again, having to refer the member to actually read the agreement. The agreement will confirm what appears to be apparent confusion in the member opposite's mind — that, actually, we are the landlord and the owner of the railbed, the tracks, the rights-of-way. I would encourage the member to actually go and read that.

The difference between ten years ago and today, of course, is that we actually have a pine beetle situation that is very serious in British Columbia. As a result of that, I think we have an opportunity to ensure that, in whatever form, we all try to work together to ensure that we can deal with the rather extraordinary situation we have in this province, where you have an enormous amount of wood coming from the forest sector trying to get to the marketplace.

The member opposite talks about nobody being able to be heard. Yet a public hearing was held, and I understand some 60-odd people attended. People spoke for and against, and that will help inform the decision.

N. Macdonald: The Cariboo regional district has been told that its zoning and land use planning processes no longer apply to B.C. Rail properties. They did before the sale of B.C. Rail. They do not now. That's the issue.

The Minister of Transportation is dismissive, so I'm going to direct my question to somebody that I know understands what is going on here, which is the Minister of Community Services. Will she stand up for local government? Will she represent the Cariboo regional district, take their land use concerns forward directly to CN and solve them?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have the details of the issue in the Cariboo, but perhaps the member could bring them to my attention. I'd be happy to look at that.

S. Simpson: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation tells us to read the agreement. Maybe the minister would be so kind as to provide an agreement where he hasn't blacked out all of the specifics before giving it to us.

As CN pushes ahead with this log-sort operation in Lac la Hache, they are apparently able to do this without paying attention to — and they certainly don't seem prepared to pay attention to — provincial environmental regulations.

Now, we know that we have been successful on this side of the House in forcing the Minister of Transportation to object to CN's bullying around this. My question, though, is to the Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of Environment commit today that he will represent the Cariboo regional district's environmental concerns to CN in a very forceful way on the question of the Lac la Hache log sort?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad the member for Vancouver-Hastings is availing himself of the interest in log sorts up in the Cariboo. One thing I can tell the member for Vancouver-Hastings is that, actually, the agreement, almost 1,000 pages, is available on the website. The only issues that are blacked out have to deal with personal privacy and issues that are consistent with personal privacy and the Freedom of Information Act. So actually, if the member wants to go through, he can look at clauses like 21.4, 21.7 and all the other clauses associated with environmental issues, and he can inform himself of the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I want to advise members of the House that at times when other members are presenting petitions…. There is an obligation that they have from their constituents to present petitions. So the bantering back and forth of whether it's right or wrong should be lowered in the fact that members have that obligation to present it, whether they believe in it or not.

Hon. J. Les: Earlier this afternoon there was a question from the member for Nanaimo, which I took on notice. The question referred to little Cody Fontaine in Maple Ridge, who was attacked and killed by Rottweilers. The member wondered what had happened to that investigation. As a matter of fact, I'm advising the House — information has just been provided to me by staff — that that investigation continues, and it's being conducted by the Ridge-Meadows RCMP.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the 2004-2005 annual report of the child and youth officer for British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm seeking leave to move the charging of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, which is charged with the task of reviewing annual reports and service plans for B.C. Crown corporations. The committee is provided with the usual powers, and we have members. I think beyond that, the motion is the standard one for the select standing committee, and I seek leave to move its assignment.

Hon. W. Oppal: I ask leave to table a fact sheet summary of the statement of expenditures for the Air India trial.

Hon. M. de Jong: Calling the Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

C. Puchmayr: As we left off yesterday…. I did submit a fax to the minister's office, Madam Chair, with respect to the employment standards offices — the few that are still left. I think my question was with respect to the catchment area of those specific offices. Oh, is it appropriate to pass a document to the minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: what I might suggest doing is…. I apologize; I probably should have done this previously. I have an extra copy of this document, so rather than…. I'll read it into the record, and then I'll make sure the member has a hard copy as well.

For the Vancouver Island region — it's up to Bella Bella, including the Powell River region — those are the offices located in Nanaimo and Victoria. For the interior region, which has offices in Kelowna and Nelson, that would be Manning Park east to the Alberta border and from the U.S. border north to include the Central Okanagan region.

In the northern region there are offices located in Prince George, Dawson Creek and Terrace. The catchment area there would be the Queen Charlotte Islands through to the Alberta border and north to the Yukon border and south to the southern interior and Kamloops.

The lower mainland region, where the office is located in Burnaby, would be the lower mainland — metropolitan Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby, the GVRD communities. The Fraser Valley region, where the office is located in Surrey, would be through the valley out towards Agassiz and, of course, the southern border being the U.S. border.

C. Puchmayr: We talked about the number of complaints and the concern that this side had with respect to how complaints are logged and monitored. My question is: is there a breakdown of the disputes that are filed with the employment standards branch through the electronic filing? Is there a logging that would break down the demographics with respect to whether there is a proportionate amount of cases being filed by youth workers or child workers versus adult workers, ethnic workers, male and female workers?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best advice I have at the moment, and it may evolve, is that specifically with respect to the categories of gender and age, we don't believe there is a breakdown along those categories, and we are endeavouring to obtain more specific information about how the data might be broken down beyond that.

C. Puchmayr: The tracking that I had concern with was with the fact that the information coming into the branch would only come into the branch after the formal appeal kit was filled out and filed and the employer was served by the employee. My concern was: how do we quantify whether or not people are abandoning their appeals because of the onerous obligations that are put to them with respect to the new appeal formula?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay, but maybe I can provide the member and the House with some additional information. We spent some time yesterday talking — and I think it was appropriate to spend the time — about the situations that may exist that give rise to a complaint. The point that I should probably emphasize is the information and advice I've received that whilst one can understand the difficulty associated with an employee bringing a complaint against an employer, particularly at a time when they are still in the employ and the anxiety that would cause, by far and away the majority of complaints that the branch is dealing with are filed by individuals after they have left their employment, either voluntarily or involuntarily. So that is the first point.

To the extent that people are…. The notion of filing a document that gives rise to a complaint being generated against an employer — that undoubtedly occurs. In fact, it does occur, but it does not occur as frequently, by any stretch, in situations where people are still employed; although it does happen.

The other bit of information that I think is relevant to the discussion the member and I are having relates to the fact that we can do a comparison of the number of complaints that are abandoned — the complaints that are brought to the attention of the branch and are then abandoned somewhere along the process. Prior to instituting the requirement that a complainant — those that are able — complete the self-help documentation, there were in the neighbourhood of 4,000 complaints abandoned annually.

It is proper, as I'm reminded, to point out that that is 4,000 against a larger pool of complaints. That now has dropped, however. First of all, the number of complaints has dropped, but also the number of complaints that are abandoned is down around 1,300 in a year. I would like to think, and I'm hopeful, that that is in part attributable to the fact that people who are pursuing complaints by virtue of the self-help kit are in a better position to judge at the outset whether or not they actually have a cause of action under the Employment Standards Act.

It is, I think, open to discussion for us, and we are continuing to try and determine to what extent that is so and whether or not the reduced numbers are attributable to other things. But I would like to think — and the purpose and objective was to ensure — that people pursuing their rights under the Employment Standards Act have a detailed and accurate understanding of what rights are afforded them under the act and an understanding of the process they need to employ to enforce those rights.

C. Puchmayr: Would it be safe to say, then, that the tracking system of people who are looking at the self-help process, which is a process that is mandatory prior to phoning an officer except for extreme cases…? Would it be safe to say that there really is no ability to come up with any true data where we could monitor or track some trends or possible impacts — maybe more so to younger workers versus older workers? I believe the figure was how many times people logged on to that system, and logging on to that system doesn't really break down what the needs of that individual are.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll provide some additional numbers to the member. Quite frankly, one can interpret these numbers differently, and I'm not claiming to…. I'm hopeful that the way I am interpreting them is in part correct, but I'll share them with the member.

This reflects the downloading of the self-help kits, and I may have referred to these numbers yesterday — now that I'm looking at them. I talked about how in '02-03, when for part of the year they became available, about 3,400 kits were downloaded; in '03-04, 42,000; in '04-05, 35,000; and then so far this year '05-06 — just under 15,000. So people are certainly going to the site and taking advantage.

Now, what I was going to say in response to the member's question — and I think it's a good question, a fair question — is: how can we know with any degree of certainty whether this tool is acting as something of assistance to people or as an impediment? I think that goes to the heart of what the member is suggesting. We have been doing some surveying of people who are making use…. I don't have the date for when the survey was completed, and I'll try to get that for a subsequent answer here.

These are the kinds of questions we asked people who had made use of the self-help kits: "Where did you get your copy of the self-help kit?" "How did you find the instructions provided?" "How did you find the amount of information?" "How did you find using the wage calculations required and the request for payment form?" So a series of questions, and we tried to track and ask the person, if they were completing the document at the end of the process, how their particular issue or complaint was resolved, and 344 respondents to the survey provided some of these answers. They talked about where they got their self-help kit. Sixty-four percent said they got it at the employment standards office and then just under 20 percent from the website. My guess is that that number is different now than when the survey was taken, but we'll find out when the survey was taken.

"How did you find the instructions provided in the kit?" Sixty-six percent responded that they found the instructions in the kit easy to complete, 31 percent responded that they found the documentation somewhat difficult to complete, and 4 percent found it very difficult to complete. To what extent that was attributable to understanding the questions being posed, linguistic challenges, I don't know, but our objective certainly is to ensure that this tool that is designed to facilitate the complaint process is as user-friendly as possible.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister copy us with the details of that survey, including when it was taken.

Was it a period of time when more employment standards offices were in existence, or was it a time after the reduction in the offices? I'm a little troubled by the 64 percent that came in and received the kits at the offices versus the 20 percent that picked up the kits over the Internet. I think it's easy to track people coming into an office and getting a kit, but the offices are not that accessible.

So this side would be interested in looking at the entire survey and the breakdown of the survey. Being aware of the time and my limitations through this process, I'm going to…. If the minister will agree to submit that information to this side, I can continue.

I'm going to segue into coverage for farmworkers and, again, the self-help process that's available for farmworkers. Again I thank the minister for yesterday, understanding the concerns that this side has with respect to the translation link on the webpage, where even someone with very limited English skills would find it very difficult to link to documents in their mother tongue, so I'm looking forward and anticipating some movement in that direction to make those more accessible.

But specifically in the case of agricultural workers…. There is a link on the employment standards branch page for information for agricultural workers. Basically, it tells you to read the 2005 memorandum of understanding. Could the minister please explain how this was derived, why we now have a memorandum of understanding where the signatories are different growers associations and farmworkers councils and how we arrived at this document? The document is dated 2005, so it's a fairly current document. What is the specific date in 2005?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I am referring to the correct document, and if I am, the member can indicate as such — the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, among what was then the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, the employment standards branch, the B.C. Agriculture Council and B.C. Agriculture Council member organizations. In the document I have, dated the 29th day of April, 2005, the final page lists those member organizations.

In short, the objective here…. It is one of a series of MOUs and signals a trend that the branch is pursuing within various sectors of the economy. It's a short document committing, in this case, the B.C. Agriculture Council and their member organizations and the employment standards branch to work together in a coordinated way, first of all, to recognize what some of the employment issues are — occupational issues relating to the sector — and commit to processes and cooperation to ensure that solutions are being sought to ongoing problems and, in effect, to work together to ensure that the needs of the workers and employers are being properly met.

C. Puchmayr: I've certainly been involved with a few negotiations, and this is actually the smallest collective agreement I've ever seen. One of the things that is glaring in its absence in this document…. And yes, I do have the page that lists the associations: the Cattlemen's Association, Cranberry Growers Association, Grain Producers Association, Corn Growers Association, Strawberry Growers Association — just to mention a few. What consultation was taken with…? You did mention that the genesis of this or the desire of this was to ensure some recognition of workers' rights. What consultation was done with workers' representatives or even labour representatives?

Hon. M. de Jong: He may have been using the term loosely, but it's not a collective agreement, the document we're dealing with. I don't want to leave any impression in the House or for people watching that the memorandum of understanding is some kind of collective agreement. It's not. It is a general memorandum of understanding.

I should say to the member that it was primarily, and is, and the other sectors of the economy…. It is designed to and the objective was to provide some form of coordination among a variety of agri-industry organizations.

As I am reminded, part of what is being facilitated here is a clear understanding of the involvement that employment standards will have in terms of attending at various locations and dealing with workers. I think the member knows what some of those issues were in the debate that has lingered over the years about farmworkers and ensuring that their rights are adequately protected, that they have access to employment standards officials and that employment standards officials are conducting themselves in a way that is helpful but minimally disruptive — although, as always, the objective is to make sure that the requirements and obligations that employers have under the act are being followed. It is primarily that kind of a document and therefore engaged the attention of the various growers and producers associations primarily.

No, I won't split hairs on this, but a memorandum of understanding is an agreement. This was derived collectively, and it was achieved collectively between 25 employer associations. My concern with this is that it doesn't address…. I'm concerned about how the needs of the actual workers were addressed in coming to these bullet points of conclusion on basically what the wishes of this memorandum of understanding are to achieve.

The evaluation says, just to read, that the "success of the partnership will in part be measured by complaint and audit results in future years using 2002 data…baseline," and the memorandum of understanding is "to be evaluated annually to ascertain results and the need for revision to program focus and direction."

If there's such a difficulty in filing complaints with this by linking on to the employment standards branch webpage and getting this document, what kind of input would the actual workers who are trying to get some address to their issues…? How would they actually play a role in identifying some of those concerns by those employees?

Hon. M. de Jong: It wasn't my intention to sort of chastise the member. Although I'm not a labour lawyer, he and some of his colleagues who have had extensive involvement with some of these labour matters I think will know that the term "collective agreement" under the Labour Code, for example, has a specific legal meaning. This document that we are dealing with is not that kind of an agreement. It is certainly designed to be an MOU, and that is the case.

Let me — just because we have dealt with it thus far in the abstract — point out what the goals of, as the document says, the partnership…. It is designed to be a partnership in terms of a program that engages the attention of the producer associations, as employers, and the employment standards. So if we go to the bottom of page 1 of what is really a two-page document, it talks about how, by virtue of signing on to this MOU, member organizations, largely of employers, are committing to improving compliance in the hand-harvesting sector, with a particular focus on the field crop industry.

What employers, by virtue of their association, are saying is: "We are committed, and we want to work with employment standards to improve compliance with the Employment Standards Act" — compliance that accrues to the benefit of workers, because the employment standards legislation is designed to provide those workers with rights — "and as a group of growers and producers, we want to work in our sector with employment standards to improve compliance." It goes further and says that the B.C. Agriculture Council and its member organizations agree that they will not support or condone the utilization of unlicensed farm labour contractors. So again, an agreement or a commitment from an organization and its composite membership that says, "We think that's bad for workers, and we want to send a signal that we don't condone that kind of activity…."

A third example. It says here that under this agreed-upon program: "An officer of the employment standards branch would be assigned to liaise with the council and its member associations with initial priority on education with the hand-harvest sector." These liaisons would include visiting producer operations to further both the goals of the MOU and industry compliance with the legislation, including timely sharing of information related to non-compliance issues. We want to work together. We want to ensure that workers' rights are protected, and one of the best ways to do that is obviously to ensure that workers understand what their rights are but also that employers understand what their obligations are and that they need to respect those rights.

Now, there's a fundamental right for a worker. You've got to pay them. What this association and its membership are saying is: "As a group, we recognize what those obligations are." We often have a saying on this side of the House — it sort of goes without saying — that you've got to pay your members. I guess the theory here is it goes a lot better with saying — that as an organization, we want people to know what their obligations are under the Employment Standards Act, and as a branch, we want to ensure that employers understand that.

That's the rationale behind the document. As I say, there is a series of them that the branch is negotiating with various sectors — the restaurant sector, I believe, and the garment sector as well — all built around the same principles.

C. Puchmayr: How will the workers know that these points, or these visions, are something that they can govern themselves around and feel that they're protected by the legislation and the act?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I am going to cite some statistical information. I think we all have to be cautious about statistics, because one is inclined to interpret them in the way most favourable to one's own argument, but here are some. They would suggest a certain trend, but I don't think we should ever rely exclusively on the documentation.

I'll go back to 2001. Within the farm labour sector there were 67 complaints. In 2002 that went up to 75. In '03 it went down to 46 and in '04 to 38. This year so far, 23. That has an asterisk. I presume it's because the year isn't over yet.

Now, the argument that might follow is: "Well, you're not as available," or "You're not there to facilitate the receipt of complaints," and because of the unique qualities of the workforce and where they are located out on the land base…. But I note, also, that from '02 through to '05, site visits have gone up from 48 to 59 to 63 to, this year, 102 — where employment standards officers have attended and conducted interviews.

I will say this. It's my recollection, although I wasn't the minister at the time, that the branch has been working to ensure that those site visits take place in a way that works for workers and also respects the fact that

So the visits seem to be up; the complaints seem to be down. As I say, what we're hoping is that workers who are better informed about their rights, coupled with employers who are better informed about their obligations, represent an equation that equals fewer complaints and less need for the branch to be involved in a dispute resolution.

C. Puchmayr: I'll politely ask again: how would the employees know that there is some sort of vision that is designed to govern good working conditions on those specific sites?

Maybe I should add to it: is it mandatory that this memorandum is posted? Are there translations to these documents that are posted on the site, or is there an obligation by the employer to ensure that the workers are aware of what the employers' responsibilities are and what the employees' limitations are on the sites, including wages?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I want to offer to the member is: as an instrument for a worker to cross-check whether his or her rights are being respected, this document is wholly inadequate. It would do a worker very little good to go to the lunchroom and see this document. In fact, as a worker, I might look at this and ask myself: "What are my rights?"

The definitive listing of those rights is in the Employment Standards Act. That's why that law exists. What officers will do is attend at one of the site visits, and if they're going to a place where they know that a particular first language is predominant, they'll ensure that they have material with them in that language. They will ask basic questions. "Are you getting paid? Are you getting paid in a timely way? What are your hours of work?" In that way they try to derive some better understanding of what the conditions are and whether the employees are having their rights inspected.

This document represents an attempt and a declaration by the signatories that they wish to work with the branch to facilitate that process, to ensure that their members understand what their obligations as employers are so that they will respect and adhere to those obligations. With respect to the member's question about how a worker relies upon this to ensure that their legal entitlements are being respected, that, with respect, is not the intention of the document. It would be seriously lacking if someone were to purport that's what it's for, because it's not.

I think we started on the issue of the website and how difficult it is for employees to get information with respect to protection and rights. When you link on to the employment standards branch "Welcome" page and click on to a section for agriculture workers, it gives you information for agricultural workers.

It's very short, and I'll read it. It says: "The Employment Standards Act and regulation sets out minimum working conditions for all workers covered under provincial labour laws. These webpages cover the special rules that apply to agriculture workers and employers in British Columbia. Read the" — and then it has a thing you can click on to — "2005 memorandum…. If you have specific questions, please contact…." Then it has an address and a phone number. When you contact that phone number, they want you to get a self-help kit.

So it's very difficult. The position I'm putting forward is that it's extremely difficult for employees — especially employees that have English as a second language — to be able to avail themselves of the knowledge of what their rights are in the workplace. I hope the minister understands that there seems to be a void here with respect to giving proper information to workers.

He can respond to that if he likes. I'll give him the option, also, if he wants to move on to something that he said with respect to the numbers of complaints. I think the 2001 complaint or the 2005…. So far the complaints were very minimal. So I have some concerns with respect to the complaint process.

I'll give you an example of a recent complaint, and I believe it was on or about October 4 of this year. It was at a farm in Maple Ridge where farmworkers from Mexico who came into this country under the Canadian seasonal agricultural workers program, under a contract from their contractor that brought them into the country to work, were promised a wage of $8 an hour, which is significantly more than the piecework rate, which is now only available for farmworkers, and it's greater than the training wage. Yet the working conditions were so deplorable on this farm that they staged a strike, and they asked to be returned to Mexico, where their working conditions were better.

I'll tell you what the working conditions were. They were living in construction trailers — drafty, with holes through them. They had no cooking facilities. They had to cook outside. So this is a complaint that you would think under a normal procedure would come through the Employment Standards Act, but it was a complaint through their contractor, and they came into this country under the Canadian seasonal agricultural workers program.

So if this is what's happening in the province…. I'm concerned that the statistics that we are seeing seem fairly low, and I would like to have the availability of the inspection reports and the time of year these inspections are happening on the farms. I know the minister commented with respect to not trying to disrupt the working. I'd be interested to see when these over 100 inspections happened, what time of year they were, what types of violations were found during those inspections and what remedial action was taken with respect to any possible infractions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try to deal with, specifically, the seasonal worker issue first, and then we can come back. I don't know how much of an answer I have with

respect to the details on the specific site visits. I'll not disregard it, but I'll try to deal with the seasonal worker issue first.

I think members know, and I'm certain that this member knows, of course, that we are dealing with a program that was signed off upon and negotiated by the federal government — and, by the way, a program that as a resident of the Fraser Valley I am supportive of insofar as growers and producers were facing some serious labour shortage issues. So to the extent that those labour shortage issues can be alleviated through programs like this, I think that's a good thing. In fact, I think there may be a case, an argument to be made, for looking to expand that kind of program to other jurisdictions, and I am interested in exploring that.

But having said that, employers who participate in the program sign an agreement. In addition to the obligations they have under the provincial Employment Standards Act, they also assume certain obligations pursuant to the terms of the agreement they signed with the federal government. That agreement and those obligations include things like the cost of transportation and, as the member alluded to, specific obligations around conditions of accommodation.

The accommodation under the terms of that agreement must meet with the approval of the foreign government's agent. Now, I will have to confirm who is the agent for, in this case, the Mexican government, but there are some strict obligations. Beyond that, though, I think the member and I would agree that as employers, when Canadian people who are employing people in this country bring workers pursuant to this agreement to our country and to our province, they should and must adhere to those obligations. People should be residing in appropriate accommodation.

The employment standards officials, though, are primarily responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Employment Standards Act are adhered to. Are the workers being paid, are they working through proper hours — all of the things that the Employment Standards Act is designed to do to protect the workers in this country. Those protections extend, most certainly, to workers under this program, but the employers' obligations go further, into things like accommodations, when they sign on to this agreement.

It is quite proper for the member to draw attention to situations where those obligations may not have been met, and they should be met. It is a key part, I think, of this program moving forward and even, perhaps, expanding, for those who participate in it to demonstrate that they do so in good faith and that they are prepared to meet all of the obligations imposed upon them, certainly, by the Employment Standards Act and, secondly, by the terms of the agreement they have with the federal department HRDC.

C. Puchmayr: It's quite strange that we have a shortage of workers in that industry and very minimal standards and some very poor working conditions to such a degree that we have to bring workers in from other countries and offer them the equivalency of our minimum wage. It is very puzzling to wrap my mind around that concept.

But understanding that the minister certainly sees that there's possibly an issue here with this specific case I gave him, I submit that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that there are numerous cases such as this one. I would ask the minister if he plans to improve working conditions of farmworkers through possible legislation or regulation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to speculate — it would be improper for me to do so — around future legislative initiatives that come before this chamber. But I do want the member to know this. In fact, I wanted to convey to him a couple of things. For those of us who reside in the Fraser Valley, this issue of a labour shortage has been developing for some years now. We may find it odd or he may find it odd that producers are having difficulty attracting the workers they need in the hand-harvest sectors, but I can assure him that they are.

What a program like this is designed to do is try to assist them. What it is not designed to do and what the government has no interest in allowing it to do is to relieve employers of the obligations they have under the Employment Standards Act or under the agreements they sign with the federal government. So at the completion of each harvest season, officials with the employment standards branch of the provincial government sit down with representatives of the country from which workers have come — the example in this case, Mexico — to review what has taken place, to ensure that where there have been allegations of breaches of the law or obligations, they have been properly pursued.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about visitors to our country. So in addition to wanting to ensure that they are afforded all of the protection of the laws that exist here, we want them to feel welcome. We want them to feel good about coming back because we need them to come back.

If the member has information about other circumstances where, in his view, there has been inappropriate conduct or the obligations of the employer under either the act or the agreement haven't been met, then I want to know about it because we should pursue it.

But there is a flip side. And I know the member would not want me in any way to mislead the House. There is a flip side to this argument, and that relates to the stories that appeared on numerous occasions in — well, I'm from Abbotsford — the Abbotsford papers, interviewing people who had come from Mexico who were thrilled with the reception they had received. They were absolutely ecstatic at how they were being treated and made it clear that they intend to come back. Our job is to make sure that those are the stories, that people feel good about coming here, feel good about where they're working, that their rights are being respected, and that employers understand that that is an

C. Puchmayr: I believe in this case, the Mexican farmworkers did have a negotiated minimum wage. My question to the minister is: what would the minimum hourly wage be for harvest crop farmworkers in British Columbia or for British Columbia citizens that are engaged in that work, as opposed to workers that are coming under the federal program?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just verifying that under the terms of the Employment Standards Act, wages in the hand-harvest sector are generally paid on a piece basis — whether it's by the flat in the berry industry or by the bushel in other industries. Whether a worker comes from British Columbia, from elsewhere in Canada or from another destination internationally, the obligation remains the same. The hourly minimum wage doesn't apply, although that does not mean that an employer cannot come to an agreement with an employee or a group of employees that would see a minimum hourly wage paid.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to move on to child labour now. I would imagine that the minister has the appropriate staff to deal with child labour issues.

Under the law now in British Columbia, children as young as 12 can work. I know, minister, in my debate the other morning — the rebuttal — I made some comments with reference to newspaper routes. I want to ensure the House that I am not talking about newspaper routes or lemonade stands. I'm talking about children as young as 12 working in virtually any industry in this province and the regulations that were removed, which used to have a system of monitoring from the employment standards branch.

Among some things, it ensured that the worksites were safe. It ensured that both parents acknowledged and agreed that the young person could be employed. It ensured that there were considerations made with respect to the child's education. It governed safety issues with respect to proximity of stop buttons and safety shutoffs, and it also made provisions with respect to transportation getting to and from the worksite. There has been a very significant reduction in those protections.

So one of my concerns is: how many children between the ages of 12 and 15 are currently employed in the province?

C. Puchmayr: With respect to injuries on the worksite, I would presume that injuries that are reported on the worksite would certainly go into the record. So could the minister please explain or answer how many injuries there are with employees between the ages of 12 and 15 during this last fiscal?

Hon. M. de Jong: The information I do have at my fingertips relates to a significant decrease in injury rates for young workers at a time when, of course, the employment rate for young workers is at an all-time high. What I don't have but will endeavour to get for the member are more specific numbers that he has requested.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister answer whether or not statistics are kept breaking down the specifics of the 12-to-15-year-olds category as opposed to now the 12-to-18-year-olds category?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure that I understand the request. Is the member seeking data on injury claims for workers between a certain age, and if so, which ages?

C. Puchmayr: Yes, that's correct, and it would be between the ages of 12 to 15. The other question that I had with respect to that: does Worksafe or the Workers Compensation Board break down the young…? I know there's a young worker injury rate. Do they actually break it down to 12-to-15, or is it merely the 12-to-18 calculation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The number that I have been provided with: for young people who have been working, age 15 and under, for 2005 we have reports of four injuries.

C. Puchmayr: A recent report that was done by a professor at Simon Fraser University showed some real concerns with young workers that were, in his words, intimidated and not willing to make claims. Is the ministry looking at some regulations with respect to workers in that segment and increasing protection to those workers?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I might just take a moment and in the process provide the member with some information in answer to his question.

The dilemma that, of course, has plagued governments and society for a number of years is what ultimately gave rise to the change, and I'm hopeful that people who quite properly continue to examine this issue will at least acknowledge the accuracy of this fact. For years we deluded ourselves as a society that a requirement to obtain a permit was actually being followed. We knew that for decades, thousands of young people between the ages of 12 and 15 were working. Most of the members of this House, I suspect, at one time or another counted themselves among that group. If you were like me and grew up on a farm, from the time you were old enough to walk, you helped. By the time you were 12, you were certainly throwing bales of hay on neighbouring farms.

The notion that people were abiding by the requirement to obtain a permit, as the law required, was

a myth. We only had, through that period of time, a couple of hundred permits on file, and they related to work at, I think, the PNE mostly. It was the one place where people were actually abiding by that requirement. So we were hiding behind a myth that we actually knew how many people between the ages of 12 and 15 were working, because no one was getting the permit. That was through the '80s and '90s and into the early part of the new millennium.

So we made some changes. That change did not affect anyone under the age of 12, for which that permitting requirement remains, but it certainly changed the regime for young people between the ages of 12 and 15. They are now required and their employer is required to have parental consent on file and on record, which strikes me as being, first of all, eminently reasonable and eminently doable.

The initiative now, to come to the member's actual inquiry and question, is that there is a concerted effort underway to ensure that young people, their parents and guardians and employers understand the importance of meeting that obligation — the importance of actually having written confirmation of the fact that if a 14-year-old or 15-year-old is helping out and being employed and working somewhere and being paid for that, there needs to be parental consent. We want to know that that child's parent or guardian is aware of the fact that they're working, and that the employer has satisfied that requirement that it's all right not just with the student but also with the parent or guardian of the student.

There is a concerted effort underway now to ensure that all of those parties understand the importance of the obligation and the importance of meeting it.

C. Puchmayr: One of the provisions that was removed was the safety check that used to be prepared by the branch. Now the onus is on a parent. My question is: does the minister feel that a parent going down to a worksite is conversant in understanding the safety that the child may be exposed to in that worksite?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer…. Well, let me say this. Employers have obligations, and they exist vis-à-vis anyone that works for them. Those obligations relate to things that exist in the Employment Standards Act and also relate to regulations under WorkSafe B.C. or WCB, as it was formerly known.

Previously — and I think the member stated this correctly — there was an obligation that accrued to the director within employment standards, who was responsible for issuing a permit for that student between the ages of 12 and 14 and attaching certain conditions or making certain requirements and warranting certain safety obligations. I think the best thing I can say, again to the member, is that it was all a myth. It never happened. Thousands of students were working, and no one was getting the permit. None of that was taking place.

I would suggest that a better approach to this, recognizing that young people do want to work and earn some pocket money while they're in school — and we actually think that's a good idea within reason — is to ensure that employers understand what their obligations are vis-à-vis that young person and, under the Employment Standards Act and the WCB's WorkSafe B.C. regulations, to invest in that young person's parent or guardian some authority to ensure an added layer, if you will, of insurance and ability to track that those conditions and requirements are being met. The parent is far more likely to pursue it and far better positioned to pursue it.

This is an eminently more logical and practical way to ensure that work conditions for people entering the workforce on a part-time basis for the first time are having their rights respected with respect to safety and other employment conditions.

C. Puchmayr: The report by the professor at SFU talks about some very serious concerns in the governance or in the regulation of young workers. One of them is that a very high percentage of workers work unsupervised, whereas there is a provision for supervision that's laid out in the policy. Some work with supervisors barely older than them, with no adults on the site.

I listened to what the minister is saying with respect to this matter, but my concerns are when there is a drastic reduction in fieldworkers for employment standards branch, there is a significant reduction in jobsite inspections with Workers Compensation. To me that raises a very serious red flag — a red flag with respect to children on the worksite.

My question is: does the minister plan to look at the situation and deal with some regulation or legislation that will put more protection into young people working in potentially dangerous environments?

Hon. M. de Jong: Some of that focus and initiative is already taking place. I mentioned the education drive, and I am advised that already this year there have been upwards of 140 such seminars designed to emphasize to employers and the parents of young part-time workers the requirements that must be met under the act and the rights under the act.

I've got regulations in front of me regarding the Employment Standards Act, which relate to adult supervision. Section 45.4 of part 7.1 relating to conditions of employment for young people says: "An employer of a child must ensure that the child works only under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who has reached 19 years of age."

So there is that, and I think the member, in fairness, pointed this out. It is important, of course, from a practical point of view that the person exercising that supervisory capacity has sound knowledge of the job, the jobsite and any equipment being operated on the jobsite. So they need to be properly qualified to exercise that supervisory capacity.

These discussions and debates in the chamber are important, and I do want the member to know what is fully in my mind. While that work is taking place, I don't hesitate to tell him that a far greater priority, to my mind — given the statistical information available — relates to the situation in the forest sector. If it is a question of prioritizing the work that needs to take place, the member will know — and he has spoken on this himself in the chamber and elsewhere — that I regard that as a far more challenging and far more urgent situation than the one we have been describing here — which doesn't mean it's not important. I will continue to be pleased about the work that's taking place. But the priority between the two at this point, in my mind at least, is very much with what is taking place in the forest sector.

C. Puchmayr: Well, there are a lot of priorities in life, and under this ministry, these are all components that I've been going through — components of this ministry. The issues that I've raised are issues I have concerns with and that have been communicated to me. Understanding that 40 deaths of forest workers are extremely serious, and we are…. Fortunately, there is a lot of representation out there, which is taking this matter seriously. We have the Forest Safety Council, we have the steelworkers union, we have the Western Fallers Association, we have the Truck Loggers Association, we have this side of the House, and we have the minister telling this side of the House that there are some initiatives underway.

The reason I'm bringing things in this order of priority is that I'm bringing things to this House where the employees have no representation. I will be going into forest workers and workers compensation. I will attempt to, but I'm quickly running out of time here.

To me, all workers need their needs addressed. I'm speaking out for the workers that have virtually no union representation. Now, in my opinion and in this side's opinion, they're losing a lot of safeguards — the regulatory safeguards — that used to be in place and that are being eliminated through what I would see as cost-cutting measures. My concerns are with all workers. I'm sure the other side would agree with me that we need to be concerned about all workers in this province.

I will now close my section of the debate. I just want to thank the minister and thank the minister's staff for this process, and I very much look forward to February when we will go into this process again. I look forward to working with the minister on the forest safety issues, and I will bring forward some of the other issues that I've raised in this House on this estimate. I will also remind the minister and his staff of the disclosures that I asked for with respect to the two matters — the one being the inspections on the sites and the other being with respect to, I believe, some training initiatives.

I will thank the minister and his staff, and I will yield to the other part of the Labour and Citizens' Services estimates.

Hon. M. de Jong: While we effect a change, I echo the member's sentiments regarding the contributions and assistance and participation of staff. I will say to him many thanks for the interesting exchange. The last comment on the last part — I agree with him entirely that all of these are crucially important issues. I hope he appreciates that I was simply trying to be forthright with him about, among a whole series of priorities, what I see as some of the top priorities along the way. I know that we will continue to work together, and there are obviously some challenges that we are facing collectively. But I think that we can meet those challenges with goodwill and good faith on the part of all parties and stakeholders.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I was wondering if maybe we could take a quick five-minute recess so we can confirm what order we're going to do these things.

H. Lali: I'd like to begin by just making a statement that this is my first time actually going up in estimates against the hon. Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. We've crossed swords on many occasions before, and I guess this is a little bit different. I'm on this side of the House and the minister is on the government side of the House. Having said that, I'm looking forward to the next little while, as we enter the estimates for Citizens' Services.

I'm going to start with the chief information officer, the e-government Premier's Web portal project. We'll go on to FOI, and then, the alternative delivery service. Then we'll see what kind of time lines we have, and we'll take it from there.

Having said that, I want to start by asking the minister…. In the 2004-2005 budget, it included as one of its new-era commitments, the commitment to make B.C. a world leader in e-government, to give all citizens and businesses better on-line access to core services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In that same budget the status of this commitment was generally labelled "ongoing," stating that the government's Internet portal was launched in September 2003.

Now this Internet portal, of course, is better known as a sinkhole, the Premier's folly or his pet project — it's also been known as the digital dumpster — into which millions of dollars have been poured and end-

less deadlines have been missed. We know that this embarrassment was shuffled out of the Premier's office and into the forerunner of this ministry on the eve of the 2003 budget because if it stayed in the Premier's office, it would have put the Premier over budget and triggered the 10-percent salary withholding in the budget law. Maybe that's why we have heard so little about the Web portal, aside from the Achieve B.C. pilot project launched in September 2003.

In fact, a January 2005 document on this minister's website refers to a single coordinated entry portal that provides access to the services of all levels of government. The document is entitled Imagine the Future. I'd like to ask this minister how much taxpayers should imagine that this Web portal project will end up costing in the end.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, welcome to the world of estimates from a different perspective than the one he was accustomed to for, I think, five years, if I recall correctly — five or six years.

I wonder if I might take a moment to introduce to the House and the member some of the staff that are here with me today. Chris Norman is here. Deputy Gord Macatee is here. Lois Fraser is behind me, and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland is here from the ministry. I have everyone. This is the minister over on the left.

If I might just take a moment and point out that we are now dealing with that aspect of the ministry or that area of the ministry's responsibility that historically people would have regarded as government services, some of the e-government technical services. It is that part of government that, to a certain extent, depending on your perspective, is concerned with the provision of services to government and within government.

The point that we are trying to make, by virtue of the different name for the ministry, is all of that. The provision of services — and in some cases, equipment — to various departments of government is done with one thing in mind. It is to provide proper levels and, we hope, excellent levels of service to citizens, to the people who ultimately pay for them. That's really at the heart of what we're doing.

I hope that during the course of the discussion we will have here today with the hon. member, we will explore some of the ways we are attempting to do that: some of the ways we are attempting to facilitate access to government services and government information; how we are endeavouring to ensure that privacy protection exists and how those two concepts don't need to be incompatible with one another; and how, at the end of the day, the ability that people, citizens, have to access their government and make it work for them, we hope, is being improved.

It is a large task. The member has referred to one component of that, and I've talked on long enough now to forget the specific question that he asked about that one component, being the portal. So I'll let him briefly repeat the question.

H. Lali: The question was: how much should the taxpayers imagine that this Web portal project will end up costing?

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the things I neglected to mention, and then I'll get right to the heart of the question…. I promise not to forget it this time. I hope — during the course of, if not these estimates, then estimates into the future — that this member and others will take advantage of a tool that has been created that is going to pose…. It's a tool government has created, but at the end of the day, it may prove something of a challenge for government.

The service plan for this ministry is something that this member and others can measure performance against, just as the Premier, in his exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, invited that analysis to take place. There will be times when it is not a flattering one for government, because the objectives that are laid out in that service plan are designed to provide a measuring stick for how we're doing. Sometimes we meet them, sometimes we exceed them, and sometimes we fall short. That may be something, I hope, that members take advantage of. It's certainly an opportunity for us to gauge our performance as government and as departments of government.

Coming, then, to the portal. I look, in part, to the service plan and can tell the member that for the fiscal year '05-06 the cost of operating the portal is $5.41 million.

H. Lali: Before I begin, excuse my rudeness. I want to actually recognize the staff as well. The minister just did that a few minutes ago, and I know how hard staff work to provide, on our side, this big binder. The minister probably has about ten of these binders, or at least that many. It's all the staff who are here and the staff who work in the ministry who do all this hard work. I want to recognize the staff's hard work and thank them as well.

The minister says $5.14 million. The Premier had first said it was going to cost $2.5 million. Then it was $4.5 million. Then he said it was going to $6 million. By September of 2000 estimates were up to $18 million. The minister said $5.14 million. That's a big difference between the formerly estimated up-to-$18 million, which would have been at least a 750-percent increase from what had originally been projected.

I want to ask the minister: how many contractors are working on this project, and what is the total number of contractors who have been hired to date? Can the minister also provide the names of these contractors and firms?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I've two parts to my answer to the member. I do want to draw the distinction — and I'm certain that the member understands it

— between the capital cost of establishing the portal and the ongoing operating cost. The figure from the service plan that I've provided him with relates to the ongoing costs of operating the portal, and there will be costs each year in perpetuity associated with the upkeep and the maintenance on the portal site.

The second question I recall hearing related to the number of contractors involved — and I apologize for the delay. We'll verify this for the member, but my best information at the moment is that there are a couple of contracting companies presently involved with the operation and presentation of the site.

H. Lali: Now, we've heard that there have been numerous consultant reports on this digital-dumpster mess. In fact, when our research department went to file an FOI, they were told that there were so many consultant reports and so many thousands of pages detailing the ongoing failure of this project that it was impossible to fulfil the FOI request without the names of the consulting firms. Well, that's sort of like asking FOI for a particular egg and being told to go and find a chicken where the egg came from first.

Anyway, we have in our possession one of these reports, dated March 2004 — six months after the supposed launch of the site. How many other reports have been filed on the portal project?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're going to try and get a specific number for the member so that he has something specific to work with.

I will say that the initiative here is designed to facilitate and ease access to government, to services, to information, to application processes. In the time that I have been assigned this responsibility, I will confess to the member that it is a very complex matter. The nature of the reports varies from conceptual to design-related to technical.

I should also say to the member that my early impression of where we're at is that we still have some work to do. I'm not certain that the conceptual objective here has even yet been met in the way that we want. So my expectation is that when we have this discussion next year, in addition to that material which he is requesting now, there very much is a need for ongoing analysis. Are we meeting our objective? Is people's access to government being facilitated and improved upon in a very user-friendly way?

The technology continues to evolve. I don't know about the member, but I am the last person in this chamber to purport to be an authority on that evolving technology. But I do know that it does present real challenge in terms of trying to present a window on government that is functional, user-friendly and takes proper advantage of the latest technology.

H. Lali: Well, I have my own challenges with technology, as the minister has just said, and I think the terminology for people like us is "technopeasant." So, as one technopeasant to another, we're having this little debate.

But I find it a little troubling because I'm asking the minister some questions, and even though it's not coming out quite clearly from the minister's mouth…. What's happening here is that all of the criticisms of this project — the Premier's pet project — are being validated, in that it's now almost December of 2005. This project was launched in September of 2003, over two years ago, with so much fanfare. We've seen the minister give us a figure of $5.14 million for operating, and yet it is not known what the capital is.

H. Lali: My apologies. It's the other way around here. It's $5.41 million. Yet we don't know the costs for the capital or how much it took. We've gone from a figure of 2½ to 4½ to six to 18 — projection. Now we still don't know what the costs are, and it's still not supposed to be functioning. We've had two years of this Premier's pet project — over two years — and still there is so much confusion, and now we're being told that it's still not up and running.

This March 2004 a report by Deloitte Consulting stated that the B.C. government's Web portal project "lies squarely in the trough of disillusionment, and the next step is to re-establish and refocus the strategy and begin implementation of key recommendations." Has the government followed this advice? Or is the government following the advice of a different consultant's report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I should offer this to the member. I thought that in a preamble to his question, he made reference to the fact that the project and the portal is not yet up and running. It is, in fact, and the observation I was making and will repeat now is that it is operating at a level that is providing a service that I think can be improved. I acknowledge in as forthright a manner as I can that we are very interested in taking the necessary steps to improving the level of service and the manner in which people access the portal.

I think the report the member is referring to — and I appreciate the fact that he's taken time to read it in detail — lists a variety of things that government might wish to address in terms of ensuring the service is meeting the expectations we set for it, and that is certainly something we want to do.

I should say, as well, that I am the first person to agree, notwithstanding my disturbingly poor appreciation for all the technology, that we set some ambitious expectations here. The ability to deliver on those expectations and to meet the objectives is certainly a challenging one, so the member will not hear me in any way deny the challenge posed by meeting those expectations and the fact that we do have some information that has highlighted how we might better do that.

My guess, again, is that…. Well, not my guess — I know that we will continue to challenge our partners,

our contractors and the experts that do work with us. We will continue to challenge them to provide us with advice on how to improve the level of service that British Columbians can expect from the portal.

H. Lali: I guess it doesn't really fully answer my question, but I do stand corrected. What I meant to say was that the portal wasn't fully functioning. I think I said it wasn't started up at all, so I stand corrected on that.

Now, this March 2004 consultant report. I think it's Deloitte Consulting. This report details over five pages of foundational and related next steps. Has the ministry implemented any of these? Also, how much was the Deloitte Consulting contract worth?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies to the member for the delay. I'll answer the first part of the question as best I can. We're still trying to track down some additional information. There certainly was a series of recommendations in the Deloitte 2004 report. A number of those recommendations have been acted upon and implemented. Some have not. A couple of the more significant bits of advice contained within that report are things that we are still very much considering in the overall desire to ensure we've got the best product before British Columbians.

I know the member is going to have more questions about the details, and I'll go right to work while he is pondering what I've just said.

H. Lali: Well, in the interests of time, I'm going to roll three questions into one here. I'll say them slowly enough so that staff are able to write this down.

Was it this consultant's report that led to the chief information officer's December 2004 e-government plan? By then the CIO was R.C. McCandless.

This sets out a three-year strategy from 2004 to 2007. Is the Web portal project on track for 2007?

My third question here is: if no, then has the minister been given a firm end date for the completion of the Web portal, and is he going to insist on one?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to the first question is no, and the answer is that the Web portal continues to operate.

I believe the member was asking if I have set a deadline for its completion. I think the second question was: is it complete? The answer to that question — in my mind at least — is that while it is operating, I don't think it is operating at a level and providing the level of service that we sought when we initiated it in the first place. So I think the answer to the second question is no, it is not yet complete.

The third question: have I set an ultimate deadline for completion of the project? I think the answer to that is no, because I still see the need for a degree of improvement. While I would like to see that happen as quickly as possible, my sense is that this is going to be the type of project that continues to evolve with the technology. I'm not sure we're ever going to get to a point where we're able to exhale and say: "Hmm. There. Done." It is going to require an ongoing examination and review.

It won't be me doing the technical part of the review, I can assure the member. But I don't want people to approach this, knowing what I do know, from the perspective of, "There. We've got to a certain point, and that's all we have to do, and the rest will take care of itself for the next ten years," because I don't think that's the way this technology works.

H. Lali: Well, I certainly hope the minister doesn't ask me for technical advice on this, either, as we mentioned earlier.

From the minister's answer, and when I talked about the costs…. When it was first announced by the Premier, he said it was $2½ million. We went to $4½ million, to $6 million, to $18 million. From the minister's answer, it seems like we're going now from $2½ million to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million–plus. That's a lot of taxpayers' money on the Premier's pet project, which I think — and has been clearly stated by even some of the government's own reports — is just a trough of disillusionment. When is this going to end? That's the question that people in British Columbia are beginning to ask more and more.

One of the issues involved with this digital dumpster scandal was the payouts to the previous revolving-door chief information officers, CIOs. The first CIO, Lee Denny, received $150,000 per year under this government, and then his successor Scott Campbell got hired on a contract and was paid $275,000 a year. You hire somebody first at $150,000 a year; he creates a mess. You hire somebody for double that amount of money, and he creates more of a mess. And this $275,000 was for only nine months of work for this government.

My question to the minister is: what was this $275,000 for? Could the minister please give me some details?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question related specifically to Mr. Scott Campbell. I will tell the member that most of that information isn't available at our fingertips insofar as it was canvassed last year in the estimates. What I can tell the member is that he was certainly the chief information officer, that his remuneration and the terms of his engagement were governed by a contract, and that at the time of his departure his payments had been made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

I can't recall, and I will endeavour to find out for the member, whether the $275,000 figure — which he has mentioned and at first blush is correct, I think — represented the payments he had received pursuant to the work he had done under the contract or whether there was a payout as part of his leaving the position. We're trying to obtain that information for the member.

H. Lali: Well, thank you, hon. minister. I look at this amount of $275,000 for nine months' worth of non-work, and I shake my head. We just went through a process as MLAs, looking for a 5-percent wage increase, and we know and the minister knows how hard we work.

There are some people out there — yes, hon. minister, there are a few people — who would sympathize with us MLAs. They are wondering: "That's a lot of money — $275,000 for nine months of non-work on this Premier's pet project." On the Premier's pet project, nine months of work for $275,000.

Now, the author of the December 2004 e-government report was Mr. McCandless, who is a current chief information officer. I would like to know, hon. minister: when was he hired? And was there anyone between Mr. Nicholson and Mr. McCandless?

But I do want to say this insofar as Mr. Campbell is concerned. I don't know Mr. Campbell. And the member is quite correct: $275,000 is a lot of money. It's a lot of money by any measure, and the member is certainly able and capable to point out where he believes expenditures by government have been appropriate or inappropriate.

I think this project, this service, is eminently appropriate and important. I think I know the member well enough that his objectives are not served by casting doubt on the commitment that Mr. Campbell brought to his job. I don't know him, but my recollection from the reports I heard is that he applied himself with all of the diligence that the member does to his task and was paid the moneys according to the contract.

I am hesitant to not at least comment on the fact that I assume all of the people in this chamber and the people that work for government, within government, and contract with government do so in good faith and apply themselves diligently, and even passionately, to the assignments that they accept.

H. Lali: My motives are not to cast aspersions on any individual who works for government. That's not why I'm asking these questions. I am asking these questions on behalf of the people of British Columbia who have elected me as a member of the opposition to do my due diligence and to put forward their issues and problems and concerns so that I can raise them here in this House — just as I know the minister has been elected by his constituents to serve on their behalf and ask questions when it is necessary, and put forward issues.

My line of questioning is…. I'm trying to figure out if nine months' work for $275,000, which basically has not amounted to much, is value for the money. That's on the one side.

I know the minister said that he doesn't know Mr. Campbell personally. Perhaps there may be some information that he might be able to share if Mr. Campbell — not the Premier, but this Mr. Campbell — has any connections to the B.C. Liberal Party or to the Premier's office.

H. Lali: To a previous question, when I asked the minister if there was anybody between Mr. Nicholson and Mr. McCandless, the answer was no. My follow-up question to that is: does this make Mr. Nicholson the fourth CIO since 2003, or am I missing someone?

H. Lali: Well, I can see the hon. minister hasn't lost his penchant for humour.

H. Lali: I would like to state that this is not the first time the minister has lost his pension; this is the second time he's lost it. And so has this member sitting across the way. I think after this, when it's finished, we'll probably go to some pub and drown our sorrows by sharing a drink of Scotch together or something.

Thank you, hon. Minister of Environment, for that little interlude. I think we all needed it. Sometimes we may end up taking ourselves a little too seriously.

Now, getting back to the serious matter: how much severance was Mr. McCandless paid out? I also want to ask a second question. What pay rate is the current CIO being paid at, and is it the same level as that paid to Mr. McCandless?

Hon. M. de Jong: The present chief information officer receives on an annual basis a salary of approximately $125,000. We are checking on the amount for his predecessor, which was, we believe, slightly below that.

H. Lali: When we look at Lee Denny, $150,000…. We've got $125,000 per year for the present one, and the one before that was roughly around the same. Then you have this big anomaly; $275,000 on a contract basis for nine months of non-work paid to Scott Campbell by this government. That raises some pretty interesting questions. I know the minister doesn't have the information right now, so we'll have to follow up with this at another time.

I'd like to ask the minister: what other staff are dedicated to this portal project? How many are public service positions, and how many are contractors?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. We're trying to break out…. There are a number of people who, as the member might imagine, are involved in the sense of facilitating the posting of information and

checking of information. I'm trying to get a reliable number for the member that indicates how many people are dedicated on a full-time basis to the maintenance and operation of the site, and if there are other people that have sort of sporadic involvement. I'll try and get that number, if he can just bear with me for a moment.

The best information we have at this point is that there would be, in terms of the operation — full-time maintenance of the Web portal and governing its day-to-day operations — 18 staff. In addition to that, each ministry would have at least a contact person or someone who would be responsible for liaising with the main Web portal operations group to input information and to ensure that the information contained thereon was accurate and that sort of thing. However, those would not be individuals occupied on a full-time basis and attached directly to the group responsible for the Web portal.

H. Lali: Now, the Office of the Premier's service plan indicates that the Premier also has an information management plan, which refers to such initiatives as the federated enterprise architecture. Can the minister tell me: has the Premier taken back some responsibility for his Web portal project, and does his office have a piece of the costs?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is no. Happily, the program is the responsibility of this department, and on days when I have difficulty going to sleep, I can read material dedicated entirely to the operation of website portals.

H. Lali: And I thought I was the only sick person who was doing that — going to sleep to do that. I guess we don't have anything better to do.

Hon. minister, do any other ministries share a piece of the costs of the portal project? On this section, I've got one other final question, so I'm going to lump it into two. The first one is: do any other ministries share a piece of the cost of the portal project? The second one is: can the minister tell this House what the total cost is to taxpayers to date for the Premier's pet project, this portal project?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have been, I think, guilty of characterizing this in an inaccurate way. I keep referring to this as a project. Within the context of the usual meaning of that term, it was something that government initiated and remains very excited about, but it is an ongoing service. I do want to make that point — that it is a project centred around the idea that we would provide this on an ongoing basis as a service. So to that extent, there's not an end date that one can point to.

The answer to the member's question about whether there are costs of the service project elsewhere in government…. The answer is no. But following along the lines of what I think I related to the member in my earlier answer, there are certainly people within individual ministries who are assigned the task of ensuring that what is on the website portal as it relates to their ministry is accurate, that the on-line forms that are there are user-friendly. There are certainly people within individual line ministries charged with the task of ensuring that what is being conveyed from their ministry via the portal is accurate and that information coming in is being properly dealt with. I don't have a quantifiable number for that except to alert the member that there is certainly an addition to the 18 people I referred to, others in government departments who have involvement with the portal in the way that I've described.

Then I think the final question that the member asked related to the cost of the service project to this point. We have talked somewhat about the capital expenditures which are listed. That number is listed in the service plan accurately, I am told, at $7.9 million. Then through the year in terms of the operating costs, that figure — which I think I've related to the member — for this year is $5.41 million. Those costs will continue, moving forward. I don't know if we have a number for '06-07. If the member gives me a moment, I will endeavour to find out.

I don't have an '06-07 number, but the number that I do need to give is the cumulative total on the operating side since '01-02, and that number as recorded in the service plan is $21.29 million. That is on the operating side for the website portal.

H. Lali: I thank the minister. We'll move on to the freedom-of-information commissioner. To the minister: what is the current budget for the office of the freedom-of-information commissioner, and what was it in the last fiscal year?

Hon. M. de Jong: For fiscal year '04-05, the budget was $2.133 million — that being an 8.1-percent increase over '03-04. For the present fiscal year '05-06, I am advised that the budget for the office is $2.211 million or 3.6 percent above and beyond the previous year's budget.

H. Lali: What is the average length of time it took last year between an FOI being filed and received, and how does this compare to previous years? A second question would be: does the minister have statistics on fee levies? How often are fees levied on an FOI request? I'd like to know if this number has increased or decreased. So there are two questions here.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, we're just digging through some numbers. While we're doing that, the question the member may have heard me ask senior staff is whether the aggregate figure for moneys collected as a result of FOI requests has gone up. The advice I've received is that if it has, it has been by a very,

very minuscule amount. I think the more telling figure, though, from the point of view of the member might be whether or not the number of transactions that have attracted the levying of fees has increased, and I'll endeavour to obtain that information for him as well. Let me start there, and we can move through this.

H. Lali: I had a question about the length of time it took last year between an FOI being filed and then being received. I wanted to ask how that compared to previous years. While staff are working on that, I'll ask another question. What about appeals? How many appeals were there last year, and is this an increase or decrease over the previous year?

Hon. M. de Jong: We actually do try to track this as closely as we can because it has been a source of some frustration. I wonder if the member might permit me a moment to offer this editorial comment around the numbers, which on balance reflect fairly positively on bringing down the times.

It's the first time I've been in estimates as the minister for the department responsible for this. I want to share with the member and the House a bit of a frustration that I felt in earlier days when this legislation was introduced. My view always was that it was designed to facilitate the flow of information between the state and individuals, to afford a relevant and important measure of protection for the privacy interests of individuals and agencies, but it was not designed to be utilized as a shield by which legitimate requests for information could be delayed or somehow frustrated.

I think part of the evolution that is taking place — I believe it is, and I'm hopeful that it is — is that where requests for information are made or requests come in, increasingly, the answer, which we saw for a number of years, is: well, you can FOI it. That has somehow become a verb in its own right — you should FOI it.

In fact, I believe there is an obligation on all of us to have a familiarity with what the act does protect, what the obligations are and, where possible, to facilitate the dissemination of that information so people don't have to wait any longer than necessary.

What I can tell the member from the information and the advice I have is that the statistical data show response times for requests that involve sensitive material, which is different than the run-of-the-mill type of requests, have been decreasing over the last five years and presently stand at an average of 41 days, which is still, unfortunately, slightly longer than the mandated 30 days. Now, that is an average. Obviously, there will be situations in which the mandated 30-day period is being met and other situations where it is actually longer than 41 days, but the trend is in the right direction, and happily, that remains an objective: to see that average wait time reduced as much as possible.

H. Lali: The current commissioner has stated, as recently as May of this year, that it is important that the freedom-of-information office be well resourced. The office, of course, has suffered substantial cuts over a three-year period in the last term under this government. To be more specific, in 2001 the B.C. Liberals promised the most open and accountable government in Canada. Then, among other cuts to the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and other government watchdogs, this B.C. Liberal government cut the freedom-of-information and privacy officer's budget…

The Chair: Member, can you take a seat for a moment? Those are other votes in previous years. Could you keep your comments relevant to this vote.

H. Lali: …by 35 percent over three years. At the same time, in 2002 this government passed two sets of amendments to weaken the FOI law, giving public bodies more time to respond to requests and also increasing fees.

I'd like to ask the minister now charged with the responsibility for freedom of information if he is working to reverse these reductions to both the budget of the office of the commissioner and to the public's ability to obtain information.

Hon. M. de Jong: The point I feel compelled to make first off, just for the sake of procedural accuracy, is that we are somewhat bound by the rules of this place and the fact that the appropriation for the FOI commissioner is actually voted elsewhere, under Vote 5. I did actually take the liberty of reading into the record some of those budgeted amounts, but they are dealt with in a very separate vote and are arrived at by a very separate process.

The other caution I have…. I know the member needs to pursue matters as they relate to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but I know that he is also aware that we are in a…. I wouldn't characterize it as a sensitive time, but the committee from the chamber is sitting right now to select a freedom-of-information commissioner, so I'm going to tread very carefully here, since our colleagues in this chamber are in the midst of working through that process as well.

I have an article here in the Vancouver Province from the tenth of November, 2005, by Michael Smyth. We're not allowed to name names, so I'll use a substitute. "When the Premier and the Liberals were in opposition, they routinely lambasted the NDP government of the day for its secretive ways. Things would be different when they were in power, the Liberals promised. In fact, they vowed to run the most open and accountable government in Canada." He continues: "But now the Liberals are examining ways to keep their dealings more secret — not more open — by floating a series of new exemptions, obstacles and loopholes in British Columbia's freedom-of-information laws."

Now, in the last year, the all-party committee of the Legislature reviewed B.C.'s freedom-of-information law and made numerous….

The Chair: Member, the Chair requests that you get back to the vote that's under consideration here, and that's Ministry of Labour, Vote 35. The issues that you raise are properly dealt with when we get to Vote 5, Information and Privacy Commissioner.

H. Lali: Just a point of clarification, hon. Chair. Freedom of information and the privacy commissioner are under the Citizens' Services Ministry. We have been debating the Citizens' Ministry estimates and have been doing that, so this is quite legitimate — to be raising these questions here.

Hon. M. de Jong: I know both the member and I welcome guidance from the Chair about the structure of the estimates process. Ironically, it's something that the Opposition House Leader and I have been talking about and began to talk about in September. So I will try, as I know the member will, to respect the fact that the appropriation is actually via another vote.

The principle, though, that I think the member is alluding to is one that perhaps we can have some discussion here as it relates to the government's view of the role of the commission and, actually, the act, which the member fairly points out, is the responsibility of this minister for administering as far as government goes.

He has referred to some commentary that appeared in publications a couple of weeks ago, and I'll tell the member that it's one of those things that is an eternal sense of frustration, because it's about as complicated as this. If you go out and ask people what their ideas are, you get chastised because suddenly the ideas that result from that become government's secret plan. If you don't go out and ask people their ideas, one is damned because one hasn't taken the time to go and consult with people.

I have some sympathy for the folks within the department who decided that, correctly in my view…. There had been a series of recommendations from the commissioner, a series of recommendations from an all-party committee. There are a number of stakeholder groups who are particularly interested in how our information protection and access to information legislation operates, all of whom want to present their ideas. So the ministry took steps to say, "Well, here's a compilation of those ideas. What do you think? Which ones appeal to you? Which ones don't?" — in no way indicating that government was favourably disposed to all or any of them.

So I think the work that needs to be done as a result of that and the legitimate interests that the member has as well — what is the government's view with respect to those recommendations, and are you favourably disposed to some or not…? But I was a bit disturbed or troubled by the criticism that seemed to be levied merely for going out to say to people: "Here are some ideas. What do you think?" I actually think that's a pretty useful exercise.

The author of the article that the member referred to portrayed it in a very different way, but I actually see nothing wrong in saying to people who are particularly interested in a subject: "Here are some ideas that we have heard, and we are interested in your response and your reaction to those ideas."

H. Lali: Last year an all-party committee of the Legislature reviewed British Columbia's freedom-of-information law and made numerous positive recommendations. The all-party committee, made up almost entirely of B.C. Liberals, recommended that the government enhance transparency for the public. One specific recommendation called on the government to change its "sensitivity ratings" policy, whereby so-called troublesome requesters were identified by name to ministers and top bureaucrats by B.C. Liberal communications aides.

The minister may remember that this practice led to a front-page Vancouver Sun article. I can read from that article to refresh the minister's memory:

Now, this article concludes: "B.C. is the only known jurisdiction in Canada where the names of the individual requesters are provided to communications aides of the government for political purposes as a matter of routine." When I was on that side of the House in government and the Liberals were on this side of the House, they made much ado about the fact that even at that time, when we brought in freedom of information, when Mike Harcourt was the Premier…. Arguably, it was the most open and transparent in terms of access for people to the information, which in the end — the public of British Columbia — was their information. They had access to, arguably, the best legislation in the country.

At that time we heard every one of those Liberals when they were on the opposite benches criticizing the government that it didn't go far enough — each and every one of them, and a few times the hon. minister did the same thing. They said it didn't go far enough. There should be more openness, and people should have more access to that.

Here we have in the year 2005, and in the last four years when that government was in power…. They made that tighter. They made the access to information tighter, and now we find, according to this article that I

just quoted, direct interference — direct political interference — by this government with the direction that it sent to the FOIP freedom commissioner that there were to be red flags put up because of the sensitive nature of the requests that were coming in from the media and from the political opposition parties.

This was the kind of information that people should have a right to access, and yet there were red flags being placed, and there was direct interference by this government — political interference, in terms of the requests that were going on. This was the initiative of the B.C. Liberal government, albeit under a different minister. So I'd like to ask the current minister if he supports this continued policy of interference.

Hon. M. de Jong: I probably shouldn't do this on an empty stomach, but I will.

Look, I appreciate the fact that the member will want to take an article that appeared in the newspaper and try to make some political hay out of it, but I do also want to ensure that he and the members of the House know this.

I and the government, every member of the government, take very seriously the rights that citizens enjoy to access information afforded them by the legislation that is here. I do reject categorically, albeit with the maximum amount of civility I can muster, any suggestion that that would be otherwise and that political considerations would somehow influence the manner in which requests for information are dealt with.

The central rating system that the member has referred to, and pointed out was the subject of the article, has been in place since 1993, and the existing version of that central rating system was set up in June 2000. The process by which these requests are dealt with is something this government has inherited from a previous government. I know, and want to assure the member, that as these requests arrive, they are dealt with professionally, pursuant to the rules that are laid out in the legislation.

The objective continues to be — and, happily, there has been some success — to reduce the wait times for the requests as they come in. Sometimes the requests are very difficult. Sometimes they are very general, and it requires moving through and collating tremendous volumes of material, ensuring that an exhaustive search has taken place by which we can say with certainty to the applicant that this is all that government has in its possession.

There is, I repeat, absolutely no intention, mechanism or desire to politically interfere or influence the professionals who are responsible for responding to the requests for information.

With that, noting the hour, Madam Chair, I would move that the committee do recess.

H. Lali: An interesting e-mail was circulated throughout the government the day after the May election. The e-mail stated:

That was a directive that went out from government to all of those folks that this e-mail went to.

Can the minister confirm that government workers are being warned to avoid e-mail and even to avoid preparing briefing notes in order to evade FOI? And a follow-up question: does the minister charged with the administration of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act support this policy of evading the act?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always somewhat cautious about making comments referencing particular documents that I haven't seen and don't perhaps have any knowledge of. If the member wants to provide a copy of the document, I may be better placed to comment on it.

H. Lali: I would like to remind the minister that when he was on this side of the House, the kind of questions that used to come from this minister when he was a member were far more direct and far more stinging than I'm asking. I'm just asking questions that I know the public wants to have answers to. I'm just asking those questions of the minister to see if, now that he is in government, he supports the kind of e-mails that are flying around back and forth to make sure that the Freedom of Information Act is going to be evaded. That was the gist of this e-mail that went around.

Having said that, I just want to move under the FOI to a little change of topic for just a little bit. In its report — I talked about the all-party committee report that came out earlier — the all-party committee had recommended that the government adopt schemas approved by the commissioner for the routine disclosure of electronic records and to have them operational within a reasonable amount of time.

My question is to the minister. What progress has this minister made in implementing changes that make the release of information routine and, also, more

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. I think he's canvassing an important point here, and I hope he recalls my editorializing comments of earlier in the debate where I talked about how in my view, freedom-of-information and privacy protection legislation should not be used as a shield and an impediment to people receiving information that otherwise should be made available.

An example of what I think the member is referring to, or an example that I would want to make to him, is…. He will know that within an entity of government, or an offshoot of government — Partnerships B.C. — they have embarked upon some significant projects. There has been a concerted effort made to identify in advance the mechanisms by which the flow of information can be facilitated.

So in the case of contracts, for example, they are now — contrary to when the member may recall having been in government and occupying various ministerial posts — posted as a matter of course. It's true that some of the information deemed to be proprietary or commercially sensitive is deleted, but the document in its entirety, save and except for those deletions, is now on the website, so people don't have to go through the process of actually making the FOI request.

Now, I don't think we'll ever get to a point, necessarily, where every single document that one could imagine someone having an interest in is going to be pre-emptively out there for them to access on some website. That's probably an unrealistic goal for us to set. But it is not, in my view…. To begin from the basis that disclosure and transparency should be the norm and that the onus as described in the freedom-of-information legislation falls to those who would argue that the information falls within one of the exemptions and shouldn't be disclosed…. That's what I hope we can work towards. I don't think we're there yet, but I think there are ample examples of where we have made some significant progress in that direction.

H. Lali: Although the minister has before him the all-party committee report on how to reform the FOI Act and the process, we understand that he or his predecessor has hired a consultant to collect other submissions on reforming the act. Can the minister confirm that such a consultant has been hired? What is the name of the consultant, when was he or she hired, and what are the terms of the contract?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member that an individual, George Macauley, has been hired on a contract basis. I am advised that that contract dates from October, last month, and will run through to March. The value on the contract is approximately $25,000. Specifically, the individual, Mr. Macauley, is charged with the task of leading the consultation effort around the various recommendations that have been received from a number of sources: the select standing committee, hon. Chair, which you are eminently familiar with as Chair of that body; some of the civil liberties organizations; civil rights organizations; and other interested parties. His duties, I am advised, are primarily to coordinate that effort so that government has a clear sense of which of the recommendations enjoy support from various quarters and which of the recommendations that we have seen are cause for concern on the part of various stakeholder groups.

H. Lali: I'd like the minister to answer: what is the process for collecting submissions? Was there a public call for submissions?

The second question is: can the minister confirm that in exact contradiction to the all-party committee's recommendations, this consultant is entertaining submissions that actually recommend extending response times rather than shortening them? Also, can the minister confirm that one suggestion on the table is an automatic fee of $5 just to make a request?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll come back, if the member will permit me, to the specifics of the recommendations. I'll just get that information from staff.

There is a range of ideas that have been elicited and obtained, and I don't know if this is helpful to the member, but none of them are on the table and none of them are off the table. They are ideas that people have presented. Some of them undoubtedly make sense and some of them undoubtedly don't, from the government's point of view. We have to work through them, and that's part of the task that Mr. Macauley will help us with.

I hope we are not — and in fairness, I don't think this is what the member would suggest — going to get to a point where we are reluctant to ask people for their ideas because the moment we receive them they are deemed to be part of some government agenda. I like, actually, for people to send us in their ideas, particularly when they have an interest in a subject, and then have an opportunity to look through them. I'll check the collection of ideas — and there are several hundreds of them — that form the basis of this consultation effort and cross-reference to determine whether the two that the member has mentioned are part of that. But I hope he will appreciate that there's no magic to this.

The select standing committee made some recommendations, and we're taking them seriously. In a few cases, we've actually acted on them. There were concerns around, for example, the notion of being able to pay for certain products or government services with a credit card. There were FOI concerns because of the flow that information could take into the U.S. and then be subject to the Patriot Act provisions.

We took some steps this fall, actually, and the member voted, I think, in support of those measures. I'm not certain of that, but I think he did. So we're trying to move through this. But the mere fact that some-

one has made a suggestion or recommendation to government in no way guarantees (a) that government accepts it or (b) that government intends to move forward.

But he has provided me with two specific examples, and if he will permit me a moment, I'll ascertain whether, amongst the several hundreds of suggestions that we've received, those two are amongst them.

Of the two items that the member has specifically referred to, we have specific recollection of a suggestion that an application fee be added to the process. We are one of the few, if not the only, jurisdiction for which an application fee doesn't apply. It is certainly true that in some instances where there are extraordinary costs associated with the collation of information and photocopying of documentation that some of those costs are passed along to applicants in certain circumstances. But the notion of incorporating an application fee in every instance is one that apparently someone has suggested.

My guess, without having more details, is that it was viewed as a way to generate revenue for further use in terms of the overall FOI process. I don't know that for sure because I can't recall the specific recommendation, but again, it's an idea that someone's had that is by no means government policy and may never be government policy. I don't have and we don't have, on the basis of the information available to us here, a specific recollection of the second recommendation or second suggestion that the member referred to around extending times for responses.

H. Lali: Can the minister confirm that the consultant is also considering a submission that records related to public-private partnerships be considered beyond the reach of the act? I'd like the minister to tell me if that's true or not.

H. Lali: Will the consultant's report be made public, or is it only made available through FOI?

Hon. M. de Jong: So the point I was checking with staff…. I wanted to be certain of this. It's not anticipated that Mr. Macauley is going to prepare a report per se. He is very much occupying a role as a facilitator to help coordinate this process of ensuring that all interested parties have access and a chance to review all of the various suggestions and recommendations that have come from various quarters and really quarterback the coordination of that effort.

At some point, hopefully in the next few months, the minister responsible — at the moment, that's me — will get an indication from senior staff of how that process has unfolded, and I imagine that the hundreds of suggestions we've received will be categorized in various ways. I suspect, based on my experience in a couple of portfolios now, that staff will have some ideas about which ones rate further attention from government.

So that's how I see the process unfolding. I'm not anticipating a formal report from Mr. Macauley.

H. Lali: Over the last couple of hours we've covered a number of topics. From our research, and from what people in the public are telling me, all we get from freedom of information when requests are made are delays and changes to the act to make sure it's made even tighter in terms of access that people could have to information in the public domain. The changes have come as a result, also, of the massive cuts that were made over a three-year period in the last four years to the budget for the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

We not only have delays, but we've also got proof that there are further delays that are going to take place in terms of putting information in the hands of the people, in the hands of the media and in the hands of the opposition in order to get access to that information. That's a far cry from all of the speeches that members on that side of the House made when they were on this side of the House before 2001.

I want to give you an example. My researcher made an FOI request to the Minister of Children and Families, and we were able to get 20 pages on such topics as children in care and children in care deaths, 2005. What these are, are the briefing documents, briefing books, of the ministers before they come to question period. When I was a minister I had staff that used to prepare those books for me. Ministers over there have those books and those briefing materials prepared by staff. So from Children and Families, we got 20 pages.

We made a similar request for the Premier's question period document. Here's a topic: the economy, jobs and people. There's nothing on there. The economy, confidence in investment — there's nothing on here. Also the economy, economic growth; the economy, forestry, mining, oil and gas…. There's a whole slew of topics and titles that we've asked for: health and education and every other. What we got from the Premier's office were 30 pages with nothing on there.

My question is to the minister responsible for freedom of information. What is it that this government is trying to hide? What is it that the Premier is trying to hide that he can't share with the people of this province? Where other ministers are able to share those briefing documents for question period, the Premier is now deliberately trying to hide. I'd like the minister responsible for freedom of information to tell me what it is that this government and this Premier are trying to hide.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member should exercise some uncharacteristic restraint at times, when he makes assertions and is suggesting that he has proof and he has this and he has that. I didn't make a big deal about it, but the member stood up, and he asked a question about an e-mail that he referenced. I said:

"Okay, let's have a look at the e-mail." We moved on to another question. It's hardly fair to make those sorts of allegations in this chamber and not be prepared to lay the material on the table.

For example, if the member is concerned that changes have been made to the freedom-of-information-and-privacy-protection legislation and believes that those changes have constrained the flow of information, then part of our purpose here is to explore that. I am genuinely interested in his opinion on how a legislative amendment may have constrained the flow of information. But to simply make the assertion and not reference something specific….

I am the first to admit that we in this chamber are wrestling with trying to maintain an appropriate balance between the accessibility of information and protecting individual privacy rights, and there is a constant tension there. We can add to that tension the challenges posed by a neighbour to the south that has adopted certain legislative provisions which are very troubling to many of us in terms of the implications they have for access to private information, and we want to ensure that we can guarantee the security of that information. That is presenting some genuine challenges statutorily.

I hope the member understands, and I think he does, that I actually take seriously the exchange that we have during these debates. If he is concerned about some of these features, rather than simply making the general political statement, I am interested in the details. But I have heard none. He has referenced changes in the act. Well, tell me about those changes, because I say with all candour that I don't know what he's referring to.

Partly, I suppose, I'm still reeling from the blow to my ego associated with the fact that apparently he didn't FOI my briefing book, but I'll get over that. I'll get over that, Mr. Chair. But this is, for him and me, our first opportunity to explore some of these issues, and for reasons relating to the parliamentary calendar, we're going to have a chance to do this again in fairly short order. So perhaps we'll have an opportunity to explore some of those issues. I have a better sense now of what some of the concerns of the member are, and we can perhaps devote some additional time to exploring those further when we get that opportunity in the not too distant future.

H. Lali: Well, thank you to the minister. Be careful what you ask for; it may come true. We may just put in an FOI to the minister's ministry.

Look, I'm not making any of this up. We put in a request. It's dated. We got a letter back here on August 19, 2005. We got all of the documents attached for QP for the Minister of Children and Families. We put in a request for the Premier, and we got a letter back on November 8, 2005, and got 30 pages of nothing. I'm not making anything up. It's right here. All of the other stuff — I'm not making any of it up.

These are government e-mails that have been flying around, back and forth. In those government e-mails it is pretty clear in black and white that the directive from government to the people that are working for government is to not be sending e-mails or letters or anything like that, but to be actually picking up the phone and talking to each other in order to evade and circumvent having to use or be answerable to the FOI Act.

It's there. It's not something that is being made up. It's there. It's those e-mails that have been leaked to the opposition or to the media by folks working in the government that are showing that there is this intent and this push by government to try to shut people up so that they can evade FOI and to start using the phone. These aren't imagined; these are real.

Having said that, I've got a couple of quick questions. I want to focus in on the alternative service delivery mechanism and B.C. Bid. I want to ask the minister, in terms of B.C. Bid…. There had been an attempt to privatize the Coquihalla Highway. B.C. Rail has been privatized. MSP premiums — the administration of that has been privatized to Maximus.

You know, this is all in contrast to the promises that had been made by the Premier and this Liberal government prior to the 1996 election, as well as the 2001 election, that such a thing would not happen. After that series of broken promises, we have seen now that…. B.C. Rail, when it was privatized…. We know the failure it is in terms of the hardship it is causing to the people living along the rail lines.

We know that as far as our medical information is concerned, in terms of the privatization that has taken place to Maximus on this issue…. We know that it is subject to the USA Patriot Act — our medical information and the information on every one of us here sitting in the House and the people that we represent in British Columbia. That information is there for perusal under the USA Patriot Act. And we know that's another one that's been a miserable failure with all those levies of fines that have been put on Maximus in terms of that.

I would like to ask the minister: what role did B.C. Bid play in terms of the privatization of B.C. Rail and of Maximus?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member covered a lot of territory, and I will cover some of it in reply, but perhaps not all of it. First of all, it should be understood that B.C. Bid is a process-related service — a website, as it were — by which procurement takes place. Far from painting it as some sort of nefarious governmental agency, it's actually there to ensure that the widest possible source of potential suppliers, service providers, have access to discover what it is that government is seeking and have an opportunity to indicate their interest and provide bids on those projects.

Firstly, I'm not sure where the member is getting his information from as it relates to B.C. Rail, but B.C. Bid, to my knowledge, was not involved in that transaction in any way, shape or form. But it was certainly the agency by which procurement around the Maximus contract was ultimately generated. So I think the

answer is no and yes, although I can't really recall with certainty what the question was.

It is one thing for the member in the exercise of his duties to quite properly articulate his concerns and suspicions about various things and to probe government. I don't question that at all. That's the job he has and the role he plays. But I do want him to know that insofar as the Maximus contract is concerned, there was great attention paid to the question of security and privacy. There were specific provisions included in the contract to ensure that the scenario the member describes doesn't occur. He can say that he doesn't believe that or that he is suspicious — I'm not quarrelling with the member's right to poke and prod these assertions and test their veracity — but that was certainly the objective. It remains the objective. It was at the heart of the work that went on.

I have candidly admitted to the member and the House that when we have an economic colossus at our border with whom we engage in so much commerce, we must be alive to the fact that they have passed a series of laws that could have significant impact on us and our ability to do business. The fact that we are economically much smaller means that we don't get to drive some of their legislative decisions the way we would like to. I would like to be able to influence the outcome of some of their legislative debates on a whole range of things. What we have to do is be vigilant to ensure that our primary concerns for the security of information relating to the privacy of individuals here in B.C. are being respected.

In the weeks and months ahead the member and I are going to have a chance to speak about a variety of issues that have come up that we need to address. I don't do so in any sort of partisan way. I'm actually interested in what the member thinks. I'm interested in what the member thinks about information that appears on a website in British Columbia, for example, that is public in British Columbia but, by virtue of how our legislation is worded, may present a difficulty because it's accessible from outside the province or outside the country. Those are some fairly technical aspects of privacy protection and how we deal with that — and that's one of the easy ones.

There's a whole range of questions that flow from this, I'm not hesitant about acknowledging to the member, that can at times present some vexing challenges for government. But I do ask that in performing his duties, he do so in a way that respects the right…. People actually occasionally pay attention to these debates, and I would not want them to leave becoming fearful that something is happening which, at the moment at least, we see no evidence is actually happening.

H. Lali: I think the minister may be overstating the fact that there are a lot of people who are paying attention to these debates. There must not be something better on television.

The minister and I will agree to disagree. We come to this House from different political perspectives. That's our right as elected officials in a democratic institution.

I want to thank the minister, actually, because we went about 40 minutes beyond the allotted time for the estimates. I want to thank him for that. There's a lot more, but we'll have to leave that for another day, and we will be back in the springtime for the session. And I want to thank the staff who are accompanying the minister for providing the information.

With that, I'm going to sit down. I see the hon. member from Vancouver is sitting here, the Minister of Finance, to continue her estimates. I'll leave the closing remarks to the minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks — and these will be brief — to the member for posing his questions, and of course to staff for their crucial and timely assistance today and through the course of the year.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a number of votes here relating…. I'll advise the committee what they are. I think there is an understanding that we would, perhaps, pass these now. I see the Finance critic is there.

These would be votes for the Auditor General, the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, Elections B.C., the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the Police Complaint Commissioner, and also for the Legislature. I think there is agreement that they would all pass — that I would put them to the committee now. If there is concern about that, then I'm happy to speak with the Opposition House Leader.

Hon. M. de Jong: For the information of members, my understanding of what will occur is that the Finance Minister will have some additional estimates debate — and then tomorrow morning the Ministry of Children and Families.

J. Kwan: Just for the minister's information, the order in which we'll canvass the questions falls something like this. I've now had a chance to review the Hansard around the public affairs bureau. I do have some follow-up questions with respect to that and then also some questions in the area of procurement practices, as mentioned before. I would then like to go into taxation policies. I will have some questions myself; my colleague will have some questions. Then, also, an area that I'm not quite sure where to put under that category, but my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge has some questions for the minister around government policies on seniors supplements. Those are sort of more localized questions, although he does have a few questions.

I do see the minister's staff and particularly the folks from the public affairs bureau, so I think I'll start with that. Originally, I was going to get my colleagues to ask the other questions first, but I don't want to switch the order of things.

Just following up on the questions around the public affairs bureau, could the minister please tell this House…? It ties into the procurement policy as well. How often are screening processes used in the public affairs bureau?

Hon. C. Taylor: First of all, if I could introduce the staff who are with me this evening. Linda Morris, to my left, is Deputy Minister of Public Affairs. Denise Champion, right behind Ms. Morris, is the director of operation and human resources for public affairs. To my right is Tamara Vrooman, of course, Deputy Minister of Finance. You have been listening, and you know Cheryl, of course — Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, who is right behind me.

J. Kwan: Let me then just give some background to the minister so that she knows what I'm referencing.

When the public affairs bureau was out of the Premier's office, there was a contract that was awarded to Pace. It was an open-ended contract that paid out $343,425 in fees-for-service to, according to the paper here, "a Liberal-connected communications firm without competition, which is a violation of government purchasing guidelines." The firm is called Pace Group Communications Inc., and the process through the article states that…. A confidential e-mail that was leaked shows that the firm was actually selected through a screening process instead of a request for proposal.

This is what I'm referring to in terms of how often the government does violate its own guidelines with respect to the public affairs bureau. Instead of using a request for proposal process for contracts over $25,000, they've gone through what's called a screening process.

Hon. C. Taylor: We do not violate our rules of procurement policy within government. In fact, they were part of the RFQ pre-qualified supplier list that we have. That first list was done November 2001 — this is generally for the RFQs — updated January 2003. In fact, the RFQ list expired May 2005, and we will soon be going back out into the market.

J. Kwan: Can the minister, then, be very specific? How was Pace Communications Group Inc. selected?

Hon. C. Taylor: All of the contracts that have been awarded to Pace Group by the public affairs bureau were awarded in accordance with government policy. If you're asking how the RFQ runs, it is looking for qualified suppliers who can supply to government these advertising contracts and other contracts that are of use to the public affairs bureau.

J. Kwan: Okay. The government's policy, though, for contracts of $25,000 or more is that a formal tendering process must be used. That wasn't used in this instance. I note that the minister actually used the word RFQ, request for qualification, which I suppose is what Andy Orr calls a screening process. Isn't that in violation of government's policy of a request for proposal when you have a contract over $25,000?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, our RFQ process is a competitive process that goes out into the community and really looks for those suppliers who meet all of the qualifications that we feel are necessary and important for government, so they do come from a process that was competitive.

J. Kwan: Well, a confidential memo dated March 1, 2002, was sent from the bureau of advertising's events manager, Moira McDermott, to communications directors and senior communications counsellors.

Even if a company went through the screening process, for contracts of more than $25,000 a formal tendering process must be used, with three written quotes for contracts over $100,000, and a formal RFP process must be used. This was not followed. This procedure was not followed in the situation with Pace.

Is the minister, then, advising that Andy Orr is incorrect in this instance in terms of how Pace was actually selected?

Hon. C. Taylor: Public affairs has been following the general procurement policy of government. I will just repeat that the RFQ process is a competitive process that allows anyone to put forward their qualifications. A judgment was made as to those firms that would be available to supply government. So it is completely competitive from that point of view.

J. Kwan: Let me then just get to the minister about this. Maybe she can tell this House: what exactly is the process for contracts over $100,000? What is required? Is it a formal tendering process? Is that what's required? Is that the practice and the guideline that apply with government right now?

Hon. C. Taylor: The Pace Group — who did, of course, do a lot of work for the previous government as well, so it's a reputable firm that everybody acknowledges has expertise in the field — has done a number of contracts. I believe the hon. member has probably totalled contracts rather than identifying a specific individual contract.

J. Kwan: According to the information I have, which is actually a list of information…. The list was released, I believe, from the minister around various contracts and so on, around what I call the overspending of the advertising budget arising from the public affairs bureau and what the minister calls "charging back" to other ministries when the budget is overspent, so that she can charge it to other ministries and say that the ministry actually did not overspend its advertising budget. We canvassed that at length.

However, the Pace contract is such that it's open-ended. One could say that there's one contract for $25,000, then there's another contract for $28,000, then there's another one for $266,000, and then there's another one for $48,000 and so on. Of course, when you add it all up, the sum is actually bigger and bigger, and it gets bigger and bigger. But the reality is, though, because it's an open-ended contract…. Part of the trickery, I suppose, of what government can engage in is to say that they have actually abided by their guidelines with the exception, though, that it's a series of contracts on the same series of work. That would be the advertising campaign that took place just prior to the election.

The reality is this, and Andy Orr is on record to say that how Pace was selected was through a screening process. The confidential memo states, though, that $25,000 formal tendering processes must be used, and for contracts over $100,000 a formal RFP process must be used. It's clear that the selection of Pace for this campaign — this communications firm — has violated the government's guidelines around that.

I'm interested, from the minister, in how it is that that could happen. The minister still persists, though, that there was no violation. Maybe the minister can explain to me…. Or is the minister saying that at no point did Pace receive a contract over $100,000 — that Pace was awarded this contract and that where they did receive a contract over $100,000, a formal RFP process was engaged?

Hon. C. Taylor: These estimates are supposed to be about this year's budget, and the hon. member continues to refer to last year's public accounts. I will just say one last time, as we answered the other day as well, on this issue, using the public accounts for 2004-2005, that public affairs bureau totalled payments of $79,938.21 to Pace for project management services rendered in support of Achieve B.C., forestry revitalization, community information tours. Pace was selected from the list of pre-qualified suppliers to provide project management services to these community information tours due to their specific project management experience and expertise.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The minister has raised it several times before in suggesting that in this estimates process, I'm not allowed to talk about the dollars that were spent in the previous budget. According to the rules of the House, this is the only time, in fact, that you're able to canvass these kinds of questions in terms of where the spending was. We're able to actually ask these questions, which I'm doing.

The minister didn't answer my question directly around the Pace Group. Then let me put it to the minister this way. I would be very interested in getting from the minister a list of all the contracts that the government engaged with various groups through what Andy Orr referred to as the screening process instead of the formal request-for-proposal process. I'd be very interested in getting the amounts and what work was assigned to what company for the process in which only a screening process was engaged.

Hon. C. Taylor: Our RFQ process is a public process. I'm happy to give all of the material that lays out how companies can apply under the RFQ process and what our rules of procurement are in government. In fact, we're quite proud of our procurement policy. We've done a major review starting in 2002, and we've received awards, in fact, for our procurement process. As I did last year at public accounts and I will this year at public accounts when the Auditor General has signed off on everything, I will once again give the list of all of the contracts and all of the firms and all of the ads that public affairs bureau commissioned.

J. Kwan: That's not the question I asked of the minister. I know what the rule says. The question that I'm asking is for the minister to provide information to this House and to the public about the companies — the

groups — which the government contracted for the public affairs bureau where the government did not engage in a request-for-proposal process. That information is not provided in the public accounts report, and that is the essence of it. If the minister wants to say — and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong — that all of the contracts by government have followed the proper process, well, then I say: table the documents for the members of this House and for the public to see.

For the minister to do that, all that she would have to do is go back and look at all the contracts — or have her staff look at all the contracts. Go through the list and see which firm was selected through what's called the screening process — what the minister is calling, I am assuming, an RFQ process — instead of the request-for-proposal process. That is the guideline of the government — that contracts over $100,000 are supposed to go through a formal request-for-proposal process and that contracts more than $25,000 are supposed to go through a formal tendering process that would require at least three written quotes.

That's all I'm asking — for the minister to actually back up her statement with documentation to this House.

Hon. C. Taylor: I will just say once again: public affairs released with public accounts — and we're still talking about last year instead of this year's estimates, but this is the documentation…. These are the contracts. These were the projects. These are the companies that received it. This is the method of the award. This is the total, and all of the information that she's asking is there with public affairs.

J. Kwan: Does the document say how they were selected? Does it actually say that they went through a request for proposal or an RFQ process or a public tendering process?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it does: RFP, RFP, RFP, RFQ, RFP, RFP, RFP…. It goes on for several pages. It's all listed here.

J. Kwan: Great. Could the minister tell us which contract…? How many contracts that were over $100,000 went through an RFQ process?

Hon. C. Taylor: We'll keep on last year for one last time. Pace Communications Group…. I mentioned before that the public affairs bureau's contracts with Pace totalled $79,938.21. Their total of payment for contract services with all the ministries and all the bureaus last year was $128,833. Therefore, simple math says that no one contract would have been over $100,000 last year.

J. Kwan: Now I know. I know what's going on. Let me just put this on record, then, to be clear in terms of what the government is doing. The minister, of course, is trying to put it forward in different ways, and I understand why she's doing that. But let's be clear. Here's what the government has done. The Premier's office awarded an open-ended contract that paid out $343,425 in fees for services to a Liberal-connected communications firm without competition, which is a violation of the government purchasing guidelines. The vice-president of the same firm, who has close ties to the government's minister, also personally received a separate directly awarded contract from the Premier's office that paid out $47,300 in fees for services.

The government is defending these contracts, in that no rules were actually broken. This is what the Minister of Finance is now doing. But according to the documentation that was obtained under the freedom-of-information legislation, Pace Communications Group Inc. was awarded a contract on February 13, 2003, to "provide project management services for community information tours." These projects include tours promoting forest revitalization and government's Achieve B.C. educational program. The article goes on further to say that Pace has extensive connections to the government and uses the name of the Premier, but I won't do that since it's in violation of the House.

The company's president, ex-Socred aide Norman Stowe, has close ties with a senior cabinet minister, naming the now Minister of Children and Family Development, as has Pace vice-president Kathi Springer. Mr. Stowe also worked on the Minister of Children and Family Development's campaign during the recent election, as well as being one of the star candidate, Virginia Greene — who actually lost the election…. The article goes on to say that Mr. Stowe was a member of the Premier's constituency-level campaign committee in 2001. Then the article goes on to say:

The Premier's staff, on record, has admitted that that's the case. The person who got the contract has admitted that, and that's the case — that the government did not go through a formal RFP process.

I know where this lies, and I know where the issue is. Yes, there's an element by which, when you add up these separate contracts and because this is an open-ended contract, doing one project, if you will, the government can always get away by saying they actually didn't violate its procurement practices. They separated them out into a whole bunch of other little contracts.

Because the campaign actually took place, and the hiring and the work that was done stretches far back — and I'll say as far back as July 2003 — when you add it all up in terms of looking at those contracts that were awarded, there were clear violations. The government's own staff, the Premier's own staff, had to admit that — that being Mr. Andy Orr.

It lists, in fact, the dollar amount for this Pace Group for each of the years in terms of how much was awarded to them. Certainly, for the year 2003-2004 it was $266,825. Then when you look at 2004-2005, it was $48,000, which is why, I suppose, if the government and the minister look at this most recent public accounts…. I guess that's what it says. But when you look at the entire project, it shows a different story.

I guess the lesson learned here is that we have to be ever-vigilant in looking over what the government is doing with respect to this and then perhaps have to bring all the public accounts books together and add it all up and actually create the story so that the public could really see, because the government is not willing to do that. The government certainly will do everything they can, in fact, to prevent that from happening. That's the truth of it.

I am noting the time, Mr. Chair, and I know my other colleagues do have some other questions, so I'm going to move on to ask the minister some basic questions around taxation policies. I'm most interested in this particular area around taxation policies, and as I said, I'm noting the time. With respect to loss in taxation revenues to the underground economy, I'm wondering whether or not the minister has had any projections as to how much money the minister might anticipate losing to the provincial treasury because of the underground economy. And perhaps, what areas might the minister be reviewing with respect to lost revenues to the provincial coffers through the underground economy?

Hon. C. Taylor: We haven't done an analysis of the underground economy or what effects it might have.

J. Kwan: Would the minister be doing that work at all anytime soon? I am concerned about some areas in terms of the underground economy and where significant tax dollars may be lost to the provincial treasury as a result of that underground economy activity.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is, in fact, in the area of the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, and they do work with Revenue Canada on this issue.

J. Kwan: My apologies, Mr. Chair, to the minister. I was conferring with a colleague about when I might be finished with my questions. I was just advising that I expect about ten minutes' worth of questions in this area. I'd just like to get a sense generally of where the ministry's at with respect to this, what areas they might be looking at, what areas they might be worried about — just get a sense of it. Then I'm going to hand the floor over to my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, who has four questions, I believe, on seniors supplements. Then my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke will have a few questions around a taxation question, as well, but very specifically related to an item in his riding.

That's what I was doing, and I'm sorry; I actually didn't hear the minister's answer.

Hon. C. Taylor: I just said that this was, in fact, the area of responsibility for the Minister of Small Business and Revenue and that they do work with Revenue Canada from time to time on these issues.

J. Kwan: I do recognize that. But also, of course, because the ramifications for the Ministry of Finance are enormous with respect to the underground economy and the economy overall, I was hoping the Minister of Finance would be reviewing some of the matters related to that. Perhaps it would be in conjunction with the Minister of Revenue, but surely, because it does have an impact on the bottom line of our fiscal picture, some work is being done by the Minister of Finance in this regard.

Hon. C. Taylor: Once again, this is the responsibility of the Minister of Small Business and Revenue. From time to time — not in this area particularly, but from time to time — he has identified issues of concern, and when he does, we work together with him to resolve them.

J. Kwan: Has the Minister of Revenue identified to the Minister of Finance any concerns with respect to the underground economy impacting our overall economy?

J. Kwan: Well, now that I've brought the matter to the minister's attention, will the minister be working on this issue or having the ministry look at this issue? I do think it's an important matter. There are some areas where the projections of lost revenues are significant — into the billions of dollars. So for the overall provincial treasury there are huge ramifications, not to mention other related matters such as labour violations, WCB issues and so on and so forth. When we get to next year's estimates, certainly, we'll be engaging in those discussions with the Minister of Labour, amongst other people, specifically around that.

That wasn't my intent in asking these questions. I fully appreciate that there are certain ministers to whom you canvass areas. But as the Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance, I would hope — and I hope to hear the answer and that it's the answer I'm looking for — that the minister is concerned and is

aware about the underground economy, and that the minister intends to work with her colleagues in addressing this issue and in identifying the areas in which the underground economy is very active and to see how we can actually address those concerns that have huge ramifications for our provincial economy overall.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is the area of responsibility of the Minister of Small Business and Revenue. He is working all the time on areas of compliance to make sure the revenue that is owed to the government comes in to the greatest extent possible. If you have some specific areas of concern, I would really recommend that you set up a meeting with him and talk to him about it.

J. Kwan: I will certainly do that. Is the minister then saying that she's not concerned about this issue, that she will simply let another minister address it and that as the Minister of Finance she does not intend to look at this issue even though it's been brought to her attention in this House by the opposition?

Hon. C. Taylor: I have great respect for my colleagues, and I will say to you once again that this is the responsibility of the Minister of Small Business and Revenue. If he sees this and identifies it as an issue, he will work on it. If it's something he wishes to bring to my attention, we will work on it together.

J. Kwan: Is the minister then saying today that the Minister of Revenue has not brought any issues around the underground economy to her attention?

J. Kwan: Over to you, Minister of Revenue. But let's not make light of the issue. It is a serious issue. I can certainly name a number of areas in which the underground economy is very active. The construction industry comes to mind. Let me just put it on notice for the members of this House: it's a serious issue, and we'll engage with the Minister of Revenue.

I certainly hope that I can actually engage in discussion around it with the Minister of Finance and, of course, the Minister of Labour and all the relevant ministers that have some component of this issue which has ramifications for government overall — how we do business and, most important of all for the Minister of Finance as well, for our overall economy.

I'm going to leave that for now, and we're going to come back to it at another time. With that, I am going to yield the floor to my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

J. Brar: I have a few questions, as my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant mentioned. I have very simple questions, though, not very complicated; I hope very simple responses as well.

The seniors supplement. My question is: if a senior leaves the province on December 31, which is the end of the year, to celebrate New Year's Eve and the new year with a family member in Calgary, and comes back on January 1, will he or she receive the seniors supplement for December and January?

Hon. C. Taylor: This question belongs with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. It's his program.

J. Brar: For the record, Mr. Chair, I want to note here that I have these policy guidelines in front of me. According to this policy, the senior who leaves the province and comes back the next day will not be eligible to receive the seniors supplement for those two months. Basically, what it means, as this public policy states, is that the seniors who live in this province for 29 days of the month and go out the 30th day and come back the first day of the next month will not actually receive the seniors supplement, which I think is not a fair public policy. That's for the record. I will, if I get a chance to, ask that minister as well.

Now, my second question may be also sent to the same minister, but I will try once again. In the minibudget, which was presented by the hon. Minister of Finance this time, under the seniors supplement, it was stated that this monthly payment supports the lowest-income seniors in British Columbia by topping up their federal guaranteed income supplement, which is the GIS benefit.

It was further stated that this change will benefit almost 40,000 seniors, including some of the lowest-income people in the province. But when I met the seniors in my riding, they told me that there are a number of senior citizens who have no income in this province at all, but they are not eligible for the seniors supplement because they don't receive the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: why were those senior citizens who have no income left out under this seniors supplement?

Hon. C. Taylor: Once again, you are correct. It is in the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. I would certainly be happy to talk to him about it for you.

J. Kwan: I certainly appreciate the minister's offer to pass the questions on to the minister responsible so that my colleague could get the answers. I appreciate that very much.

I'd like to just ask the minister a quick question on taxation issues. My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke has a taxation issue as well. In fact, he's actually ready to ask that question. I'm not going to ask mine because I'm going to yield the floor to him.

N. Macdonald: I hope I didn't keep everyone waiting here. First, thank you very much.

Here's my question. It's quite specific. It's around the city of Revelstoke and the dam. The dam sits within city limits. There is a grant-in-lieu, and the grant-in-lieu

has stayed the same for a number of years. I know that the city has presented to the ministry ideas around the grant-in-lieu being raised. To me, it seems a very reasonable proposal. I just wanted to ask where that sits, if the minister's aware of it and — if not now, maybe in the future — what sort of things the city of Revelstoke can expect.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, I am aware of the situation with Revelstoke and did meet with some individuals who presented the situation. As a result, the Finance Ministry is looking quite closely at the situation right now.

J. Kwan: I do have one more question. I apologize. Actually, it is in the area of Partnerships B.C. My colleague wanted me to ask that. I know that he canvassed as much as he could with different ministers in different areas, but there was one question that was not answered, which I'd like to put to the minister under Partnerships B.C.

That's in relation to Site C. Could the minister please advise whether or not Partnerships B.C. has any involvement with Site C as an initiative?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's my understanding that Hydro is canvassing, at this point, a lot of options for the future in terms of how they're going to meet the needs of British Columbia going forward. I understand that they have consulted with Partnerships B.C. to look at various financing models, but to the best of my knowledge, that's the extent of it. If you're asking the question, is it a P3, at this moment it's not.

J. Kwan: The consultation that took place with the ministry and Partnerships B.C. — has the ministry provided recommendations as to how Site C might be handled or options with respect to how Site C would be handled? What advice did the ministry provide with respect to the Site C project?

Hon. C. Taylor: I understand that the conversations and consultations at this point have been just very preliminary.

J. Kwan: Are options being looked at with respect to privatizing Site C? Is that one of the options that's being reviewed?

J. Kwan: Could the minister please commit to this House to advise this House on the progress and the development of Site C with respect to the involvement of Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. C. Taylor: We did discuss Partnerships B.C. the other day. At that time, of course, we had the head of Partnerships B.C. here. We had assumed we had passed by that. I will just give you my best knowledge at this point.

It is that the consultations are at a very preliminary stage. As far as I know…. Of course, Hydro is not in my ministry. My understanding, from the comments I've seen in papers, is that they are at a very early stage of trying to decide what the needs of this province are, going forward. I am happy to give the hon. member an update. If you wish this, I'm happy to do that.

J. Kwan: Yes, with respect to an update on ongoing progress around that. It's good to know that it's at its preliminary stages, so no decision's been made — but certainly ongoing progress with how that is developing. Hopefully, there will be public consultation at some point with respect to that. I would look forward to that process being made open and transparent, for the public to voice their point of view.

I see the minister nodding her head across the way, so I take that as a yes, and unless I hear otherwise, I'll just assume so. I would then like, at this point, to thank the minister and her staff for their cooperation in providing answers and information to the opposition around the estimates process with respect to the Ministry of Finance.

Vote 42: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $320,000,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the Ministry of Finance and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

G. Gentner: I'd like to thank the minister and the staff for coming back here today. I know it's a little arduous at times, but it certainly is appreciated. There are so many responsibilities, I think. We sometimes take this ministry for granted. It's a very important ministry — and the many Crowns which it has some authority over and, above all, the energy needs which are part of the legacy that's been set in this province for well over 50 years. It is something we should not be taking lightly.

The split of B.C. Hydro and BCTC is having…. It makes for much more bureaucratic overlay to accomplish some works and confusion about who is making decisions. Is there a desire to shift construction and maintenance work away from the present employees at B.C. Hydro and into the private sector? And why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I introduce four folks here. I have my Deputy Minister Greg Reimer with me. On my left side is Alister Cowan. He's executive VP, finance, and chief financial officer. Also, with us from B.C. Hydro is the Bev Van Ruyven, the senior VP for distribution.

G. Gentner: Safety seems to have been compromised. In fact, can the minister please explain why there seem to be more work-related accidents and fatalities over the last two years as compared to previous years, going back five years, for Hydro and BCTC projects?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct. There has been one fatality in each of the last three years. If we go back to 1999, there's been a total of four fatalities, three of them in the last three years. I have spoken a number of times to both B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corp. in regards to these issues and, in fact, immediately after the last fatality wrote a letter to both Crown corporations and asked them to immediately start putting in place ways to actually deal with these issues so that we don't experience those kind of things.

I do have some statistics for the member, though. Again, they're from 1999 to 2005. Medical aid injuries, for instance, in 1999 were 110. In 2005 there are 39, so it's obviously a drop. If you look at disabling injuries, in 1999 there were 90, and in 2005 there are 30. I'm not saying that's acceptable, but I can say that it is a trend. But the other trend, with fatalities, is certainly not acceptable.

G. Gentner: The numbers that were just given from 1999 — that's obviously Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corp. together. And the numbers that followed — are we referring strictly to Hydro but combined stats from both corporations?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The numbers I just quoted are predominantly B.C. Hydro employees, because the work is carried out, in most cases, by B.C. Hydro employees on behalf of BCTC. Although they're not broken out, if the member wants them broken out at some point in time, we can do that and get those numbers to him.

G. Gentner: Yes, I would like a breakdown of those statistics, because I'm hearing all sorts of things out there, and I don't want to deal with rumour or innuendo. I think knowledge is the rule of the day.

Hon. Chair, I just want to go on a philosophical position relative to what I've read in the service plan. It should be an interesting response here. Why is B.C. Hydro paying higher rates to independent power producers for electricity than it costs B.C. Hydro to produce electricity itself?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I hope the member wasn't referring to the numbers I gave him as being some kind of innuendo. Those are facts from the Crown corporations that are given to me. I give them with that thought so that the member can have them.

In response to the question, if you're talking about heritage power and some of the old dams that have been built back in the '60s, obviously, the cost to generate electricity out of those dams, because they have

been built a long time ago and in many cases have been paid for, is an awful lot less than what it costs to actually build new generation now. If Hydro were to build new generation now, instead of independent power producers, I would assume that the costs would be similar.

G. Gentner: How many substations have now been privatized or contracted out?

Hon. R. Neufeld: None have been privatized. They're all owned by B.C. Hydro or BCTC.

G. Gentner: Relative to the substations at Fort St. John and Langley — none of that work is contracted out?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, there's a difference, I guess, between the last question and this one. The member asked whether we'd privatized any substations. No, we didn't. Do we hire private contractors in different cases through B.C. Hydro if they don't have sufficient staff of their own to actually perform the work? In fact, we do and always have done. That's nothing new.

G. Gentner: Quickly, to the bidding of field services. Substation and lines in Squamish are conducted by what company?

G. Gentner: Relative to equipment that the BCTC is using, is it under contract with Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I would like to introduce two other people that just came up: Jane Peverett, the president and CEO of BCTC; and Brian Gabel, who is the vice-president of corporate services and chief financial officer.

G. Gentner: Burrard Thermal — there will be an upgrade in what year, long-term plan?

Quickly, to IPPs. How many current contracts do we have with independent power producers?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are 59 energy purchase agreements; 36 of those are in service, and 23 are under development.

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro will be going out with a call later on this year or early spring for, I believe, up to 2,000 gigawatt hours of electricity, and it will depend on how IPPs fit into that process. If they are large ones or small ones will determine how many there will be.

G. Gentner: Now, independent power production is about 15 percent of the annual electricity requirements of the province. Is this percentage 15 percent of what the province consumes? Or is it 15 percent of the total power produced?

G. Gentner: In the plan it shows that 40 percent of the B.C. electricity supply will be privatized. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The numbers I gave the member are the ones that Hydro is saying, and it's not privatized. B.C. Hydro will buy from independent power producers their incremental supply moving forward from 2002, as the energy plan instructed Hydro to do — other than for improvements they can make to their own facilities across the province or the possibility of a site c.

G. Gentner: That 40 percent, therefore, could be independent power producers outside the province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: At the present time we import about 12 percent of our electricity from the Americans. That's outside of the province. That's between the U.S. and, basically, Alberta — not a lot from Alberta, but some from some Alberta. Mostly from the Pacific Northwest.

G. Gentner: My understanding is that Hydro pays over $350 million to the province for water rental fees. What is the total revenue from independent river-run power producers?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Those numbers I'll have to get for the member. We don't break them out from independent power producers or from B.C. Hydro's own facilities. Actually, I believe it is a part of the Ministry of Environment that deals with that — the water comptroller.

G. Gentner: Therefore, these numbers aren't part of B.C. Hydro's business plan — correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, the IPPs don't pay water rentals to B.C. Hydro; they actually pay them to the province. That's how it's administered. Hydro buys the electricity, which will be inclusive of all those costs.

G. Gentner: Well, it seems to me that looking at the competitive nature of energy and where we're going, I have to ask the next question. Hydro made, if I have this correct, over $1 billion from trade activity. How much did the IPPs make in fiscal 2005?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The $1 billion is gross figures, and that is not inclusive of what they have purchased from IPPs. That is electricity that's been traded back and forth across, mostly, the U.S. border, Pacific Northwest. Hydro…. Actually, Powerex does it on behalf of B.C. Hydro. When they have extra electricity, they sell at a high rate at peak periods and buy it back off-peak at a much lower rate, and that actually brings in revenue to keep rates low in British Columbia.

G. Gentner: So we don't really know what the amount of trade activity coming from IPPs was.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There is no trade activity that happens with the IPPs. The IPPs have electricity purchase agreements to provide X amount of electricity, depending on who they are or where they are, to the province of British Columbia for its use — to actually keep the lights on in B.C.

G. Gentner: What percentage does Hydro underwrite the investment of private sector generation? Is it two-thirds?

G. Gentner: Thanks, minister, for that answer. Hydro and the government are relying on the private sector to provide enough new generation for our future needs. What happens if the private sector fails and there is a shortfall? Will prices rise based on North American or northwestern American demands?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Regardless of who builds the projects, prices today are based on what it costs to actually build a project, to finance it and to provide electricity. So whether it's the private sector or B.C. Hydro, the costs will be relatively the same.

Water licences for the production of power. What type of royalties does Hydro pay?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hydro pays water rentals to the province. I think that number was out here awhile ago. It's approximately $350 million a year.

G. Gentner: Water licence for production. What types of fees are involved, let's say, for independent power producers?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll answer these, but actually this comes through the Ministry of Environment through the water division that that minister has. But independent power producers will pay much the same, I would assume, for water rentals to the province as B.C. Hydro would.

G. Gentner: The corporation has a 20-year goal plan to find electricity self-sufficiency for meeting all domestic needs, but I can't find performance measurements and timetables. Is there a reason why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There was a period of time in the 1990s when not much electricity production was built in the province of British Columbia.

We as a province actually got behind. We generated an energy plan, released it in 2002 and asked Hydro to do a number of things. Since then we've also asked Hydro just recently…. They're in the process right now of doing an integrated electricity plan, which will actually give to us as government how Hydro intends to be self-sufficient within 20 years. That is something that the government has instructed Hydro to do.

We don't believe that we should be net importers in British Columbia. We don't believe that we should depend on the United States of America or on Alberta for our electricity needs. Now, that's a different approach that's been taken by this last administration compared to the one before it, but I think it's the right approach to take to look into the future.

G. Gentner: I take it from the minister that there are no performance measurements and timetables?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I take it he didn't listen to the answer. B.C. Hydro is right now developing the integrated electricity plan — as we speak, now. Once they bring that in to actually show British Columbians and the government of B.C. how they intend the province again to be self-sufficient within 20 years, at that point in time, obviously, there will be some goals that Hydro is going to have to meet as we move forward.

I'm sure at that time the member will be interested in receiving that information. It will be put on the website immediately, once it's released to government and to the people of British Columbia for them to pursue.

G. Gentner: "Developing" means that you don't have one yet, so you don't have one — the province does not have one. Without targets directly linked to long-term goals, is not Hydro failing to satisfy section

Hon. R. Neufeld: I just explained that right now they are developing an integrated electricity plan — as we speak. The plan hasn't been developed. Part of the plan will be to develop goals. Part of the goals will have to have some measures and how we're going to meet those goals. I would assume all that will come out as soon as the integrated electricity plan comes out on how we can become self-sufficient over the next 20 years.

G. Gentner: I guess I'll ask it a different way relative to long-term goals. Does the minister believe that Hydro is satisfying the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act?

G. Gentner: Just going back to this performance measurements plan. Again, when will we see it, and how can Hydro have a…? Let's go to that one right now. When will we see this completed plan?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The plan in its infancy will be released either sometime towards the end of this year or early in January.

G. Gentner: One of the goals is self-sufficiency, but government prohibits Hydro from building new generation projects. So how can Hydro be self-sufficient if the market is competing with it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we have instructed Hydro to become self-sufficient; and no, Hydro is not prohibited from actually developing new or additional electricity from the plants they have in place already. In fact, they are actively doing that at W.A.C. Bennett Dam as we speak and at some other dams across the province, where they're using new technology to upgrade generation systems and those kinds of things as we move forward.

There's the opportunity — depending, in fact, on what the IAP recommends how we move forward — to maybe build another dam. I don't know whether that will happen or not. That all depends on what Hydro actually finds out or develops for us — how we become self-sufficient.

And no, they're not competing against independent power producers. They're actually buying electricity from them.

G. Gentner: Let's go back to the service plan. The net income, according to the table provided on page 37, shows a substantial decrease from the years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The biggest reason for that is there has been no factoring of rate increases in those numbers. Those are numbers going forward constantly.

G. Gentner: What, therefore, is the anticipated rate increase for March 31, '06?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hydro is reviewing that, and probably by the end of March of '06 they will actually come to some decision. It's not as simple as just having a rate increase. There's a process now in place, which we reinstated, where B.C. Hydro must appear before the B.C. Utilities Commission to get approval for any rate increases.

G. Gentner: I'll return to that one when we have further discussions on BCTC.

Now, in the plan it suggests we are spending money on pilot projects. How much money was spent this year on pilot projects?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe the member could refer to the part that he's talking about, pilot projects, because it may help with us trying to answer the question.

G. Gentner: I was going to ask the minister what a pilot project is, first of all. Maybe we can clear that first, and I'll figure it out.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's less than $1 million a year, and it's a project that Hydro reviews and looks at to create efficiencies within the corporation.

G. Gentner: Okay. It's under your strategy, and it's sort of quite vague. It states: "Participation in pilot projects, internally and externally." Can the minister explain to me what is meant by external?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There may be times where Hydro will fund projects outside of B.C. Hydro in the case of technology development or something with corporations that are doing some of that work for other utilities across North America, and they feel that it would be beneficial if we actually understood what they were doing.

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain how much money is anticipated to be spent on pilot projects in the next five years?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm informed it could be $1 million or $2 million a year as they move forward. They will develop their budget soon for next year.

G. Gentner: What type of criteria do we have that determine where you put money into a pilot project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The criteria used are, and I guess the main one is: as long as it's of benefit to the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, it is something they would look at.

I'm told a good example to use, one that we know of already that's been developed, is LED lighting.

G. Gentner: In the plan it makes mention that there's need to leverage Powertech. Can you explain in what way?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Powertech is the arm of B.C. Hydro that actually does the innovative issues around development of new systems that will be of benefit to B.C. Hydro in the long run. That's Powertech's main job. It's to deal with technology and how we move forward and a whole bunch of things about energy efficiency and those kinds of things.

G. Gentner: I appreciate the explanation, but I still would like to know what was meant by leveraging it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Powertech stands on its own with B.C. Hydro and in fact makes money. They have a lot of expertise. I only explained one, but a tremendous amount of expertise that Powertech will or should…. B.C. Hydro should instruct them to actually leverage that around the world to get that information out to other areas and make some more money.

G. Gentner: The increased cost of energy is because, in many parts, of the bringing-on of new sources — this is according to the plan — of energy to meet demand. How much is the cost due to new sources?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We spoke earlier about the energy purchase agreements and the ones that were in service. On average it's about $55 a megawatt hour, which in today's electricity pricing is a very good price for British Columbia. As we move forward, those prices will change depending on markets, depending on what happens with construction costs and depending on all kinds of things.

G. Gentner: In the next ten years, what are the foreseeable costs for life-cycle replacements and maintenance of existing facilities?

Hon. R. Neufeld: On maintenance and repair, Hydro is spending approximately $500 million a year.

G. Gentner: Is that going to be static, or are we anticipating some increases over the foreseeable future?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's what it has been, and that's what it's expected to be for the next while. But we should also remember that they will be reviewing a whole bunch of things as they move forward. I don't know. They may replace some generators that might cost way more than $500 million. They are the ones that actually have to make sure that those facilities are maintained and kept up, and that they can keep electricity coming. So to say, out ten years, what it would cost would be a bit presumptuous of me. B.C. Hydro will continue to monitor that as we move forward.

G. Gentner: Is the minister saying that we do not have a life-cycle replacement plan?

G. Gentner: That life-cycle replacement plan goes beyond ten years — or is it five years? What is the time frame?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It goes on a lot longer than ten years. The dams — I'll just use one, for instance, W.A.C. Bennett — I think, started generating in the Peace in 1967. We expect that dam to be there for a long, long time. We expect Mica, Revelstoke — all those dams — to be in place for a long, long time.

G. Gentner: I'll go back to my original question, then. In the next ten years, what are the foreseeable costs for life-cycle replacements and maintenance of existing facilities?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll answer the member again. This year it's about $500 million. They expect that in the next few years it will be much the same. As they move forward, things will change. The budgets aren't set for ten years out, although this is the number they've been working on for quite a while.

G. Gentner: I take it from the answer that the minister doesn't know what the projected life-cycle replacement costs will be in ten years.

Now, on page 40 we get operation, maintenance and administration costs. It seems to show that there is going to be a decrease — significant decreasing. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The changes are moving those costs around from energy costs to operations, maintenance and administration.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Sorry. I was confusing there. It's moving those costs from operation, maintenance and administration to energy costs, just a line above it.

G. Gentner: Perhaps we can have a footnote in future service plans to identify that. I'd appreciate it.

I suppose there's supposed to be a savings of $250 million over ten years. I'm referring, I guess, to the Accenture deal. Yet during five years between '04 and '08 there doesn't seem to be a difference of…. It's only a difference of $46 million. Where will the other $204 million be found?

G. Gentner: I don't see any savings here during the service plan that identifies '05, '06, '07 and '08.

Hon. R. Neufeld: So far, if I recall correctly, they have in fact exceeded the $25 million expected, on average, every year in the first few years. As we move forward, those numbers will actually be in there. We haven't finished the '07-08 and '06-07 years. Those savings will be figured out and factored in there.

G. Gentner: These are forecast numbers. I would have thought they would be identified here, at least for '04 and '05. Is there a reason why we can't see them here in the spreadsheet?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand, Hydro, in its reports, does not split out the savings with the Accenture contract. They're in gross amounts.

G. Gentner: So they're in gross amounts. Where on this chart are they identified?

Hon. R. Neufeld: For the member's information, what I'll do is…. Since the Accenture contract came into place, they actually inform me, because I request it, where those savings are. I'll forward to the member the documentation that Hydro sends to me of where those savings are and how they calculated that. In the budget document, I'm told by the finance VP, they have it in gross amounts, so it's not split out, but I will get you that information.

Going to Accenture. I think it's anticipated that these questions would come. We did have a briefing with the ministry relative to Hydro. I did ask some questions there, and I still haven't received an answer, so it gives me an opportunity to reintroduce it.

The partnership agreement clearly spells out through the code of conduct that it "shall be generally based on the Accenture code of conduct." Codes, amendments or revisions shall be the approval by a majority of the board members. A majority, of course, is made up primarily of the private partner. Under Hydro's code of conduct, the director or officer is in conflict when his involvement with another association may impede his judgment in the best interests of B.C. Hydro.

So my question to the minister is: why has the government compromised the managerial integrity of Hydro by making it accountable to a private operator before that of the interests of the people of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's another clause in the contract that Accenture must in fact abide by B.C. Hydro's conduct if it sets a higher standard.

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro's is higher — that's what we're saying — than Accenture's is.

G. Gentner: We're saying that…. What higher standard? You know, whose standards are we talking about — a higher standard of B.C. Hydro or a higher standard of the Crown corporations secretariat or…?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize for that. Yes, in fact, the clause states, as I'm told…. They'll try to find the section, but it states that Accenture must abide by the conduct rules of B.C. Hydro if in fact those conduct rules of B.C. Hydro are higher than Accenture's.

G. Gentner: What's given to mean the higher? Is that some ambivalence? Is it agreed on by the board? How do we determine that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's the code of conduct for all of B.C. Hydro, and it's section 3.5.

G. Gentner: Oh, I appreciate what section it is, but it seems that there's some ambiguity here as to what it really means. I'll move on. Obviously, this side over here is clearly confused as to what the meaning of the code is, but we'll leave it at that, and we'll do some work on it.

Now, it suggests here that…. The public utility code of ethics states: "No…director or officer should hold a substantial private interest directly or indirectly…or hold or accept a position as an officer or director in an entity where, by virtue of his or her position at B.C. Hydro, the officer could in any way benefit the entity by influencing decisions of B.C. Hydro."

However, in the agreement it states that no directors, managers or officers should be restricted "from engaging in other activities or business ventures of any kind or character whatsoever. Each of the…officers…shall have the right to…possess a direct or indirect ownership interest in activities and business ventures of every type and description, including activities and business ventures in direct competition with the partnership."

Can the minister tell this side why…? Well, can he explain that statement? I find it quite serious, almost verging on conflict.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Any people that sit on Accenture's board of directors are actually bound by B.C.

Hydro's code of conduct, and they must conduct themselves in the interests of B.C. Hydro. They are the same conduct rules that apply to all Crown corporations.

G. Gentner: Who do the board members from Hydro represent? The interests of Accenture or the interests of the Crown?

Hon. R. Neufeld: These Hydro employees sit on an interim board that's there for three years to help with the transfer of those responsibilities and make sure that everything is done correctly. We do not have anybody that sits on the Accenture board — the large board. This is an interim board that's there for three years.

G. Gentner: Yes, I'm talking about the interim board. I believe it expires…. Full transition will occur in '06 — correct?

G. Gentner: The members representing Hydro on the board…. They're obviously there to help Accenture make money.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, they are there to represent the interests of B.C. Hydro. I think we went through that whole process and how they're bound to live up to the code of conduct of B.C. Hydro. They're there to make sure that the ratepayers are looked after.

G. Gentner: But Accenture wouldn't be involved in this venture if they weren't there to make money. I think it seems a little unusual that that side doesn't see a potential conflict here. Nevertheless, under the agreement all general administrative expenses of the general partner — including costs and expenses for the compensation of general partners, officers, employees, rental expenses for the general partner, costs and offices — will be borne out in part by Hydro.

Therefore, my question further to that is: my understanding, according to the agreement, is that if Accenture does not make money during this transition, who will pay the taxes? If they do make money, does Hydro pay their corporate taxes?

G. Gentner: So Hydro is not liable for any corporate taxes borne out by Accenture?

G. Gentner: Section 8, allocation of new income — I'm quoting the agreement: "Net income…of the partnership for any fiscal year shall be allocated…to Newco…. Any remaining net income…and all net loss…shall be allocated, for…tax purposes, to the general partner." If I have this correct, Servco pays little tax, and it's Newco that picks it up. Would the minister like to comment?

G. Gentner: The agreement states: "The general partner…shall not be liable to the partnership or the partners for the failure to perform any obligation that the general partnership cannot perform because the partnership does not have sufficient funds to pay the cost and expense relative to such obligation." What liabilities does this hold?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are performance bonds and guarantees in place so that Hydro is kept whole.

G. Gentner: I take it, therefore, that the answer is: under this performance, Hydro cannot be deemed liable through joint or several.

G. Gentner: Transparency. "The partners acknowledge and agree that because Newco is wholly a subsidiary of B.C. Hydro and is expected to be the most significant client of ABS Partnership" — of course, it's been changed — "potential conflicts of interest may arise in circumstances where Hydro's access to certain information of the partnership could have an adverse effect on bona fide commercial interests of the partnership and its…partners." Who determines what is "certain information"?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The consultation process would take place between Accenture and B.C. Hydro to determine whether there was some conflict. If there is, the final determination would be made by Accenture.

G. Gentner: Okay. So the final decision rests with Accenture. Therefore, information that could have been seen as transparent years before the partnership is no longer available to the public.

Hydro "shall not unreasonably interfere with or disrupt the partner's business." What does "unreasonably" mean?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That would be in the case if Hydro were to obstruct Accenture from doing business with some of their other customers.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, "…the withdrawal of Accenture as a limited partner of the partnership, the sole limited partner of the partnership shall be" Hydro — in this case, who will be riddled with all the liability if Accenture leaves?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There would be liabilities on Accenture if, in fact, something like that happened. We spoke about it earlier. There are performance bonds in

I was remiss when we first started talking about Accenture. The Accenture contract had a full review with the B.C. Utilities Commission over a lengthy period of time.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are some 22 key performance metrics that are laid out in the contract and that are reviewed almost on a monthly basis by B.C. Hydro to make sure that Accenture is meeting those service targets. So far as I'm told, Accenture has met those targets by an average of at least 95 to 98 percent.

G. Gentner: Capital accounts: "The general partner will establish and maintain the capital account on the books of the partnership for each of the partners." Can the Auditor General review the partnership's books?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the Auditor General has the authority to actually review and audit Hydro's books.

G. Gentner: Again, can the Auditor General review the partnership's books — the joint committee's books?

G. Gentner: The general partner can borrow money for the partnership. Has it?

G. Gentner: I have to return to the question of liability. Is it the partnership that's liable in this case if they do have the power to borrow? Or is the general partner liable?

G. Gentner: Indemnification: "All members of the board of directors…shall be indemnified and held harmless by the partnership from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities — whether joint or several…." Is it Accenture that's indemnified or all members?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe I should clarify. I'm sure the member was talking about the membership of the board. If that's the case, they have insurance for that.

G. Gentner: Can the minister explain, therefore — I'm quoting the agreement: "Any indemnification…shall be satisfied solely out of the assets of the partnership"?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, that's liability that the partnership has, not the directors.

G. Gentner: I take it from the answer that Hydro does pay for the insurance.

"Withdrawal…no limited partner other than Accenture…shall be permitted to withdraw from the partnership." My question, obviously, is: cannot Hydro withdraw?

Hon. R. Neufeld: To his earlier comment that Hydro pays: no, the partnership pays. I want to get that on the record. And to the second question: yes, Hydro can remove themselves from the contract if they so wish.

Hon. R. Neufeld: For non-performance, it's zero cost. If Hydro decided, for whatever reason, that they wanted to remove themselves or terminate the contract, there would obviously be some costs that would have to be reallocated, I would assume, for Accenture, the business partner in this project.

G. Gentner: Relative to disclosure, B.C. Hydro "may disclose confidential information to representatives of the government of B.C., as owner of B.C. Hydro, who have a need…duty and requirement to maintain the confidentiality of such…information." I've noted here the word "may." How can the government execute its duty to the public, then, if Hydro might disclose information to the government?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hydro is obligated to disclose all information that would be requested from a government in British Columbia.

G. Gentner: I gather that's from statute, and therefore, that takes precedence over the agreement with Accenture — correct?

G. Gentner: It's an interesting exercise here, because I don't know why you would want to include that in the agreement when it's already by statute. But nevertheless….

On the marketing side: as requested by the partnership, Accenture or its affiliate can use knowledgable employees available to participate with the partnership, Accenture, in sales calls to prospective clients.

Are we talking about non-union members, or are we talking about contracting out?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That is in case Accenture is out conversing, let's say, with another client, a business client, and wants to actually do some business with that client. That client can come to B.C. Hydro and ask B.C. Hydro management if, in fact, Accenture is living up to its contract, has consistently lived up to its contract and is doing what is expected of it.

G. Gentner: I just have one last question on the contract. It's back to taxes, because I didn't quite get the gist of the answer. So I will ask it in a different way. Is it not true that any net income shown by Accenture shall be allocated to B.C. Hydro for tax purposes and any net loss shall be claimed by Accenture as a write-off?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Losses and income are allocated the same way for tax purposes.

G. Gentner: I didn't understand "in the same way" — loss versus profit in the same way as what? I mean, are we talking about the same way as the company makes money, or are we talking about Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Whether it's a loss or a profit, they're allocated the same between the two as the contract lays it out. Maybe that's a little shorter and a little more concise. Hopefully, that answers your question.

G. Gentner: Therefore, the minister is going to assure me, this side, that B.C. Hydro pays no corporate taxes relative to the business conducted by Accenture.

G. Gentner: One last question. The member, too, may want to jump in here. Relative to non-performance by the partner — the minister mentioned about 95 percent — what penalties have been imposed and how much?

G. Gentner: At this time I would welcome any other members who…. I wish to be able to readdress the minister after some other members who wish to speak or ask questions.

K. Conroy: The community of Christina Lake is involved with a process around an independent power project. There have been volumes of concerns expressed about this project on the Cascade Falls. Could the minister please update us on what's happening with respect to that file?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to be careful here, because at the end of the day, this is in an environmental assessment process that I'm signatory to when that's finished. So you'll forgive me if I'm going to be pretty elusive.

I understand what the member is saying. There has been lots of controversy. I have been getting lots of letters on the issue. As I understand, it's on its process going through an environmental review. That's actually the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. I know that review will be all-encompassing. At least some of the letters that I've gotten…. A lot of people have actually made presentations and may make presentations yet to the process that's in place.

K. Conroy: I appreciate that answer. I'm hoping the minister will take into consideration the volumes of letters that have crossed and will continue to cross his desk in opposition to this project in the community. Thanks.

I understand that mining was the topic yesterday, and I missed that, but I'm going to ask a few questions. If the minister is unable to answer them, I would appreciate it if I could get the answers in writing at a later date if it's possible.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. The minister responsible for mining…. His estimates are finished. As I offered to some of the other members…. I know the minister very well. He would arrange time to meet with you to answer those questions, any one of them that you have. If you wish to put them on the record and have them given to him, that's quite all right, but I won't attempt to answer them. It's not because I don't want to. It's because it's the other minister's responsibility. But I know that he would gladly — in fact, he's told me — spend some time with anyone that has some interest around mining across the province.

K. Conroy: That would be good. I'd appreciate that. One of the issues that I will put on the record is the issue of uranium mining in the province and what's happening with it. I would appreciate a meeting with him as an update on that.

One of the other issues, and it's actually…. There was a letter signed by the minister — the minister who's in the room today. It's around the authority of the Mediation and Arbitration Board when dealing with mining issues. There is some concern that this board is responsible for hearing disputes related to mining in this province. The chair of this board has absolutely no professional mining expertise, nor is he a legal judge. There were some concerns around the fact that they preside over the hearings around mining disputes.

The questions are: who has the final accountability on this board around mining disputes when they're being heard by this board, and who has the final say on the disputes? Is it actually this board? It ends with the board? Or does the ministry have anything to say over and above that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the Mediation and Arbitration Board has been around for a long time. It is a me-

diation and arbitration board, so the first attempt by the board is actually to mediate some kind of agreement between two parties that are not agreeing on what should take place, usually on the land base as it refers to mining.

The member spoke about the chair of the board. The difficulty is in finding someone in British Columbia that has legal experience. The chair of the board is a lawyer. That board is appointed by my ministry. We needed someone who had no prior business dealings with a mining company and no prior business dealings with an oil and gas company, because the Mediation Arbitration Board looks after both of those issues — any one of those companies. That was a bit difficult to find — to go across the province and actually find someone who was neutral in that.

The board is made up, though, of people from the agricultural industry — right? There are people on that board who are actually ranchers or farmers, whatever, and there are people on that board who understand mining. We try to keep a fairly good balance on the board so that we have all the viewpoints. Hopefully, most of the issues are dealt with in mediation between the two parties that can't get along, prior to going to an arbitration.

K. Conroy: I appreciate that answer. Obviously, this is due to an incident in my constituency, where there has been a dispute with a private land owner and a private mining company that is doing exploration on the land without proper follow-through. It has become a major dispute in our region, and there have been concerns around accountability of the board. I want to bring that up, and I'll be happy to discuss it further with the minister of state at the next opportunity.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Mediation Arbitration Board is a responsibility of mine. As it relates to mining — that's right — the member should speak to the minister of mines about what has taken place. I don't have the stats in front of me. We keep statistics on what takes place with the Mediation Arbitration Board across the whole province. Disputes do arise — there is no doubt about it — but there are very few that go to arbitration. Usually they're almost all mediated.

If for some reason this company is not doing what is statutorily required of it by the Mines Act or any act within the ministry, it is the ministry's responsibility, through the mining division, to make sure that that takes place. I'm hopeful that it's something else, but it could be larger than that. I'm not sure.

G. Gentner: Just briefly going back to Accenture for a little while here, hon. Chair. I'm looking at the efficiency rates. Does the minister…? Now that we have an understanding of the penalties, what is the forecasted revenue from penalties for '06?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro actually expects them to meet all their targets, so there is no budget number that would expect they're actually going to have to pay a certain amount of fines. In fact, as I said, they've met all their targets between 95 percent and 98 percent since the contract went into place. That's B.C. Hydro's intention moving forward — that they're actually going to meet or exceed those targets and that if they deserve a fine, they'll get it.

G. Gentner: Just briefly, you know, when the full transfer of '06 to Accenture…. What role will Hydro play then in this venture — none or a limited role?

Hon. R. Neufeld: When that date arrives, Hydro will continue to monitor, continue to work with its partner, Accenture, on making sure that it meets its targets and that it is out there doing actively what B.C. Hydro thought it should do in the first place.

G. Gentner: Does the minister foresee Accenture moving calling centres out of the province?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. All work done for B.C. Hydro must be done within British Columbia.

G. Gentner: I feel good about that statement. I appreciate that commitment. I will hold this government accountable to that one. Does Hydro have a business plan regarding customer service after the full transfer to Accenture of all customer services, information tech, financial services, human resources and procurement services?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, or I should say, rather, that Hydro expects that business will carry on as it has over the past three years and, in fact, ever improve. That's one of the reasons why Hydro actually came to the government and said that it would be best that they outsource some of these services.

I just want to go back to the remark the member made in regards to any Accenture people, any call centres, any of that kind of work will actually be done in the province. That was one of the criteria that the government worked on with B.C. Hydro to make sure that those…. All too often what happens is call centres end up in Newfoundland or some place in eastern Canada instead of in British Columbia, and we were adamant that those would stay in the province, employing British Columbians.

G. Gentner: It's unfortunate that we couldn't stop the potential loss of a calling centre for Terasen. I believe it's in Kelowna, and it's going to be moving to New Brunswick.

Other than assets based on civil law, can Hydro enforce court judgments obtained in B.C. if the company is registered in another country?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The company is a B.C.-based company with its headquarters in Vancouver, and we can apply the B.C.-based rules as it applies to the com-

pany. The member talked about Terasen. We should remember that Terasen is a private company, not a government company. Government doesn't have any control over a private company.

G. Gentner: Yes, I know that. I also know that Accenture is a private company.

Is it true that California's state treasury refuses to do business with Accenture? No, I take that back, hon Chair. It's not really appropriate.

Seven Mile Dam safety improvements, deferral accounts. Why is there such discrepancy between 2005 and 2006 on page 40?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Just a bit of confusion here. We don't know what page 40 you're talking about, but I'm informed that the Seven Mile Dam refurbishing is nearing completion, and that may be the reason for the numbers being different. That's probably the reason.

G. Gentner: My apologies to the minister. He's correct. There are a number of page 40s here from previous…. I was comparing forecasts of years previous and where they may have increased in costs.

To the minister: will the Auditor General conduct a full review regarding the Duke Point power project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't make that decision. The Auditor General makes that decision independent of government.

G. Gentner: Relative to confidentiality, when will information be released to the public as to contracts that were signed?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Any contracts that were signed were part of the public hearing process, so that's all public. Right now there is no contract — none. That's it.

G. Gentner: Section 22(8), an agreement for a term of five years. No public disclosure of any confidential information. That was the agreement with subcontractors and the like. Again, does this mean there is some censorship, even though the project has been cancelled?

Hon. R. Neufeld: All the documentation and all the contracts that were part of this project were made public during the public review process of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

G. Gentner: What are the total costs of this cancelled project borne by Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This process has a long history. Actually, it started in 1994 under the last administration and moved forward in 2001 into this new administration. Over that period of time — with both VIGP and GSX, which was the pipeline crossing — it cost B.C. Hydro, or B.C. ratepayers, $120 million. The competition process for the Duke Point project alone, which they went through here a while ago, was approximately $5 million.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, they do, and there are still some assets that would have to be dealt with, as I understand, in the form of a turbine and land and those kinds of things, in Nanaimo.

G. Gentner: How much more is anticipated as owed to subcontractors who were guaranteed money if, for whatever reason, the project was pulled?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Those negotiations are ongoing as we speak between B.C. Hydro and different partners in this process. Once those numbers come forward, we'll make those public.

G. Gentner: So $120 million is what we know as of today. I envision that this could be in litigation. I understand why the minister possibly may be reluctant to put a cost to those figures, but is there anticipation or an idea of what those extra costs will be?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I expect that the numbers will be relatively small when the negotiations are finished. I don't believe there will be any litigation, although one never knows what's going to take place. As we understand, there will be no litigation. Most of the $120 million, unfortunately, was spent before 2001 on projects to try and build numerous different plants and a gas pipeline from the U.S. of A. to Vancouver Island.

G. Gentner: How much was spent on…? I believe the minister mentioned one turbine. I'm assuming that's all there is. I'd like to know where this equipment is stored. Is it in the Surrey warehouse? Can this equipment be sold, and what's the anticipated return on the inventory?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's one turbine. There were two turbines involved. One turbine was never purchased at the end of the day. In fact, there was a hold

put on it. I don't know if the member's aware, but at that particular time, in that particular time frame, there was a huge demand for gas turbines across North America — or even the world, I would say, but especially in North America and especially in the Pacific Northwest.

The one turbine that was purchased was purchased for $40 million. That was prior to 2001. That turbine sits now in Surrey, and the salvage value B.C. Hydro hopes to get, if it can, is $10 million out of that. B.C. Hydro was instructed to purchase the turbine in the 1990s — under a different administration, so we're going back a ways here — for $40 million.

G. Gentner: The minister, hopefully, can walk me through this delicately so we understand. The accounting practices will determine Hydro's fiscal performance. I don't know where in the budget we'll see the $120 million identified. To date the $120 million investment can't be seen as a fixed asset and can't be written off over the project's useful life since there is none.

My question to the minister: how will the costs be borne? Will they be borne by the ratepayer or by the government?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The $120 million was written off in fiscal '04 and borne totally by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, not the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

G. Gentner: How much is Norske Skog — it may have changed its name; I'm not too sure — expected to curtail consumption of power for the next little while?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Those discussions are taking place now. I will use Norske, too, because I can't remember the name they changed it to. The numbers are somewhere in the neighbourhood…. Norske Skog says they could curtail 150 megawatts — somewhere in that area. B.C. Hydro is, as we speak, in negotiations with them to work around that number.

G. Gentner: The Utilities Commission's hearings were not quite complete before the government pulled the pin on the project, so why didn't Hydro wait a few more weeks?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The government did not pull the pin. I want to get that clearly on the record. That was a decision by B.C. Hydro to actually cancel that contract.

G. Gentner: Why did B.C. Hydro pull the pin, and why didn't it wait a few extra weeks for the completion of the Utilities Commission's hearings?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The reasons are well known via press release from B.C. Hydro with the reasons that they cancelled the contract. They were already five months into a process that had been appealed. They made a business decision in the best interests of the ratepayers that they should cancel that, because there would be a much shorter period than there may be if, in fact, the hydro lines that go across to the Island actually failed. It's a pretty short period of time to when they thought, or to when they know, they can get electricity provided by new cables by BCTC across the water. It became a decision, interestingly enough — something that started in 1994 and still wasn't complete in 2004.

I think Hydro was very patient in trying to get through that process to make sure there was electricity on Vancouver Island, and the best interests over that period of time decided that BCTC should build cables to Vancouver Island.

G. Gentner: According to the plan…. What I've read is that it's projected by Hydro that Vancouver Island is going to face an energy crunch by '07. Where does Hydro anticipate finding the energy?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through discussions, as we just talked about, with Norske Skog: curtailment of electricity; working with other large users of electricity on Vancouver Island; and, by 2008, hope to have the new cables in place from the mainland across to Vancouver Island and delivering electricity.

G. Gentner: Does Hydro plan to have distillate fire mobile units or to purchase power from private power producers that use these units, and where would they be located?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There have been discussions around having some standby diesel generation. There are also some independent power producers on Vancouver Island who could bid into the next process, which may be able to deliver some power — maybe not soon enough, but there may be some that can come on stream to actually deliver the power.

At the end of the day, Vancouver Island will receive the power it needs to keep its lights on.

G. Gentner: I need further clarification. Is the minister saying that we're not going to see any of these diesel power units?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's very far down the planning cycle, if in fact they did need them, although I'm sure the member would be happy if they had to bring in diesel generation to keep the lights on. For whatever reason, I'm sure he would be quite happy with that.

I think it's prudent for the Crown corporation to actually look at all those options, to make sure that we do meet the needs of the people on Vancouver Island.

G. Gentner: A two-part question: how many independent cogeneration units are connected to the grid, and how many are anticipated in the next ten years?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are two, I believe, in the system. One is ICP at Campbell River, and the other one is CU Power at Taylor, B.C.

G. Gentner: What I'm asking the minister, as well, is how many are anticipated in the five-year plan? Do we get a heads-up where Hydro's going in that direction?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, Hydro will make an open call — we talked about that earlier — for at least 1,000 or 2,000 gigawatt hours of electricity. They'll make that call soon, either this fall or the early spring. There may be some that bid into that process. We don't know. They don't know. I'm sure they have some ideas that some might be out there, but where they are and who they are will remain to be seen. Once people or individuals or companies bid into that process, then there will be a process by B.C. Hydro going through it to see which is the best project for meeting the needs of Hydro and the ratepayers of the province.

The member talked about co-gen also tied into the grid. There is another co-gen plant which is not tied into the grid, so I don't want to mislead the member. That happens to be in Fort Nelson. It's a stand-alone. It's tied into the Alberta grid, not into the B.C. grid. There are two more that are tied into the grid — Weyerhaeuser in Kamloops and Canfor in Prince George. They have cogeneration facilities that…. Actually, they provide their own electricity, their own consumption for those two places so they don't take anything out of the grid. They provide their own, but they have the ability to sell back into the grid.

G. Gentner: I have a lot of questions relative to co-gen and particularly wood waste. Knowing the hour, I think we will put on our Transmission Corp. thinking caps and go there. Maybe a briefing with the ministry relative to co-gen, hopefully, will come another day.

Before going into the general plan of the B.C. Transmission Corp., I want to focus on my territory — be a little parochial here, if I may — relative to an infamous voltage line running through Delta. To the minister: where is this new high-voltage line going? Is it going to follow the existing grid through Tsawwassen or not?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The proposal by BCTC is to follow the right-of-way that's in place now. They've made that proposal to the British Columbia Utilities Commission, which will begin hearings in the latter part of January.

G. Gentner: I have a letter from TRAHVOL. Tsawwassen Residents Against High Voltage Lines — I think that's what the acronym stands for. They were promised that there would be no overhead transmission lines through their residential area. Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The proposal that's been put forward to the B.C. Utilities Commission is for underground, not overhead. At the end of the day, the Utilities Commission will make the decision in the best interests of all ratepayers, understanding that going underground is quite a bit more expensive than going overhead.

G. Gentner: Okay, so we're going to follow the existing right-of-way. My question is…. The minister therefore has to buy the subsurface rights, if I'm correct. Do we have an estimated value of what that is going to cost the ministry or the Transmission Corp.?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the B.C. Utilities Commission will begin those hearings on the recommendation from BCTC that the lines go underground. I know what the member is talking about. There is some opposition to going underground. We should remember that there are overhead lines now that go down each side of that right-of-way. Those overhead lines were there long before there were any houses alongside the right-of-way.

We're hopeful that once the Utilities Commission makes its decision…. We don't know, and BCTC doesn't know, what decision they will make at the end of the day. That's what they proposed. It's actually their responsibility not just to say one but also different alternatives that could be done. At the end of the day, the B.C. Utilities Commission will make that decision in the best interest of all ratepayers in British Columbia.

G. Gentner: To the minister: we have right now, I believe, the AC line running along parallel to the north side of Highway 17, which not only has a right-of-way for overhead but also subsurface rights. It's already there. So my question is: why has the ministry abandoned that concept?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, Highway 17 is in fact…. That proposal is part of the work that BCTC completed and is included in the application for the B.C. Utilities Commission to look at. But BCTC's engineers and other engineers have identified some major problems once the cable reaches the water, and there are seismic problems. But on top of the seismic problems, where it would actually go into the water, there are huge sloughing problems where the seabed actually sloughs off an awful lot, meaning it slides downhill. The fear from BCTC and the engineers is — and I'm sure they're listening intently to the engineers — that that could be an Achilles' heel for an underwater transmission line there.

G. Gentner: Thank you for the information. I read the extensive reports on that one. If there is any considerable sloughing, it would happen where the old DC line is being proposed.

Seismic sloughing seems to be a problem along the Tsawwassen escarpment, not along Highway 17 per se, mainly because there is quite a bit of sedimentation over the years from the river. Nevertheless, what I am asking the minister…. Since they've done this, my un-

derstanding is that the cost of running along Highway 17 is basically cost-neutral. Could the minister comment?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is, by BCTC's estimates, figured to be about $6 million more to go down Highway 17 rather than the underground route. The difference is from $24 million more to $30 million more.

G. Gentner: I take it that that estimate includes the fact that there already exists some undergrounding on Highway 17. Where is the Sea Breeze application stage, and are we entertaining it as well?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It will be in front of the commission at exactly the same time.

G. Gentner: That has been costed out. I'm sure of that. But I want to draw to the attention of the hon. minister that the residents who are upset, I believe, so far have legal costs of close to maybe $200,000. I just want it on the record that when residents are upset, they bear those costs, and when you are going up against a big corporation like B.C. Transmission Corp., many communities and neighbourhoods really are up against the wall. I hope the minister will take note of that.

Going to the B.C. Transmission Corp., the maintenance plan. How many employees engage in…? I believe there are about 30,000 projects. Albeit, many of them are small. What criteria is there that determines what project is subcontracted and what project isn't?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Prior to answering this question, the member put on the record about the $200,000. When the Utilities Commission hearings start, they will have access to participant funding for the B.C. Utilities Commission process. I know that takes place.

To the second question. A vast majority of the work is actually done by B.C. Hydro, as we spoke about earlier, for BCTC. If there is some contracting out, it's smaller contracts. I can give the member one example. Not all, but some of the vegetation control would be contracted out to first nations in different areas of the province where BCTC is responsible for transmission lines.

G. Gentner: Now, the Transmission Corp.'s Accenture partnership — is it the same agreement as we see with Hydro? Or is this a separate agreement?

G. Gentner: Let's talk briefly about the notion of Grid West. The cost to participate is, I believe, $1.5 million. What is the projected cost next year and over the next five years?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The anticipation is that they will spend about the same in the years going forward. To go to five years — I don't know. There may be some agreement before five years, but we should remember that this is something that started back in the mid-'90s, when it was called RTO, the regional transmission organization. So this has been ongoing for a while, but that's the anticipated cost moving forward.

G. Gentner: Could the minister tell this side how much Grid West will have and who has access to the transmission system?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Access to the transmission system is defined by a tariff, and that is regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

G. Gentner: How much control, therefore, will the government have on the decision on prices paid on the system?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Prices paid on the system are determined not by government but by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

G. Gentner: Can the minister guarantee that rates will remain the third-lowest in Canada after we enter into the continental system of market pricing?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We're already in the continental system in the North America market system. We have a wonderful system in British Columbia because we have cost-based power here in the province, have always had cost-based power and will continue to have cost-based power as we move ahead.

Other jurisdictions south of us in the Pacific Northwest — I believe almost all of them — or in Alberta actually operate on the market system. Whatever the market system is across North America, that's how they operate. That's why B.C. Hydro, in conjunction with B.C. Transmission, has been instructed through the energy plan to actually maintain low-cost rates for British Columbia as we move forward into the future.

G. Gentner: Then I'll just ask the question again. Can the minister guarantee that rates remain the lowest in Canada?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We're not the lowest in Canada now, so I can't guarantee that. I can tell you that we're the third. Manitoba and Quebec have lower rates than ours.

As we move forward into the future, I can guarantee you one thing — that we have instructed B.C. Hydro to maintain the rates as low as they possibly can, but remembering that there are some environmental concerns that go along with that. When you start buying electricity from more expensive generation processes, which could include wind or tidal or wave or any of those things, they will have an effect on the rates that British Columbians pay for electricity. But for the foreseeable future we will continue to be one of the

lowest rates in all of North America. Can I guarantee that forever? No. I don't think anybody can guarantee that forever.

G. Gentner: Yes, forever is a long time. Mr. Minister, the legacy of this province has been that we've had some of the lowest rates in North America. I would anticipate that they're going to stay one of the lowest rates in Canada.

G. Gentner: What type of influence, then, will Grid West have regarding the building of new transmission lines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We're actually involved in Grid West to make sure that we can work with that group of companies. There are a number of them that are involved — I think about half a dozen — in the Pacific Northwest. There are some problems with transmitting electricity through that system, which is owned by different agencies or governments, as you move electricity through to California.

It is in the best interest of British Columbians to be there to make sure that we can actually help in any way we can to alleviate those roadblocks — those blocks in that transmission process. It's not just one company — that it hits the line and goes all the way to California. You actually have to get through probably six or eight different companies depending on where you're delivering into California.

It's in our best interest to continue to work with them to make sure that works well. The reason it's in our best interest is because we do a tremendous amount of electricity trade. The member and I spoke about that.

He asked some questions earlier about the electricity trade Powerex has with the U.S. That generates, on average, about $150 million-a-year profit for the Crown corporation B.C. Hydro, which is reflected in the rates we pay. It will have no effect on whether we have to build new transmission in the province of British Columbia.

What will determine whether we have to build new transmission in British Columbia — and we obviously will have…. We've got a province that's booming and growing, and people are moving back. It's unbelievable. The unemployment rate is low. All kinds of good things are happening in British Columbia.

That growth actually demands some new facilities, some new generation, some new transmission. B.C. Transmission Corp. is tasked with actually making sure that that electricity gets around the province in the most economical way and that people can actually access the line — the same as it's for B.C. Hydro, to make sure that they actually keep the rates as low as they possibly can for all British Columbians into the future.

It's to our advantage to make sure we work with our counterparts south of the border so that we can continue to send electricity south. In years like we are in this year, when we actually are going to be a net importer of 7,000 gigawatt hours, it's in our best interest to make sure we can get that electricity north so we can keep the lights on in B.C. until we become self-sufficient again.

G. Gentner: Our critic of Energy and Mines, who's in Ottawa, will be thankful to know that the lights will stay on. Under Grid West, what tradable rights will BCTC lose and gain?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, what we're trying to do is work with Grid West for better efficiency in the whole system so that BCTC can actually transmit that power either north or south. We lose no rights at all in British Columbia. All our system will still be governed by the B.C. Utilities Commission for the benefit of British Columbians.

G. Gentner: Grid West is a non-profit corporation organized under state law. Will it be registered as a company in British Columbia?

G. Gentner: How many independent transmission companies exist in British Columbia, and how many are operating at this time?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Transmission Corp. operates all the transmission lines in British Columbia.

G. Gentner: What's the role of Sea Breeze between Victoria and across the straits?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's still a process that's not even being heard yet, but it will be before the B.C. Utilities Commission, I believe, at the end of January. We'll have to wait and see whether that even becomes a reality.

G. Gentner: So there are transmission companies out there, but there are none operating at this time. I have that correct.

What is the forecast by 2010? How many independent transmission companies do BCTC and the ministry foresee by 2010 — operational?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We don't know of any yet. There are opportunities, though, in the energy plan.

If someone wants to develop generation of electricity in British Columbia and actually has to move that electricity someplace, they would go through all the same processes that BCTC would go through, except the B.C. Utilities Commission. They would have to go through all the same processes as far as environment

goes — acquiring right-of-way — if they wish to build a private transmission line in the province.

G. Gentner: Grid West service will be governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission–filed tariff in B.C. Tariff will be filed through the BCUC. So the B.C. tariff will mirror that of the U.S.-filed tariff. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have a tariff now, and we'll continue to have that tariff, which is respectful and understands what FERC's relationship is, so that we can continue to enjoy electricity trade north-south on the system.

I'm thinking about transmission, and when I said…. I didn't want to have the member misunderstand me a little bit. BCTC operates, I believe — and we're sure — all the transmission in British Columbia now, remembering that there's Fortis, which is in the Kootenays. Also, Cominco generates electricity for itself and has some transmission line that goes south to the border. I believe that BCTC also operates that. I just want to make sure I get that on the record so that I don't misinform the member.

G. Gentner: More of a generic question, I suppose: so rates passed on to the consumer will be determined not by B.C. capacity per se, but by the American market?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. The wheeling rates that will be charged on BCTC's lines will be set by the B.C. Utilities Commission in the best interests of British Columbians.

G. Gentner: This is the first one or two service plans from Transmission Corp., and there's lots of information to be found on it. It's an exciting situation here. The B.C. Transmission Corp. was formed because of FERC, which issued Order 2000 that encouraged the formation of RTOs. Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, when we split BCTC away from B.C. Hydro, there were a number of reasons. One of the reasons was that independent power producers in the province, when they were dealing with B.C. Hydro for access to the transmission line, felt that they were dealing with a gorilla who both generated and owned the transmission. They always felt that they weren't getting a fair deal. In fact, the discussions and things pertaining to that are on record for many years.

What we wanted to do with the energy plan was open up the province, so that if someone wants to go out and build a project — and I encourage any independent power producer that wants to do that, to build a project — and actually deal with BCTC to deliver electricity to wherever, it doesn't necessarily always have to be to B.C. Hydro. It could be to a company in British Columbia that wants to buy direct from an IPP but has to go through a transmission system, and so there was some fairness in that. They could even export it, for that matter, or bid into calls that B.C. Hydro will make — like the one they're going to make here shortly. That was one reason.

The other reason was that there was quite a problem in the Pacific Northwest and, I'm sure the member is quite well aware, in California, where electricity prices got up to as high as $1,000 a megawatt hour. Today they run at about $60 a megawatt hour. People in California were paying those kinds of rates because generators and transmitters owned both systems, and they were able to actually withhold electricity but still have electricity running in their lines in a circular motion. They actually drove the price up.

You will maybe recall that Hydro was instructed by the government of the day to actually sell into that market as much electricity as they possibly could. They fired up every plant that could possibly be fired up in British Columbia and sold that electricity to the U.S. We did get paid for quite a bit of it, but we're still owed about $300 million U.S. for that electricity. Hydro continues to actually try to get that electricity.

FERC came out with an interim ruling that said they want to look at moving forward to actually separate generation from transmission so those kinds of things can't happen to people again. That was the number-two reason why we moved that way.

G. Gentner: Could an agreement exist with Grid West if we didn't have BCTC and we were still under the one old monopoly called B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Anything is possible, but you'd have to amalgamate them and try again, and you may not be successful. I think the benefits to the province to actually have them separated, to continue to be able to do that north-south trade to work with those transmission companies south of the border, to actually alleviate some of the roadblocks that are in place now and continue — let me remind the member — to import electricity to British Columbia so that we can keep our lights on….

Fully 12 percent of the electricity that we're consuming this year will come from south of the border, from the U.S. of A., so I think it's incumbent on B.C. Hydro and BCTC to make sure that that process is available and that it works to the best interest of British Columbians. That's what they are actually mandated to do, and that's what they are doing. Also, electricity trade affords B.C. Hydro — at least on average, I think — about $150 million a year, which goes strictly to keeping rates lower for British Columbians.

G. Gentner: If I have it right, my understanding is that Order 2000 by FERC, the American energy regulatory commission, pretty much insists that you have to have a separation from the transmission and, of course, the power producer. Grid West will have some planning authority over the B.C. Transmission Corp. according to the agreement?

G. Gentner: Moving power across multiple systems, there is somewhat of an administration burden. A party — let's say California — that wants to move power through multiple systems must make transmission reservations with whom — B.C. Transmission Corp.? Grid West? Or, let's say, Portland General Electric?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's exactly what Grid West is trying to do, so there is one entity that they would have to make a reservation through to get power from either California north or from the border south. That's the intent of trying to actually get more efficiency on those transmission lines.

G. Gentner: Okay, so BCTC really doesn't play much of a role in that decision. It's done continentally, if I have that correct.

Under Grid West, if transactions increase and, therefore, more demand for capacity and/or transmission lines, who pays for improvements — the users of Grid West or the B.C. taxpayer?

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you're talking south of the border, I guess it's whoever pays for it south of the border. If you're talking north of the border for our use in British Columbia or for moving electricity, it would be the ratepayers in British Columbia.

G. Gentner: Therefore, what I gather from the minister's statement is that B.C. Transmission Corp. is there to market and transmit power to the United States.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's part of its job. Actually, the marketing of electricity is done by Powerex on behalf of B.C. Hydro. That's the marketing part of it. Or B.C. Hydro markets it to its thousands of customers across the province, and BCTC is responsible to make sure that they can actually get that electricity around the province in the most efficient way to serve British Columbians.

G. Gentner: New investment will be needed. Will it come from the private sector?

Hon. R. Neufeld: New investment will be needed, as we spoke of earlier. Yeah, we have a buoyant economy happening in the province. The population is growing. So in conjunction with transmission…. Obviously, we spoke earlier about building new generation to meet the needs as we move forward. It will have to be done in the province. At the present time those transmission lines — any ones that may be planned — are actually being built by British Columbia Transmission Corp.

G. Gentner: Taking that rationale further, how many new independent transmission companies are we anticipating in the next ten years?

G. Gentner: I hope the record will see that the minister's answer was that he didn't know.

We're looking at a major transformation of the distribution of electrical power, and the minister has admitted earlier that Sea Breeze, a private company, is involved in transmitting electricity. It's an application coming forward. I won't go there. I'll move on, hon. Chair.

Building generation on a line that is already strained to serve existing resources can sort of be like congestion. It's like a traffic jam. With IPPs that are coming forward, what criteria does the ministry have relative to location of generation impacts, to maintenance and to the building of transmission lines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let me make it clear. When I said zero, I know today of no private transmission company actually building a transmission line in British Columbia. Can I look out ten years into the crystal ball? I leave that up to you, member. If you want to look out in the crystal ball ten years and think about if there might be two, three, five, ten or 12, help yourself.

What I'm saying is that as we speak today, there is planned transmission. There's a difference between transmission and distribution, I should maybe caution the member. Transmission upgrades right now are happening through British Columbia Transmission Corp. and, as I understand, will continue to be that way. I don't know. I can't look in the crystal ball and say somebody's going to build a plant someplace in the province and will want to build a transmission line five years from now. That would be purely speculative. If the opposition wishes to be speculative about that, that's fine. I'm not going to be one bit speculative about that process.

G. Gentner: Could the minister comment that the B.C. Transmission Corp. has been in discussion with Duke Energy relative to purchasing the corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Transmission Corp. is not for sale, contrary to some mythical things that some people try to put out there. B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corp. — neither one of them is for sale. B.C. Transmission Corp. is wholly owned by the Minister of Finance. There are no plans to even talk about selling B.C. Transmission Corp.

G. Gentner: Has the corporation entered into a possible agreement to lease it to any other company and/or possibly Duke Energy?

G. Gentner: Regarding that it's not for sale, those words were said about B.C. Rail. They were once rela-

tive to Terasen. That, too, wasn't going to be for sale. The record of the government certainly is such that I believe that it's on the auction block.

Each load pays a single access fee for use of Grid West. What fee will BCTC or the province pay?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, let me put on the record that, as I recall, the only government that said they were going to put B.C. Hydro up for sale when B.C. Hydro and BCTC were one was the NDP. There are records of that, where discussions were had in regards to selling, in fact, all of the Crown corporations. It just happened to be that B.C. Hydro was one of them.

No, BCTC is not on the auction block. I don't know where the discussion comes between Duke Energy. Duke Energy is a transmitter of natural gas and oil and of liquids in North America.

As far as the sale of Terasen goes, I don't know what the member doesn't understand. Terasen was a privately held company traded on the stock exchange. Shareholders voted 96 percent to actually sell it. It has nothing to do with government. Government owns no share in Terasen. Terasen has ability, if they wish, and they have, and they have completed the process, as I understand. It may not be totally completed, but it's almost completed that they sold to a company called Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan will fall under the same rules and regulations that Terasen did in British Columbia to provide natural gas services to lots of customers across the province and to the movement of oil.

A. Dix: I just want to be clear to the minister when he said the government had nothing to do with the sale of Terasen. Did the government last year not change the law to allow for the sale? Had they not changed the law, would the sale to Kinder Morgan, as it went through, have been allowed — yes or no?

Let's go back in history a bit. When the NDP was in government, they actually changed the amount of shares in Terasen that could be owned by foreign folks. They actually did that, I believe, in 1995. That was the first change that was made for a long time because you could only own 20 percent of the shares; 4 percent of those could be owned by foreigners. It was changed by the NDP at that time.

Terasen was the only privately held company traded on the stock exchange in British Columbia that was subject to those terms and conditions. For that company to want to grow in the best interests of their shareholders, they make the decision, not the province of British Columbia. They decided that they would sell it. That's a decision made by shareholders. Many of the shareholders are pension funds held by lots of people across the country, across North America, and were quite happy to make a good return — in fact, want to continue to make a larger return in the future. I anticipate that's why they did it. I don't know. I'm not a shareholder, but I anticipate that's why they did it — so they can actually have security in their pension funds.

A. Dix: The minister, of course, is not taking enough credit for what they did. They changed the law. They eliminated the provision. They allowed for the sale. There was a party in British Columbia at one time that protected B.C.'s interests in these matters, even when they privatized. There was a special trust created between the people of British Columbia and what was then B.C. Gas and became Terasen that it would stay largely controlled in British Columbia.

This government made the decision, as I say to the minister, to change that fundamentally last year — a question he didn't answer. But they did change the law to allow for the sale. So the question of the minister…. I know they gave it lots of thought and he supports that, and that's fine. It's a legitimate public policy argument to have. We think that the company has important strategic interests to British Columbia. We believe it's played a remarkable role in all kinds of ways in the community in British Columbia. He thinks it's just another company. That's a difference of opinion between the minister and us. But for the minister to say that his government played no role in the sale of Terasen when it played the fundamental role in the sale of Terasen, I think is, let's say, inaccurate.

The Chair: Can I remind both the minister and the members that we are on estimates, not legislation.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I take that caution, and I hope you'll beg me a little bit of time, because I think the statement by the member cannot go unanswered.

Yes, the legislation was changed, but what also went into place is that it had to be actually approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission — the one that the member wanted us to intervene in, the one that the member, who was an adviser to a previous Premier, constantly advised to interfere in BCUC hearings, regardless of what they were for.

So all I can say is that at the time, for the ten years they were government, if they thought it was so important, why did they start making the change themselves to change the percentage that could be owned by foreign companies? I don't know. Or if, in fact, they thought it was so important that it remained in British Columbia hands, why didn't they just nationalize it? They're famous for that.

G. Gentner: I'll draw attention to questions relative to the more mundane water flows, if you will, at this time.

Grid West will determine capacity on its flow paths and allow scheduling only up to available capacity. My

Hon. R. Neufeld: If there's insufficient capacity, I guess they can't take the reservation.

G. Gentner: B.C. Hydro stores water in order to deliver power during peak demands. What will demands from outside of B.C. have on B.C. Hydro's storage of water to produce electricity when the needs of British Columbians are in demand?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As it's stated in the B.C. Hydro act, British Columbia comes first. British Columbia citizens and industry come first.

G. Gentner: Grid West will have ultimate planning authority with regards to the facilities it controls, according to the agreement. Will Grid West have rights to assure the transmission capacity that exists within its system, and is it its mandate to ensure that there will be sufficient transmissions to serve all the load that depends on Grid West facilities?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm going to speak only for the portion that I'm responsible for with BCTC, and that's in British Columbia. BCTC, under the auspices of the B.C. Utilities Commission, will be in full control of the transmission system in the province for the benefit of British Columbians.

What takes place in agreements south of the border are issues that you and I have talked about quite extensively here, to try and break up some of the gridlock that happens south of the border — which will be of benefit to British Columbia, to actually continue to do electricity trade or just to keep our lights on until we can become energy efficient in the province.

It's important for us to be there as part of that process, to make sure those discussions are happening to the best of British Columbia's interests as we move forward. But I want to stress that the B.C. Utilities Commission and BCTC will be responsible for all transmission in the province, not Grid West.

G. Gentner: Well, there's something called the Grid West transmission service liaise group, and it has put a time limit as to when all signatories will finalize the Grid West agreement. Can the minister tell us when?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think this process started in the early '90s; they're hoping by 2007. I guess it's a long process that's ongoing and, obviously, is representative of the fact that there are many players in this process. There is lots of discussion about how it could work and how it may not work.

So the target is 2007. Will they accomplish 2007? When I think they started in the mid-'90s and hoped they would have something done in a few years, I'm not exactly sure.

G. Gentner: To the minister: well, has BCTC or the ministry signed off on decision point number two?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. That decision has been delayed until January because Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, pulled out of the process — for whatever reason, I'm not sure. They're hoping that sometime in January that will take place.

G. Gentner: I know time is marching on. There's so much to do, and unfortunately, we didn't get there early enough. I have to ask the question relative to Site C with the last seven minutes that we have — probably one of the most fundamental and important decisions that could be made in the next little while.

Is it not true that Partnerships B.C. has been asked to conduct a review relative to the Site C project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not aware of that. As we speak, B.C. Hydro has held some initial…. They received approval from the B.C. Utilities Commission well over a year ago to begin some discussions or some evaluating of the Site C project. There's a fair amount of work to do before you would even come to a conclusion whether you would carry forward with it or not. In fact, in the integrated electricity plan which Hydro is bringing forward, as we spoke about earlier to the member…. I'm sure Site C will be one of the options amongst many in those options that would actually move British Columbia forward to self-sufficiency.

Then there are some stages that have to go through, because there's a lot of work that has to be done around Site C before you could even decide whether it would become a reality or not.

G. Gentner: I take it from those remarks that Site C will not be a P3 project?

Hon. R. Neufeld: None of those decisions have been made. In fact, Site C is specifically mentioned in the energy plan that it would be a decision of government whether we went ahead with Site C or not, but on a recommendation informed from B.C. Hydro of the integrated electricity plan. Those decisions are a long time in the future, but I would expect that B.C. Hydro, which owns the other two dams on the Peace River system, would own the next one and would have to operate them all in unison.

G. Gentner: I take it with that that Site C could be a P3. I would like to ask the minister…. You mentioned Partnerships B.C. to us. There was no review being conducted to his inclinations. I'd like to know if there have been any discussions with Partnerships B.C. relative to the planning and development of the project called Site C.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We're not aware of any. The B.C. Progress Board made a report just recently and, in fact,

highlighted Site C again. That's a group of people that on a regular basis advise government as to benchmarks about how we're moving ahead, and they recommended that Site C should be something the government think strongly about.

G. Gentner: Can the minister offer a timetable for the decision-making process along this road relative to completion of Site C?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, until we have the integrated electricity plan in front of us and until Hydro has a chance to put all those processes together, review them and look at how we actually meet self-sustainability in the province of British Columbia over the next 20 years, I'm not sure where in that process a decision around Site C would be made.

I can tell the member that if you had approval to construct it today…. As I understand, the soonest it would probably come on stream — that's with no hiccups — would be ten years down the road. It's a pretty big project, so there is a lot of work that would have to be done prior to that even happening. There are still issues that have to deal with mitigation from the last two dams that were built on the Peace River that have never been rectified in Alberta and the Northwest Territories. That's just one example of things that would have to take place.

There would have to be full consultation, a full environmental process, both federal and provincial. It's actually pretty encompassing, if in fact you were to make that decision. That decision hasn't been made. I can't tell when you that decision will be made, but it will be made at some point in time in the future as we fit it in with becoming self-sufficient. I'm not saying it will be made in the positive. I'm saying there will be a decision made on how we move forward to try and become self-sufficient sometime here in the future.

G. Gentner: Time's pretty well gone, so I'm reduced to one question, I suppose. It's somewhat general. We know that it's cabinet who will make the decision on Site C. Therefore, my question is: what type of regulatory review is going to be now required prior to making it a go or a no-go decision?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. I was talking to someone else when the question came. But the regulatory review…. There would be a number of them. The regulatory review would be for the B.C. Utilities Commission. They would have to hear the whole process and evaluate it, whether it's positive or negative, along with environmental assessment processes, both federal and provincial. So there would be a fair amount of review process on top of that.

There's an awful lot of discussion that would have to take place. Although Hydro owns most of the land that would be flooded, there would have to be an awful lot of discussion with first nations that live in that area that would be negatively affected.

G. Gentner: To the minister: I know that extensive work has been done on this many years ago. My question is: has the ministry conducted a cost-benefit analysis of Site C over the last two years?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, the ministry hasn't. Actually, the ministry doesn't have the resources to do those kinds of things. That's actually the responsibility of the service provider — B.C. Hydro.

They are in the process of doing some of the initial parts of reviewing B.C. Hydro, remembering that they're going back to the 1980s when the last B.C. Utilities Commission hearing was on Site C. But a lot of that, obviously, will have to be updated in today's numbers in the year 2005. And before they get really in depth, whether it's actually valuable to do it or not — because we have to think about dams over 100 years at least — there will have to be a lot of work done within B.C. Hydro to evaluate all of those kind of things before any decision would be made.

G. Gentner: I made a commitment to the Clerk and yourself, hon. Chair, that we'd be out of here by a quarter to, and this will be the last question.

To the minister: B.C. Hydro has conducted an initial parts review…. My question, therefore: who gave them the green light? Obviously, this is a decision that's to be made by cabinet. Obviously, cabinet has approved them to go forward with this review — correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, what happened is that B.C. Hydro was looking at all their options as we move forward again to bring us back to self-sufficiency in British Columbia. Site C is one of them. They actually went to the B.C. Utilities commissioner and requested up to $2 million to do some initial work to start the process. They had approval to do that, and they're expending that money now.

G. Gentner: I didn't quite get the answer. I mean, has cabinet approved this initial parts review that's being conducted by B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There's no cabinet approval required for B.C. Hydro to look at all the options across British Columbia on how we actually become self-sufficient and where we get our electricity from. That's the responsibility of B.C. Hydro. It's the responsibility of the B.C. Hydro Act. They're acting on that.

What we have reserved in the energy plan was the fact that government has to make the final decision whether it actually goes ahead or not. But there's a lot of work to be done first by the Crown corporation to review it and see whether it makes good sense in the best interests of the ratepayers across the province to actually move forward with Site C.

G. Gentner: I have no further questions. Just to wrap up comments, it's an ongoing discussion. I'm sure we'll be spending some time with it.

The minister and staff — I appreciate their presence here today and all the wonderful work they do. I would only suggest to the minister…. Obviously, he is responsible for Hydro, and it's clear that he's responsible for the initial parts review being conducted by Hydro.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.