2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 22, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 2

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker's Statement

BIRTH OF CHILD TO
DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CAMBRIDGE

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

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

Tributes

DOUG SIGURDSON

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

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

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

Introductions by Members

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

B. Ralston: I also wanted to join with my colleague from Surrey-Newton in welcoming, on behalf of the official opposition and joining with the Minister of
[ Page 812 ]
Advanced Education, Brig.-Gen. Kuldip Singh Brar, formerly of the Indian Army Infantry; Col. Darshan Singh Sidhu, formerly of the Indian Army Artillery; and Capt. Mohinder Singh Jaswal, formerly of the Indian Army Engineers. Would the House please make them welcome.

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1345]

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

Would the House please make these great guests welcome.

M. Farnworth: In my riding there are many fine schools. One of those schools, B.C. Christian Academy, is visiting here today. There are 21 grade 5 students, accompanied by nine adults. Would the House please make their visit to these buildings a most welcome one.
[ Page 813 ]

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

Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

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

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MICHAEL LAMBERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL SHOPPING
AND SHOP LOCAL VICTORIA

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

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

FILM INDUSTRY ACTIVITIES
IN RICHMOND-STEVESTON AREA

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

What do Godzilla, Charlie St. Cloud, Mission Impossible 4, Diary of a Wimpy Kid 3 and Once Upon a Time have in common? They're all major film and television productions that have been shot in my riding in the village of Steveston. In Godzilla the village was transformed into San Francisco. In Once Upon a Time it becomes the quaint Storybrooke, Maine, and Steveston
[ Page 814 ]
Outdoor Pool became the site of a pool party in Diary of a Wimpy Kid 3.

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

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

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

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

COOMBS FAIR

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

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

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

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

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

[1355]

PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION
SUMMIT IN ALASKA

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to a year of accomplishments on the many action items till next summer, when PNWER will be in Whistler, right here in British Columbia.
[ Page 815 ]

KISPIOX VALLEY MUSIC FESTIVAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

REPORT ON BURNS LAKE MILL EXPLOSION
AND SAFETY AT B.C. MILLS

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

[1400]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, it's important that those words be read into this record, because the Safety Authority was very clear that any of the recommendations regarding the safety of
[ Page 816 ]
employees in those mills has been issued to the sector. All of those safety instructions were issued. There were directives, there were bulletins, and there were requirements of the sector. In fact, all of that information was released.

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

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

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

[1405]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1410]

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

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We have provided two examples from the report that were in the full report but have never been made public. If you go to the e-mail that was released, from January 14, it says, "Last Friday afternoon a teleconference was held with BCSA executive members, Peter Cook" and the current Deputy Premier, the current minister responsible for this file and Mr. Bell. As a result
[ Page 817 ]
of that meeting, instead of releasing the full report, we had a highly redacted report with only some of the details that are needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1415]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIRE SERVICES MANAGEMENT AND
FIRE SAFETY IN RURAL B.C.

K. Corrigan: We actually have a report that goes back four years from the Fire Services Liaison Group, which says that the province needs to take more responsibility — four years ago — for inspection and coordination when it comes to rural B.C.
[ Page 818 ]

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

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

[1420]

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

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUNDING FOR
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

[1425]

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The West Coast Mental Health Network is a peer-run organization that provides resource and support for people as they receive treatment for their mental illness. This unique organization offers one-to-one peer support and provides creative solutions to the
[ Page 819 ]
day-to-day challenges of living with mental illness. This is an example of "supported self-help programs that offer cost-effective forms of health" called for in the ten-year mental health plan. The cost of running the program is a mere $100 per person, per year, and the organization is staffed primarily by volunteers.

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

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

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

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

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

The Access Community through English program, known as ACE, which provides ESL programming to immigrants and refugees with serious mental health needs, is being eliminated. Vancouver Coastal Health's own review of ACE states: "Mental health consumers cope with considerable prejudice in our society and experience multiple barriers to accessing health care and other services. When they do not have English language skills, it becomes even more difficult for them to communicate their health care needs and to find ways to feel connected to the community around them."

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

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

[1430]

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

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

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

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Order. The members will come to order.

Petitions

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Section B of this chamber, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, ultimately, that to be followed by the Ministry of Justice; in Section A, Douglas Fir Room, Committee of Supply — Ministry of Natural Gas Development and Housing; and in the Birch Room,
[ Page 820 ]
Section C, Committee of Supply — the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1435-1440]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

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

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

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

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

[1445]

I'm sure the critic has had conversations directly with Kathy. So we'll start on the treaty. Again, I think the opposition critic and her colleagues in the West Kootenay, as well as myself and the MLA from Columbia River–Revelstoke, all have a keen interest in the treaty. I would say most of our major valleys in the Columbia Basin, which is primarily the Kootenay region of British Columbia, have been flooded up as a result of the Columbia River treaty. There has been considerable disruption and dislocation over the past 50 years in our region and, as well, considerable benefits to our region, some of which we're going to discuss today in terms of Columbia Power Corporation and Columbia Basin Trust.

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

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

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

It was quite emotional for people, so I think it's really important that, this go-round, people's needs are addressed and concerns have been heard. I think it's important to acknowledge the amount of consultation — not only the face-to-face consultation throughout the region but the social media, using Facebook and Twitter, and also the sounding board meetings, which have been very successful and that have had feedback from people that attended those meetings. They're very happy with that unique concept. I think that it's a great idea.

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

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

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

[1450]

I would also say that the Columbia River treaty has over the past, I would say, three years, achieved a much
[ Page 821 ]
higher profile in our government than it had before that. You know, when something is working well…. And from a flood control and power production point of view and from the point of view of British Columbia receiving considerable benefits overall from the treaty, it has actually been working very well — notwithstanding the member's accurate comments about people who were displaced and the lack of consultation back before the treaty was first signed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After we have had that discussion on those three reports, at some point — and I can't say when — I would take some recommendations from the ministry to cabinet.
[ Page 822 ]

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

K. Conroy: It's my understanding that the Columbia Basin Trust is putting together a summary of the consultation and the outreach that's happening in the States, and I'm going to ask the folks at Columbia Basin Trust when they come in.

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

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

It was in the 1990s that the government of the day, a New Democrat government, entered into negotiations and renewed the treaty for 30 years, created the Columbia Basin Trust, established the Columbia Power Corporation, returned significant benefits to the region, returned significant benefits to the Crown and all British Columbians. I know that the minister will want to share
[ Page 823 ]
his thoughts on that as this debate unfolds.

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

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

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

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

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

In the East Kootenay the consequences on Koocanusa are obvious. Water use in the Kootenays, east and west, is a big issue. Anywhere you go, at barbecue season or at the hockey rink, people want to talk about water levels. The recreational opportunities that were promised in the '60s were largely not realized. It's a bathtub. It's a reservoir.
[ Page 824 ]
It's not a lake. The CBT, or the Columbia Basin Trust, in negotiating with the province, wanted to negotiate water and water use.

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, one player has changed here at
[ Page 825 ]
the desk. The critic knows Neil Muth, who is the CEO of Columbia Basin Trust, I'm sure as well as I do.

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

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

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

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

[1530]

The Columbia Basin Trust is to roll off of what's happening with the Columbia River treaty. I understand that they're also working to put together a summary of the outreach that was done in the United States around the Columbia River treaty. I wondered if that summary was finished. I understand it's almost finished or coming out soon, and we just wondered what the status of that summary was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same would be true of…. I suppose that every now and again their communications division might note something having to do with the treaty, something that's
[ Page 826 ]
said or something that happens in the U.S. or Canada, but it's fairly minor activity at this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

K. Conroy: More on conspiracy theories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

K. Conroy: I think the people would be very happy to know that. Now it's on the record, and I think that they will be looking forward to moving forward to those discussions with the chair of the trust as well as myself, to help out.
[ Page 827 ]

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

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

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

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

[D. Horne in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

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

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

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

K. Conroy: For information purposes it's $27,500 in the budget, and it just says "Other" — an expense of "Other." It's not a bonus. It's not salary. It's part of the total $321,000 compensation, and it's classified as "Other."
[ Page 828 ]

Interjection.

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

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

[1600]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1610]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1615]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1620]

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

Hon. B. Bennett: On the question with regard to the T'Sou-ke First Nation and the status of their project, the member will tell me if we're off base with this, but my advice is that that project is nearly complete. We can get
[ Page 830 ]
more details for the member, if he wants them, on that project.

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

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

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

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

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

[1625]

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

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

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

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

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

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

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

[1630]

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

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

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

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

In terms of the $150 that the province is investing in energy audits, we have no plans to discontinue that. We
[ Page 831 ]
plan to continue that in the foreseeable future. I think that's important, because that's really the basis for what happens after someone determines their electricity usage. They can then decide what changes they want to make to conserve.

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

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

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

[1635]

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

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

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

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

I'd like to move Vote 19.

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

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

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

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

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

[1640]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our new Family Law Act opens the door to innovation around resolving family disputes and supports out-of-court processes with its focus on mediation and
[ Page 832 ]
parenting coordination. This fall we're launching the first phase of a Victoria justice access centre, a one-stop shop for citizens seeking family and civil law information and services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1645]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly, in terms of liquor, we are considering changes to liquor policy. I think it's fairly wide open as to what comes
[ Page 833 ]
forward but, in terms of delivery of liquor, the possible creation of a Crown agency, again, creating efficiencies in the system and allowing for more productivity in the system.

[1650]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm thinking, particularly, of people who are working in low-level jobs in our society, most often women, for whom taking a day off work is an enormous burden in addition to what they already face in terms of financial challenges. Couple that with the significant cuts this government undertook to legal aid over a decade ago, so that these people are appearing in court on their own. The prospect of taking even a day away from employment to attend court proceedings becomes a significant barrier to justice.

[1655]

Again, I'm wondering if the Attorney General has any comment on that. And are there any plans or any money set aside in this year's budget to allow for the studying of that issue — to determine whether or not, in fact, the public could be better served by having courts operate in the way the rest of the world does?

Hon. S. Anton: Let me mention three initiatives in our ministry which I think will be interesting to the member.

First of all is the on-line civil resolution tribunal, which is underway in terms of development right at the moment. This will help people with minor strata disputes who don't have anywhere to take their dispute at the moment. It will also help people with small claims disputes. The goal of this tribunal is to be available 24-7. It's an on-line tribunal. You can do it in the evening, in the morning, Saturday, Sunday — whenever you wish to. So I think, in terms of the flexibility that the hon. member was seeking, this will satisfy that need for flexibility.

Secondly are the family mediators. The new Family Law Act takes family disputes out of courtrooms and puts parties in front of mediators. The parties and the mediators can schedule those hearings at their convenience. They do not have to be nine to five. They might be any time that they are scheduled.

Thirdly, there is — and also in my mandate letter — the goal of taking traffic tickets out of courtrooms. The front end of that will look similar to the on-line civil resolution
[ Page 834 ]
tribunal. It will be a front end that can be utilized, can be followed and can be taken at any time of day or night.

Certainly, for all of those kinds of matters — the civil resolution tribunal, the traffic tickets and the family mediators…. Those are no longer going to be nine-to-five propositions. They are going to be propositions far more flexible than that.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering: in terms of the family mediators in particular — which will provide access to justice, hopefully, as the Attorney General indicates, outside of "regular office hours" — what sort of funding are we looking at for that program? Or will it be by way of direction, order-in-council? In other words, what's the approach the government is going to take?

Further, in those cases, again, where mediation fails and people are looking to Provincial Court, family division, for resolution of their issues, has the Attorney General, again, considered having courts operate outside of the regular hours?

[1700]

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of the funding question, we are funding the initiatives that I mentioned earlier all within our existing budgets. The second question by the hon. member, in terms of courts and where there may be flexibility in terms of scheduling of courts — that, of course, can only follow cooperation with the chief judge and discussions with the chief judge, because the courts and the administration of courts are independent.

However, I would like to observe that there has been an extremely cooperative relationship between the chief judge and our ministry in terms of the memorandum of understanding — which has been signed — the justice summit and a cordial relationship with the chief judge, which certainly allows for the possibility of having these kinds of discussions. I think it's safe to say the chief judge is always interested in efficiencies and how we may run our courts better, as are we.

L. Krog: Obviously, the Attorney General won't be surprised by the next question, which is: certainly, the agreement may allow for those discussions, but have any such discussions taken place, and what's the status of them?

Hon. S. Anton: The chief judge has been, as I say, extremely amenable to discussion of efficiencies with my ministry. For example, the chief judge has agreed to change his administrative boundaries for courts to match our administrative boundaries for court services. That's extremely helpful to us, and it helps us lead to efficiencies in our ministry and efficiencies in the judiciary and the courts.

When we achieve efficiencies, that gives us the opportunity to look at other options in two ways. One is that if the system is more efficient, then you obviously have more flexibility. The other is the importance of the development of a good working relationship between the ministry and the chief judge, which allows those helpful discussions to continue.

L. Krog: I'm curious to know why the administrative boundaries that the ministry had in place…. Why were they different in the first place, if you will, from the administrative boundaries of the judiciary?

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the judicial regions have gone down from 12 to five. As to why we were at 12, I am not going to try and answer that except to say it was historical. To reduce to it five to match our court services boundaries does help us, and I hope it will help the judiciary as well.

I would like to add one more thing. The chief judge has appointed some justices of the peace who are lawyers and who are hearing small claims matters in the evening — certainly in Vancouver. I can take the question on notice as to where else that might be in effect.

I think that in answer to the member's question as to more flexibility in terms of hours, it is a very interesting and helpful initiative.

L. Krog: I would be interested to hear what other further comments the Attorney General could make with respect to this new initiative involving JPs and small claims matters. Is it the same jurisdiction as Provincial Court in terms of monetary amounts, $25,000? Is there any reason why it hasn't been tried in family matters as well? Those are the ones I'm thinking of particularly, where you often have parties of an equal bargaining power.

Hon. S. Anton: Going back to the question about the small claims tribunals run by lawyers, that is a project at Robson Square only. They're private practice senior lawyers, 14 of them, who run small claims hearings one night a week. It is being evaluated and being discussed with the chief judge as to whether or not it should be replicated elsewhere.

Our main focus in the ministry, though, is focusing, as I said, on the civil resolution tribunal and on getting some of these small claims matters, for example, out of court altogether.

On the family court, the question of the hon. member, we are starting a new family court rules revision to take full advantage of the family law reforms. This could yield changed court processes, including different hours. We don't know that yet. It's premature to say yes or no that that will happen, but it will certainly be something under consideration.

[1710]

L. Krog: The Attorney General mentioned that all of these initiatives are being covered within the existing
[ Page 835 ]
budget. I'm just wondering: if they are being covered within the existing budget and there are obviously programs being changed, does she have any idea what the costs of this are in terms of the budget? Also, what timeline, if any, is established around those discussions with respect to the changes to the rules?

Hon. S. Anton: The question regarding the timeline of the changes to the rules as a result of the new Family Law Act — that will take some time. It will take 18 to 24 months. There is obviously going to be significant consultation and thinking that has to go into it. But the consultation, I think, is extremely important — to consult with the courts and with the bar.

On the question about costs, on the Robson Square small claims tribunals which are run by lawyers, that is covered by the court's budget.

On the cost of the civil resolution tribunal, this is all fairly new. This year there is a $320,000 capital expenditure to develop the business case. That money is received by my ministry through Shared Services and actually comes from the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services.

L. Krog: I'm sure the Attorney General will forgive my sarcasm if I say that in a budget of tens of billions of dollars, $320,000 doesn't seem like very much. That would indicate to me that we're not going to have a positive change in that area in the very near future.

I do note and appreciate that the 18 to 24 months that she talks about perhaps is not unreasonable. But if we're moving forward, I guess my sense, from the Attorney General's answer, is that nothing is going to happen very quickly. The $320,000 is a pretty minimal amount. What we're really talking about when the Attorney General is directed, by way of priorities in the letter from the Premier, "to ensure that government does not grow," in fact is that this is more about promises of the future than it is about real change now.

Perhaps I can focus on something fairly practical. The Attorney General indicated that there would be consultation with the bar and the judiciary — all the usual players.

[1715]

I'm just wondering: will there in fact be consultation with the public in the general sense and/or persons who've already been through the system, particularly those who have been unrepresented in family law cases in Provincial Court, so that they could provide the kind of insight that one only gets if you've actually walked a mile in someone's shoes, so to speak, as opposed to how lawyers and judges have viewed any changes?

I'm wondering: is that a concerted part or effort being taken on behalf of the ministry to ensure that the public is consulted? Those people — who, actually, in incredible numbers — are using the courts day in, day out in greater numbers than has ever historically been the case and with less and less assistance, arguably.

It seems to me that if you're going to try and unclog the courts, those people are the people you need to talk to. In other words, how did they perceive the system? What did they understand? How do they see the rules functioning?

I think it was Jefferson who said to trust the people. I'm suggesting that the Attorney General consider trusting the people. Will, in fact, the people be consulted in this case?

Hon. S. Anton: On the question of the civil resolution tribunal, the amount over this year and next is $1.57 million. That's the transformation fund for the civil resolution tribunal.

We are hoping to have a form of the tribunal underway by late next year. I don't promise that it will be completely doing everything we want it to be doing by late next year, but we will have it underway. It is a very interesting and innovative project.

In terms of the consultation on both the civil resolution tribunal and the Family Law Act rules…. On the civil resolution tribunal, we are doing user-acceptance as the project moves along. It is designed for unrepresented people. It is designed not to have lawyers using it but to have the parties themselves using it. So there will be extensive user-acceptance.

[1720]

On the family rules, again, we're extremely consultative on the Family Law Act itself. We will be, again, seeking to engage unrepresented people in. I might observe that we have very significant access at the moment to parties in family disputes through the justice access centres and through the Family Justice Centres, which have ordinary citizens coming in every single day with their family issues. It's very easy to reach people on these matters, and we will be reaching them.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General could be specific in terms of reaching them. Are there going to be surveys attached, handed out? Are you going to contact people who have already been through the system? I appreciate there may be some privacy issues around that.

In other words, will there be a concerted effort to actually reach out and get people to comment, particularly those who've been through what are often fairly difficult files? I'm thinking particularly of situations which are the most oppressive, where you have the other party represented by counsel in a family matter and you have an unrepresented party. It's the unrepresented people I have particular concerns about. I'm just wondering: will there be a concerted effort, and if so, how will that be implemented?

Hon. S. Anton: I can assure the hon. member that there is a very significant interest, in both the civil resolution tribunal and the new family court rules, in ensuring
[ Page 836 ]
that these work for unrepresented parties. If they don't work for you when you're not represented, then they're not working. Our goal is to make sure we have a system that works.

On the civil resolution tribunal, we actually will have a self-represented litigants group. The act actually requires that we have an ongoing survey of users. In other words, it will be updated constantly as to how people understand it or are working with it.

We're going to take those lessons learned into the family court rules revision, because again, the whole point of the family mediation, the Family Law Act and the new family rules is that it does work for unrepresented parties.

So we will be drawing, in a number of ways, the opinions, the views, the experience of unrepresented parties to help us in the development of the rules.

L. Krog: Going back to the letter of direction from the Premier: "To that end, our first priorities across government are" — and included in that list — "to ensure that government does not grow." Then in the following paragraph it goes on to say: "In the course of our decision-making, we must always maintain respect for taxpayers and remember that our fellow British Columbians are looking to us to help make life more affordable for them and their families."

This is where I have some difficulty, with ensuring that government doesn't grow but at the same time respecting taxpayers.

[1725]

It's obvious that if you're trying to make life more affordable for the British Columbians who have to resolve their issues in court, in fact, given that the possibility of paying for legal advice and assistance is definitely most not affordable for them.... The government has chosen, in its wisdom, to cut back on legal aid expenditure to the point where it is extremely difficult or unlikely that you'll receive any legal aid in the traditional sense.

I'm just wondering: how does the Attorney General square the concept that government is not to grow, that you respect taxpayers, but you certainly don't respect those taxpayers who can't afford to hire a lawyer? I'm interested to hear the Attorney General's comments with respect to squaring those, I think, conflicting propositions.

Hon. S. Anton: As I have been discussing, much of the focus in the ministry is to help people not have to go to court. There is no question that going to court is expensive in numerous ways. It's expensive to you personally, it's expensive to you emotionally, and it's expensive to you financially. One of the important initiatives in the ministry is the justice access centres, of which we have two and are soon to have a third.

For example, the Nanaimo justice access centre, which I'm sure the hon. member is familiar with, has 11 ministry employees and a budget of over $900,000. The Vancouver justice access centre opened in July 2010 and has 17.5 full-time employees and a budget of $1.2 million. Both of these justice access centres help take matters out of court. They find creative ways of solving disputes. They help unrepresented parties to disputes. They help people solve their justice problems.

There's a new justice access centre to open in Victoria which will be a partnership of the Legal Services Society, Access Pro Bono, Mediate B.C. and Credit Counselling Society. And even though they're not on the list, I do believe that the University of Victoria is involved as well. The law students will be involved, and there is outreach to community.

These are highly innovative centres, the justice access centres. I think they do exactly what the hon. member was hoping for, which is reduce costs, increase access to justice and increase timeliness of justice.

L. Krog: In many respects, I don't disagree with what the Attorney General has had to say, particularly if you have parties involved, neither of whom is represented by counsel nor in a position to afford counsel. But where the problem most particularly arises is around inequality, which was what legal aid was supposed to, historically, address.

Even if you're involved with a justice access centre and one of the parties is in a financial position to secure the advice of counsel and make that threat outside of the justice access centre to their spouse on the doorstep, "Well, I'm going to get my lawyer, and we're going to court…." I think the Attorney General well appreciates that to suggest somehow that the justice access centre can solve that problem is just, frankly, not accurate.

[1730]

Without a fully functioning legal aid system to back that up — to give some equal bargaining power, if you will, to both parties — it's not going to be successful.

I'm wondering. In conjunction with all of the suggestions that have been made by the Attorney General today around opening a new justice access centre, things of that nature, what specifically is the ministry going to do to resolve the situation I've just described, where you do have someone who is clearly in an unequal position? What are you going to do to help them specifically?

Hon. S. Anton: I do repeat that the overriding goal is to keep cases out of courts and to resolve cases with mediation. As a rough number, about 1/6 of the legal aid budget is spent on family matters. But as I've mentioned, in the Family Law Act the goal is to keep things out of court.

I would like to observe as well that legal aid is a continuum of services, and it involves more than just services provided by the Legal Services Society. For example, we spend in this ministry about $30 million a year on
[ Page 837 ]
access-to-justice services such as family mediation at Family Justice Centres throughout the province, justice access centres and the family maintenance enforcement program. There is a budget for legal aid, and there are budgets for other significant services which help people with their legal disputes.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's response and that there are these other services available, but it doesn't deal directly with the issue that I've raised. That is one of inequality, where one party has access, because of income, to secure the services of counsel, and the other party doesn't.

[1735]

You have a legal aid system that has very limited resources to provide for counsel, mainly to vulnerable women in our society, has very little ability to provide it over any extended period of time beyond a limited number of hours. That's the situation, particularly, that I am concerned about.

I appreciate all of these other things in a world where parties volunteer and agree to work through the system together, if you will. They're all good things. But in those cases, and they are not small in number, where you don't have access to a lawyer to assist you when you're in a battle, what specifically is contained in this budget that will assist those people?

Hon. S. Anton: There is no question that our budgets are limited. We don't have blank cheques in government, and it is my mandate and my goal to balance my budget in my ministry. That is why there is such an emphasis on finding solutions that don't involve expensive lawyers and courts and things that drain resources.

That is why we do have the $30 million which was committed to the family mediation at Family Justice Centres, the justice access centres, the family maintenance enforcement program. The legal advice offered by those entities has its goal of taking these disputes out of court. They don't always succeed, as the hon. member is observing, so legal services in this year will be spending about $11½ million on counsel for persons who need lawyers in family court matters.

L. Krog: I've told this story before in this chamber, about a representation made by a group of cyclists, the cycling coalition, to the Finance Committee some years ago. They were asking for $14 million to put bike lanes all over Vancouver, an issue I'm sure the Attorney General is familiar with, and concluded their presentation by saying: "After all, what's $14 million? It's only a rounding error in the Ministry of Health's budget."

My point is this: $11 million spread across the province of British Columbia provides precious little by way of legal assistance to those people who need it most — again, most particularly women and the poor, who find themselves in situations where counsel is necessary because the other side knows that they are in a weakened position. Just as in any good business arrangement or any successful combat, you know what your opponents' weaknesses are, if you're smart, and you take advantage of it.

[1740]

There's nothing more threatening than the prospect of being dragged into court when you're unrepresented and the other side has access to counsel. That is the fundamental issue that legal aid, the way it's understood by most of us, is supposed to address.

I don't suspect I'm going to get a different answer. I appreciate that the minister's job is to defend government policy and mine is to oppose it, but I want to remind her of her obligations when she talks about working within the budget, etc., and the limited number of tax dollars. There's always a limited number of tax dollars. The issue is how much you're prepared to raise from a society where I see that the new Mercedes-Benz dealership in my community has expanded, and at the same time, we're being told that there aren't sufficient funds to even restore legal aid funding to what it was a dozen years ago.

Having said that, I'm very curious to know, when we look at the list of priorities, that the fourth priority — a general priority across government — is to "eliminate red tape so that we can get to yes on economic development without needless delay." I'm just wondering: is there any relationship to the Attorney General's ministry with respect to that priority, and if so, how does she intend to address it?

Hon. S. Anton: The most obvious — if I might put it that way — the most clear way in which we will be eliminating red tape is by having a look at the whole of the liquor regulatory process and regime to see whether they can be simplified and modernized. That process will be starting in the fall. And may I emphasize that there will be a very significant public consultation around that and also a consultation with industry and other stakeholders. I expect that there will be a lot of interest in it. I must say, as I have mentioned once or twice, I think I hear more opinions about liquor than I hear about most things.

In the ministry, as well, we regularly review our regulations and our statutes to make sure that they're operating efficiently. I might add, as I've mentioned a couple of times, my mandate is to balance my budget. Anything that we're doing which is inefficient or is wasting money, we should not be doing. We need to be operating at maximizing our efficiency, maximizing the utility of our budget and making sure that we are balanced by the end of the year.

L. Krog: Well, I'm afraid that the liquor falls outside of my critic role. I'd love to spend the afternoon talking to the Attorney General about liquor and a society where there's no question — not withstanding the great con-
[ Page 838 ]
cern around the legalization or decriminalization of all sorts of drugs — that alcohol continues to be the greatest source of social ill in our society. But that's a question for another day.

[1745]

In terms of the initiatives that are expected to be completed by the Attorney General "over the coming years" — that's how the Premier has worded her letter — it says: "Complete the justice reform agenda, including integration and court efficiencies as envisioned in the Cowper report and subsequent white papers issued in response by the province." I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can put a monetary amount on implementing those reforms within this fiscal year. In other words, how much is actually devoted to doing what is envisioned?

I do note that the Premier was very generous in talking about it, saying that these initiatives would only have to be completed over the coming years, without specifying a time. But I'm curious to know: what's the money directed this year towards the justice reform agenda?

Hon. S. Anton: The Cowper report, of course, resulted in white papers 1 and 2. We are working our way through implementation of many, if not most, of those recommendations.

There are, I would say, three prime ways that this is being financed. Firstly, $1.3 million in funding has been reallocated or found within the ministry to fund business intelligence and performance measurement work. One of the criticisms of the ministry, one of the comments has been that there wasn't a very good way of measuring what we were doing.

[1750]

Secondly, there is one-time capital funding of $1.6 million to fund new justice access centre in Victoria.

Most of the spending and most of the effort are in reprioritizing within our existing ministry resources. There's no allocation of monetary value to that, because it's moving staff and changing priorities so that the work is done within existing budgets.

L. Krog: A cynical member of the opposition might be tempted to say that what the Attorney General has really told me is that in a budget of several hundred million dollars — $1.6 million for capital, $1.3 million actually reallocated…. She is really saying that in fact not much, if anything, is going to happen in this budgetary year — that the prime direction from the Premier, which is to balance the budget regardless and ensure that government doesn't grow, really translates into no significant change whatsoever in this budgetary year, notwithstanding all the promises of justice reform with respect to Mr. Cowper.

I'd like to hear the Attorney General's comments.

Hon. S. Anton: As I have been emphasizing, the important work that we're doing is not about money. It's about how we conduct our operations in the ministry, how we find other ways of achieving timely and accessible justice. There are many. The hon. member is suggesting that maybe not much is going on. I would heartily suggest that there are so many things going on, and I will list some of them here.

First of all, as I mentioned earlier, the expanded justice access centre in Victoria, a one-stop citizen-focused centre for legal information services. The first phase is anticipated to open in September.

We've expanded the availability of child protection mediators to rural and remote communities to resolve child protection cases.

We have addressed delays and backlogs in traffic court by passing legislation to create a driving notice review board, as part of the road safety systems project.

We have appointed an acting chair to our first on-line tribunal, the civil resolution tribunal.

Directly from the Cowper report, we've brought sections of the Justice Reform and Transparency Act into force, including sections related to a justice and public safety council with responsibility for setting a strategic vision for the justice system and reporting publicly on system performance.

We've appointed nine new Provincial Court judges to address caseload pressures. Now, some of those are to fill vacancies, but there were judges appointed early to get us one year of judging time, if you like, to address court backlogs.

We held the first annual Justice Summit to encourage innovation and collaboration across the sector, and the second will be held this fall.

We've signed a memorandum of understanding with the judiciary, aimed at developing and maintaining an accessible, modern and effective justice system.

We've established an executive steering committee to address issues related to the management of the largest criminal cases in the justice system.

We're conducting lean process workshops to engage staff in developing more efficient work flow practices.

We've brought the Family Law Act into force.

We've launched three justice data dashboards — applications to take raw data and transform it into a visual format, providing a user-friendly way to access information on B.C.'s justice system.

We've launched the independent investigations office, which is, as I think everyone knows, a civilian-led agency to investigate incidents of death or serious harm involving police.

[1755]

We will be reporting to British Columbians on the progress of our reforms, aimed at building safer communities and providing alternatives to using court.

L. Krog: That was a lovely long list, but you know, it's kind of like the person who wants to see their house built:
[ Page 839 ]
until they see the foundation there and some walls go up, it's all talk and promises. I mean, hiring the interim chair, establishing a steering committee…. With great respect, over here, that sounds like doing all the stuff that gives the appearance of industry, when in fact not a lot is actually happening on the ground.

You know, the justice access centre is a long-overdue project. Even then, I note that the Attorney General, I believe, used the term "establish the first part" of that. In other words, it won't be a fully functional justice access centre — certainly in this fiscal year.

Nine new judges. As the Attorney General — giving the candour I expected from her — has acknowledged, much of that is to replace retirees from the present complement of judges. We're still lower than we were in 2005, and it's 2007. The Cowper report and other reports have all acknowledged that there are significant backlogs in our system, on both the civil and criminal sides. So I don't know that we're making a lot of progress.

With great respect, if the Attorney General has more concrete things to prove to me that in fact we're really seeing a significant commitment of resources — which is what government is all about — I'd love to hear it, and I give her that opportunity.

If she doesn't wish to respond to that, I would like to ask her about initiative No. 3 in the Premier's letter, where she says: "Consult with the Canadian Bar Association and implement the transfer of administrative penalties in traffic tickets from the court system to administrative tribunals, such as the civil resolution tribunal." Again, the minister is welcome to respond to my remarks initially, but if not, I'll understand if she wants to jump to answering this question. What does that mean: "Consult with the Canadian Bar Association"?

How does the minister interpret that direction? My understanding was that they weren't consulted with in the first place, so now we're going to talk to them afterwards, but you're directed to go ahead and implement it anyway. So what is the purpose of this consultation? What do you expect it to produce? What form will that consultation take?

Hon. S. Anton: You don't move a house onto your property without building the foundations, and a lot of the work that's going on right now is foundational work. It's foundational work for enormous innovation, and I think that that's what's so interesting in our ministry at the moment.

There's one piece that's going on which I haven't even mentioned yet, which I will mention now. That's the immediate roadside prohibitions, which are the administrative penalties for people who are drinking and driving. These administrative penalties have meant that 8,000 fewer cases have gone to Provincial Court charged with impaired driving — that 8,000 fewer people have had impaired driving charges in Provincial Court, and 140 lives have been saved.

[1800]

This is an amazing innovation here in British Columbia. Once again, the whole country is watching to see the success of the program.

Now, there is an aspect of it which is in front of the Court of Appeal, and we will need to wait to see what the Court of Appeal says. But the program itself — whether it needs to be tweaked or whether it can move forward in the way it's moving right now, we will be continuing with that program because it's highly effective in taking cases out of court and dealing with them more expeditiously.

On the other matters, again, which are creating efficiencies, effectiveness in the system…. I am mandated to take the traffic tickets out of court. That is why this assembly passed the road safety system act, which enables e-ticketing. The front end of the traffic tickets process will look much like the front end of the civil resolution tribunal. So in a way, those two are marching along together in terms of the thinking behind them and the implementation.

I would like to reassure the member that we would not dream of moving forward on these things without consulting the parties who need to be consulted — the Canadian Bar Association, the Trial Lawyers Association, the Law Society and, in the case of the civil resolution tribunal, strata councils, because they will be most affected by this.

L. Krog: Well, I'd remind the Attorney General that the civil resolutions tribunal was a problem because, in fact, the very parties she just named weren't consulted with during the drafting of that legislation. But that's not her problem. That's her predecessor's problem, with whom I enjoyed a good relationship and I'm sure is enjoying the scintillating debate here today.

Having said that, in terms of consultation, I want to come back specifically to: consultation in what sense? What is the point of that consultation? Is it to secure their approval? Is it to secure their advice about how the reforms will in fact play out? What specifically is the consultation about, or is it just to be able to say, "We actually had a discussion with you," so that you can say that you had a discussion and everyone is supposed to feel better?

Hon. S. Anton: Let me reassure the hon. member that coming from city politics, as I do, you don't turn around without having a good consultation. I am pleased to be able to say that there are the foundations of a very good consultation in my ministry, and I will be watching that and making sure that it continues to be a consultation. But I do have great confidence in the people around me who are working through these things.

The tribunal is designed to meet the needs of the public, particularly unrepresented members of the public. The Canadian Bar Association is on the advisory board of the civil resolution tribunal. We have working groups for civil claims, personal injury working groups, strata work-
[ Page 840 ]
ing groups, self-represented litigants working groups. There may be more as we move along.

[1805]

As I've said earlier and I've said several times, this is very innovative. It's very interesting. It will take a great deal of thinking. It will take a great deal of help from partners and stakeholders in the legal community and in the broader community, and we will be consulting with them.

L. Krog: Item 6 of the direction is: "Complete your ministry's long-term plan to improve courtroom capacity and access to justice for residents in the lower Fraser Valley." What is the long-term plan? How much money is ascribed to that this year? Is it anticipated that the plan will be completed within this fiscal year or the next fiscal year, or is it something that, again, falls in the term "coming years"?

Hon. S. Anton: The process that my friend is asking about, of course, deals with the fact that the lower Fraser Valley — which includes the municipalities of Surrey, the two Langleys, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, that whole area — is growing very quickly. Demand is increasing beyond the current capacity of its court facilities. The demand is predicted to continue to grow. So we do need to address the issue of lack of court space.

For that reason, earlier this year our government gave a $600,000 grant to those five municipalities to facilitate the development of a regional plan. A memorandum of understanding has been endorsed by all the parties. The goals at the moment are to outline the long-term court capacity requirements by investigating and analyzing the factors linked to court demand and accessibility, such as future population growth, transportation and justice investments.

There's also a branch advisory committee, and we will be developing a comprehensive proposal for government, taking into consideration the recommendations of the local government report, the courts committee, the ministry's reform initiatives and financial and resource information. The timeline for completion of this study is the end of the calendar year, with a possible December submission to Treasury Board.

L. Krog: I believe I heard the Attorney General suggest that it was to be a broad-based review and consideration. I presume that would take into consideration the possibility such as happened previously where, for instance, the city of Port Alberni got a lovely new courthouse, which historically has been utterly underutilized for many, many years but still sits there, a monument to fixed planning around the building of courthouses in this province — where, once it was laid in stone and that was the priority, it didn't change.

I'm not suggesting that has worked out in every case. But what I want to understand is…. Is the Attorney General suggesting that in fact, as part of this $600,000 study, this committee will be looking at and dealing specifically with what we know is a declining crime rate; with what reforms, if any, obviously — and there will be reforms — are to be implemented as a result of the Cowper report; and with what efficiencies may be achieved in the coming years with respect to justice, whether that be the civil tribunals or all of those things?

In other words, will this committee look at the possibility of coming back with a recommendation to government that says: "Guess what. The little courthouse that you wanted in Chilliwack, so to speak, isn't, in fact, necessary"? In other words, does the committee have that kind of mandate, or is the committee's mandate more circumscribed?

[1810]

Hon. S. Anton: The committee will be looking at all factors — population, needs and innovation, such as I've been describing today. Of course, the goal is to ensure that the capital plan is aligned to the needs of the Fraser Valley communities. We need our new courthouses to be flexible in their capacity and flexible in their ability to deal with growing populations and also to take into consideration the developments in technology and innovation, some of which I have been describing today and some of which are being used right now in other aspects of our justice system.

The short answer is that the discussion is flexible and it's open to looking at all the possibilities. But of course, it is driven by the fact that there is very significant growth in the lower Fraser Valley.

L. Krog: What I want to hear from the Attorney General…. Is she confirming or denying that the committee will be able to come back with a recommendation that says: "Look, given the other things we're thinking about, given changing technology…"? Will, in fact, the committee be in a position to say, as I hope it would, that you don't actually need to build the plant anymore?

The example I'll give is very simple. The Attorney General will be aware of this in her own ministry. Accused persons who will stand in front of a camera at Wilkinson Road instead of being driven up to Nanaimo — 30 years ago no one would have thought of that. You know, the Supreme Court of Canada does video applications, leaves to appeal, etc. — in other words, all of that technology and all those things.

Given the buildout time for capital construction, the planning, all of those things, will the committee look at that before we engage in the construction of things that are outmoded? I mean, some people are suggesting that we shouldn't be building schools anymore in the traditional sense because we're all going to be sticking the kids in front of a screen somewhere, supervised or unsupervised.

In other words, is the ministry — and this commit-
[ Page 841 ]
tee, in particular — looking at what I would call really advanced thinking in this? Has the ministry itself, in the larger sense, looked at European models — in other countries, in other words — where they're dealing with their justice system in different ways, perhaps? In other words, are we on the cutting edge or just basically doing the same old thing — that we want to have a minister be able to stand in front of a courthouse, snip a ribbon and say: "We've solved your justice problem here"?

[1815]

Hon. S. Anton: The work that we're doing in the Fraser Valley will be to determine what kind of capacity we need and where we need it.

L. Krog: I don't think the question I was asking was that difficult or required a leap of faith in policy. Nor would it get the minister into trouble with the Premier or Treasury Board or anyone else.

What I specifically want to know is will this committee be in a position to say: "Look, we don't need to build a courthouse to deliver justice here"? There may be other ways to do this just as efficiently to deliver the public service. In other words, in addition to saying yes to a courthouse, can they say no to a courthouse?

Hon. S. Anton: I do appreciate the hon. member's interest in the use of technology, as that use of technology is so important in our ministry. As he notes, the use of video technology is very significant in terms of remands and bail hearings and so on and other functions in the ministry.

This committee will provide recommendations to my ministry as to where we need capacity. This ministry will then take a further consultation with the judiciary, with our partners in delivery of justice and other stakeholders to determine how best to deliver that capacity which is needed.

I think it is safe to say, given the innovation that's going on in the ministry, that we will be looking at all options. There are, indeed, many interesting advances in technology. There are programs such as I have discussed today, which have the impact of taking things out of court and emphasizing different forms of delivery of timely and accessible justice.

L. Krog: Well, let me come at this question from another angle. Is the Attorney General aware of any specific commitments made by a member of the Liberal caucus with respect to the building of new courthouses in the Fraser Valley, generally?

In other words, has some candidate, some MLA, some member of executive council, some Premier, made a commitment with respect to this, which perhaps may explain why the Attorney General simply won't answer what I think is a simple proposition — that presumably this committee would be in a position to say no to building more courthouses or a specific courthouse, because we can do something differently?

[1820]

Hon. S. Anton: The committee is looking at capacity. It's also looking at the adequacy of current facilities — whether or not they should remain as they are, whether they should be updated or whether, indeed, some of them might need to be replaced.

Again, it is not the committee that is making this decision. The committee will make its recommendation to this ministry. This ministry will then take that recommendation and look at all of the programs we have underway — look at the needs that we have, the innovations that we have — and will, with our partners in justice, determine whether and which new courthouses or courtrooms or court facilities we may need.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to be difficult. I understand that it's the government that makes the decision. I'm not obtuse. My point is simply this: is it within the committee's mandate that the committee can recommend that you not build new courthouses or a new courthouse?

In other words, can the committee simply say: "We can do this in a different way, as opposed to carrying on with the way we've done business before"? Can the committee recommend that it's not necessary to build new courthouses? Or is the committee designed to be structured in a way that, in fact, you're guaranteeing the fulfilment of some political promise or mandate to the good voters of the Fraser Valley that they're going to get new court facilities?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a committee with representation from five municipalities in the lower Fraser Valley. I don't think that they're going to be anything but independent thinkers. I do not know what political statements the hon. member may be referring to, but I am going to guess, given my knowledge of municipalities, that these five will operate independently. They will come back with their independent thoughts and recommendations and their advice to this ministry, and I look forward to receiving it.

L. Krog: Making reference to — how shall I say? — the remarks of the Minister of Innovation the other day, one can appreciate at a certain stage when you're flogging a dead horse. I intend not to continue any further trying to get an answer to what I think is a fairly simple proposition, and that is that this committee can, in fact, make an innovative recommendation that doesn't include the expending of money to try and solve political or legal problems in the Fraser Valley.

So on to item 10 in the Premier's letter. It is a direction to "work with communities to expand the domestic violence units that bring together police, victim services and child protection workers to improve integration in these cases."
[ Page 842 ]

Can the Attorney General tell me: what is the budget for that? Is there a commitment for real money to assist? Or is the commitment only to talk to the communities during this fiscal year with a view to doing something in some further fiscal year so that the government can fulfil its much-repeated promise — that we have to balance the budget this year or the heavens are going to fall?

[1825]

Hon. S. Anton: Noting the time, hon. Chair, and noting that there is a fairly comprehensive answer to the question raised by the hon. member, I will request that the committee rises, reports resolution of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and progress on the Ministry of Justice and asks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Hunt in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $15,694,000.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, do you want to have an opening statement?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

The Chair: Okay.

R. Austin: I obviously have a whole slew of questions here, far more than I can get to in the allotted time. So what I'm just going to try and do is get to as many of them as possible. I have a couple of colleagues who are going to be asking some questions later on in the day. Then we will continue outside of the House to try and get more information.

I'd like to begin by noting a quote from the Wall Street Journal in terms of negotiating a tax regime in British Columbia, which will be required for the industry. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal the British Columbia Premier said that her government was in tax negotiations with one project and said that would serve as a model for others. She declined to name the project.

My question to the minister is twofold. Is this a negotiation of a tax structure? Really, it's the role of government and the cabinet to decide what the tax structure is for any industry. It's not as though industries come to government and say: "Hey, listen, this is the kind of tax structure that we'd like in order for us to be able to do business." I'd like to have his comments in regards to how this is a negotiation.

Secondly, I'd like to know: why is it that one particular company or project — out of several that are potentially bringing a project, proponents, here in the province of British Columbia — is sitting at the table and, therefore, can sort of set the terms?

Hon. R. Coleman: Over the last number of months this has been an evolving file. There was a company, one of the companies, that had a broad experience around the world. We talked about what they were experiencing elsewhere as part of our discussions with regards to consultations about how British Columbia would deal with this new industry in the future. We've obviously engaged more since then, and also trade industry folks.

At the end of the day, any design of a tax will be solely the responsibility of government and would actually be in the hands of the Ministry of Finance. We will be feeding him the information that we have accumulated in those discussions, to get to something that we think will be globally competitive.

[1445]

R. Austin: It was noted the other day that the Premier will be taking a trip to Asia in September. Will these measures be made clear to British Columbians and to the proponents in British Columbia prior to the Premier making her trip to Asia? It was also mentioned in another estimates
[ Page 843 ]
that the focus of that trip was, again, to promote LNG in the Far East.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Premier's trip to Asia will probably cover a number of subjects, including liquefied natural gas, forestry, other relationships, international trade with British Columbia. I'm not sure when she's going. I don't have those details here today.

At the same time, any discussions we have with anybody at all is subject to non-disclosure agreements because this is highly confidential, and at the same time, even legislation with regards to a tax or when it might come and what it might look like, I cannot actually comment, either in or outside the House.

R. Austin: I totally understand that the details will be confidential. However, there is lots of information that I think British Columbians and the proponents would like to see come forward into the public arena — first of all, to do with the timing.

I'm sure that the minister is aware that we have proponents in the northwest, some of whom already got all the requirements in place to actually move forward. All they're looking for now is for them to make sure that they have a long-term contract and also to make sure that the tax structure and the regulations here in British Columbia make it available for them to still make a profit at this.

My question to the minister is: given how critical the time is, how quickly does his ministry expect this work to get done and to be able to take care of their mandates in his mandate letter? That's to negotiate or to make sure that there's a structure in place so that the big players understand what it is they're doing, and to make a final investment decision.

Hon. R. Coleman: It is a lot more complex than what you described. We have been in discussions with all the majors that are involved in this particular industry across the board plus a number of the smaller proponents, as well, in other areas of the province. They tell us their final investment decisions will probably be made in the third or fourth quarter of 2014 or into the first quarter of 2015. They've also told us that they would like to know our fundamentals in advance of taking those final investment decisions forward.

It is not something as simple as just saying that we're going to do this or to do that. There would have to be, I would anticipate, some legislation, very complex regulatory stuff that goes with it and, in addition to that, all the issues in and around the plants.

They are not sitting there saying, "If you would do this, we will go," because there are environmental assessment processes involved here, both on the plant side and on the pipeline side. There are First Nations negotiations and discussions and accommodation. There are routes that have to be finalized, geography that has to be dealt with and a whole bunch of other things.

It is actually a very complex file. It will take an extreme amount of work from our folks to…. I am confident they will meet the time frames the companies had advised us that they would need to get the final investment decision, because these are multi-billion-dollar decisions on their part. We are confident.

In my discussions with industry — I'm talking about the major proponents and the minors — they think that B.C. is getting the fundamentals right, and they think that we're going about it calmly and smartly to get to a point where we can bring a formula forward and the plan for their success and our success together.

R. Austin: I do appreciate that this is a complicated file. In fact, shortly after getting elected in 2005, one of the very first meetings I had — even before being sworn in, actually — was with the original proponent that later on became the Apache-Chevron deal. That was with Rosemary Boulton.

To share with the minister how quickly things can change, when I met with her in 2005, at that time it was to present a proposal to build a regasification plant in Kitimat because the prices of natural gas here were still high and the expectation was to be importing LNG into North America.

[1450]

Within three years, of course, that had changed, and it became a liquefaction plant to try to export. So I'm aware of how things can change and how complicated it is. With that view in mind, I'd like to ask the minister this.

The government is trying to make a structure in place that looks long term 20 years, 30 years even, and has huge plans for this industry and very grandiose ideas of us having a trillion-dollar benefit to this province. Given how quickly prices can change around the world and how circumstances can change…. How can the government be so confident in their ability to maximize this in the way they have said they would do during the election and since, when things can change so dramatically?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the trillion-dollar number is GDP. It's not money to government, just so the member opposite recognizes that. There is about $1 trillion over 30 years plus to GDP in B.C., depending how many plants will go ahead.

Secondly, we know what the present demand and the growing demand is for liquefied natural gas worldwide. The companies that are here have done their research with regards to the best jurisdictions and the best gas to get, relative to being able to do it environmentally friendlier than anywhere else in the world and where they have access to their markets. They believe that there is a long-term opportunity here, because otherwise they wouldn't be thinking of spending $20 billion to $30 billion with
[ Page 844 ]
regards to their investments.

We have done our research parallel and independent of them as well, with regards to world markets. The demand for liquefied natural gas worldwide is exponential at a level that today's producers can't supply in five years or ten years from now.

In addition to that, these people that work, that are coming to British Columbia.... These companies are looking at British Columbia not because they're seeking customers in Asia but because they have customers in Asia whose needs they need to fulfil. They want to be able to make sure they have certainty of supply in a secure jurisdiction, in a way that they think their investment would be secure. That's what they're looking for.

We have been in extensive discussions with industry and research with regards to the supply, the need worldwide and the capacity of the marketplace. We are comfortable that this is important. At the same time, you could sit back and say, "The market could change; let's have no vision," or you can decide you have a vision for the future of B.C.

We think this is a tremendous opportunity, if we can be successful. We know that we have to be successful in a way that is competitive, and then we can move our gas, which we have an abundance of. At our present rate of gas that we have today, over and above the 1.8 trillion cubic feet that we send to North America, we have an 84-year supply. We have a resource that needs to get to a market in a way that makes sense globally.

Our work has been very detailed and very aggressive to find out whether this is real. I believe it's real. The member opposite and I can disagree on that.

I also know, from everybody I have spoken to, including the heads of companies, divisions of liquefied natural gas worldwide… Successful global companies have told me quite clearly that there is a demand for the supply, that there is not a concern about the price not being able to match up to the cost and, quite frankly, that they believe that B.C. has one of the best resources on the planet.

R. Austin: Is the government willing to share their own independent research? We have seen publications that have come from outside sources. Is the government willing to share its own research into some of the facts that the minister has just outlined?

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: We do our research based on the information of professional forecasters, just like the industry does. The challenge with some of our research…. It is geared to models that could end up being models that could be affected by confidentiality relative to the legislation. Those pieces we cannot share, but we can certainly share with the member where we're getting our forecasting information and that sort of stuff and provide it to the member.

R. Austin: I'd like to speak for a minute around the issue of being able to pay off the debt of British Columbia as one of the things that was spoken about many, many times during the last provincial election, in terms of using this opportunity for LNG to create a debt-free B.C.

Could the minister tell us what the current B.C. debt is and how much it is expected to change over the current fiscal plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's a question more for the Ministry of Finance. I don't have those figures here today.

R. Austin: As the lead minister with regards to LNG, and as one of the goals of this ministry is to be able to bring in the kind of revenue required to pay off our debt, presumably it is part of the minister's responsibility to be a part of the conversation for that plan. Is that not correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: So is all of cabinet. We are all part of that discussion. Having looked at the plan; having looked at the detailed, confidential stuff that we're working on — which is highly, highly, highly confidential — that I'm allowed to be privy to; and looking at the projections, that will be the least of our worries in meeting that commitment, if we're successful in attracting a number of plants to British Columbia.

The downstream opportunity for British Columbia is at a crossroads for vision that required leadership. The Premier of the province went out there and took that leadership to the people of British Columbia, and she's correct. This is a generational opportunity that we face that could protect health care and education for our generation, the next generation and the generation to follow us.

It is a place where we can improve skills training and opportunities for every British Columbian and have thousands of jobs that will give every opportunity for any child coming out of school to have a future in B.C. with regards to a job. I have no doubt about that.

I have been in enough confidential and serious conversations with companies that are here. At this point in time there are about 12 major companies from around the world. A number of them are going to make investments of up to $3 billion just to get to their final investment decision. Others have already invested both in the upstream and the downstream opportunity and will get to their final investment decisions as well.

Should we be successful in making sure the mechanics around this work and we attract this investment in British Columbia, I do believe, actually, it will lead to a debt-free B.C.

R. Austin: Could I ask the minister whether a debt-free B.C. includes not simply the debt that's on the books of the B.C. government but also all of the cumulative debt
[ Page 845 ]
which the Auditor General pointed out in report after report is on the Crowns but is not seen as being part of the debt in British Columbia? That's risen exponentially over the last ten years.

Hon. R. Coleman: At the risk of entering into a debate about a piece of a ministry that isn't mine, I could suggest the member send someone down to Energy and Mines right now if he wants to talk about Hydro with regards to their debt and the investment they're having to make relative to the infrastructure of Hydro, simply because those will actually be assets that will pay back — i.e., the John Hart dam, which will have a payback of about 11 years at a cost of $1.1 billion.

I'm not going to get into the debate about the semantics of that today. Obviously, that is part of future decisions as we get past the opportunity to attract investment to B.C. I'm sure we'll enter into that debate at that particular time.

[1500]

R. Austin: The minister mentions the number of companies that are here as potential proponents for LNG. He's mentioned how large some of these companies are. They have large portfolios and have options all over the world in which to invest capital. Some of them, in fact, have more than one LNG proposal in multi-jurisdictions.

My question to the minister is this. To what extent is his ministry aware of and able to ensure that decisions are made by the companies that are in the interests of British Columbians and not simply in the interests of their own portfolios?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: if a Shell or an Exxon has an LNG proposal here in British Columbia and they are also part of an LNG proposal, say, in the Gulf down in the southern United States, to what extent does he believe his ministry is able to encourage them to choose us as opposed to choosing the other jurisdictions further south? In fact, of course, their mandate as a large company is simply to maximize their profits and look after their own portfolio and not worry about the interests of British Columbians in that extent.

Hon. R. Coleman: These companies don't want one place of supply. They don't want a situation where their supply for their customers throughout the world is shut down by one jurisdiction or where the inability to continue in one jurisdiction would actually shut down their ability to supply their customers. It's no different than any other business. It's actually protecting its flow of resources.

We regulate. We do the environmental standards. We do the competitive tax and royalty regimes. We do the compliance and enforcement. That has to be competitive.

The final investment decision by these companies is made on the basis of a final investment decision and how that impacts — plus all the aspects of the entire chain of investment impacts — the ability for this particular investment to work in Canada or the United States or anywhere else in the world. That is basic business.

The member should be well aware of that, because in his riding we have the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter. That smelter was on the fringes, at one point in time, to make a decision by the company as the best jurisdiction to do business in.

They had options elsewhere in the world as to where to build that particular smelter. They chose to make that investment here. The government worked very aggressively with them to make sure they understood the environment they were in, how important it was to British Columbia and how much we would like them to make that investment.

R. Austin: Of course, if you're going to use the example of Rio Tinto Alcan, one mustn't forget that they had a source here of very cheap electricity that came from Kemano. It wasn't as though they could go and build it anywhere. As the member well knows, cheap electricity is instrumental in making any decision as to where to build an aluminum smelter.

According to the June update of the budget and fiscal plan, gas prices have fluctuated from a high of $9.34 per gigajoule in June of 2008 to a low of $0.76 per gigajoule in April 2012. That price change is a factor of 12 to three.

My question to the minister is this. What degree of variability was accounted for in global LNG market pricing over the next 30 years when creating the government's LNG strategy?

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: We rely on long-term forecasts: the EIA, which is the enforcement information administration in the United States; the Chicago Board Options; Platts, which is a forecasting agency; Wood Mac, which is another forecasting agency; and the information of the proponents that may wish to proceed in British Columbia or elsewhere.

The fact of the matter is…. Let's use one example of one plant. Let's say a plant in Prince Rupert was on the board for investment. It's an investment of $9 billion to $11 billion for the plant — to put that in perspective, Alcan has $3.3 billion — plus another $5 billion to $6 billion pipeline. That company has already bought $5.5 billion of upstream resources by buying a company with upstream resources.

So at the time they're making their investment, they're making a significant investment decision. They will make that investment decision on what their forecasts and their numbers are, along with the fundamentals that are put in place in British Columbia relative to any tax or royalties or anything like that.

We will be globally competitive as a jurisdiction. That is our goal. We will be working with everybody, propon-
[ Page 846 ]
ents and otherwise, including First Nations and communities, to make sure that we come up with a model that works for long-term success for B.C.

R. Austin: Well, of course, a huge amount of energy has been found all over the world. Recently the Australians have had difficulty in securing the contracts in Asia for LNG, partly because they're indexed to the world price of oil. I've been reading a great deal about the fact that the Asians, in particular, do not like the fact that it is tied to the price of oil. They're hoping to have….

As more LNG comes onto the market, they'll be able to take advantage of those market conditions and break that connection between the oil price and current LNG prices, which is a bit similar to what happened in the 1980s when people from Asia were encouraging us to exploit our northeastern coal. As a result of that, of course, the price of coal dramatically went down.

My question to the minister is: to what extent does he think the competition around the world — in building new LNG plants and in terms of the amount of shale gas that's been found and is now being exploited — will assist the purchasers in Asia to be able to break that price hub and therefore bring the price between North America and what's currently being collected in Asia much closer than it is today?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let me say this: we're not Australia. We don't intend to be Australia, and we don't intend to pattern after Australia. The suppliers and their customers have to work out their pricing issues. We're going to be so much dissimilar in how we approach this…. And I can't break confidence. I'm not going to get into how we'll make that happen today. It will become evident when legislation comes to the House.

In our case, in B.C., there's a bit of a different dynamic. I'll just use Shell as an example. Shell isn't just here as Shell. Shell is here with its partners, and its partners are their customers. Shell, PetroChina, Korea Gas and Mitsubishi are the partners in the Shell package that is being worked on in Kitimat. It's not like they're here in isolation without their customers. These are major customers of theirs that are actually investing in the opportunity to look at where they'll make the final investment decision.

Our goal is to create the competitive environment at such a level that B.C. has the advantage. There are a number of other advantages that B.C. has in natural gas, which I'm sure, through the rest of this discussion, we'll get into at some point. Really, what it comes down to is we've reached out in the very beginning — I did as the minister prior, when I had a more combined ministry — to industry to say: "Give me your examples around the world of where you have successful relationships and not-so-successful relationships. Tell me what would create an environment for you to make a decision."

For example, the risk. It could be a situation where there's a tax regime that is so low it's incredibly attractive, but the political environment could be so weak that they could be nationalized after they make their significant investment. They'll put that into the package of their decision-making process. This is so complicated at this level that it's consuming a number of people, a lot of time and hours, to get to where we think the model will work.

I can tell the member that I think we've got some of the best people possible on the file and that my briefings would tell me that we're headed in the right direction and that we will get to final decisions that will certainly match up with the companies. At the same time, the industry is telling me that even if some of the supply that is theoretically available in the world were to come on stream, the demand is still going to outstrip that supply.

R. Austin: The example that the minister used, of course, is a good one for the point that he was trying to make, in the sense that that particular proponent does have partners within that grouping that include people who were seeking to purchase it. But if you look at some of the other proponents….

One that was at one time certainly further ahead would be Apache, which got its environmental assessment, had First Nations on board and the province on side and now has become part of Apache and Chevron, with EnCana and EOG Resources having left that partnership.

What we are hearing is that the reason why they're still waiting to move — aside from the fact that the government has to bring in its tax structure — is that the potential purchasers in Asia are trying to, naturally, deal very heavily and are recognizing that there's so much shale gas that's going to be coming onto the market that they hope in the future to be able to break this link between the price of oil and LNG.

Does the minister have anything to say with regards to proponents here in British Columbia who do not have purchasers, the end user, as part of their consortium?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me just take a second to explain something to the member. We don't index to oil. The indexing to oil is actually between supplier and customer. That's a worldwide discussion, frankly, at this point in time, and where that goes is obviously between the proponent that's supplying and the person that's buying. When they sign long-term contracts, they tie it to some index usually, and that's the index that's been used for some time.

Obviously, if you've read about it, there are challenges in and around that, and there will continue to be. Our job is to make sure that if we want to attract a liquefied natural gas industry, our regime that affects their investment decisions is competitive. They will make their alliances
[ Page 847 ]
with regards to how they want to move forward with their financial arrangements with their customers. That's why Petronas, for instance, has Japex as a 10 percent partner; why Nexen has Inpex as a partner with them — because they have customers.

Chevron is one of the top five or at least top ten most profitable companies in the world. I haven't sat down and asked them what their customer base is, but I know that they are out working on customers today, along with Apache. That seems to be a partnership that some people have a great deal of confidence in, so we will hope that it works well as well.

R. Austin: I appreciate, obviously, that the price of oil is decided on the world markets. The reason why I was asking the minister this question is because there seems to be a lot of talk and chatter, serious talk, around ways in which the increased amount of liquefied natural gas that's going to be coming onto the market will enable the purchaser to be able to break that connection.

I'm noting here in a quote from the Premier where she declined to give any details on the tax structure that's being discussed with the industry, because obviously that is privileged information. She did, however, say that the tax would be formulated so that plant operators don't face an onerous revenue burden regardless of global LNG prices.

If you're creating a tax structure that is not taking into consideration the price of LNG prices, the global price, if that oil link is broken, that would have serious effect on any companies that have built an LNG plant here and would have serious effects on the government's plan. That's why I'm asking again: what happens if this link between world oil prices and LNG prices is broken as a result of the amount of new energy that flows onto the market?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, I'll re-emphasize that the fundamentals in B.C. will not be based on that pricing, which is between customer and supplier. I can't get into the details because this is such a complex file and discussion, and it is so confidential. I know that even as cabinet minister, when I'm going into budget day, if there's tax law being introduced, it's confidential even to us. So I'm not going to try to, you know, bridge between those two.

All I can tell the member is I think the work we've done gets us in a direction where, fundamentally, we will be the leader in how to handle this worldwide. We'll be the competitive jurisdiction. We have the best resource, and I think we have a very good investment climate.

[1520]

In addition to that, the long-term contracts that some of these companies already have they want to fulfil. Obviously, the discussion about how the pricing will be done in the future will be impacted. You could actually make the argument that if a large amount of liquefied natural gas was displacing oil operations around the world, the price of oil would come down. It's all supply and demand, obviously, with these things.

The confidence of the industry is not where the peak price is and where the peak price has been. It's an average over 20 or 30 years that they think would be the price that's competitive, and they know they're going to deliver it from somewhere. We're 2½ days closer to Asia than anybody else.

People make the argument about the U.S. southeast — that they could change the gasification, reverse it over to liquefaction. True. Then they've got to go down through the Panama Canal and get over to Asia — totally different fundamentals in and around their whole shipping costs and the cost of the product.

There are a number of other advantages in our product versus the rest of the world which I'm quite comfortable with. I think what it comes down to is that we're going to have our fundamentals right. We're going to be globally competitive, and the markets are going to be able to balance themselves out according to how the supply and demand is in the future.

R. Austin: One of the line items in the minister's mandate letter is to continue to work to secure pipeline corridors with First Nations along proposed natural gas pipeline routes. I'm wondering whether there have been discussions with proponents in the northwest to encourage them to share some of the infrastructure that might be built so as not to have multiple pipelines coming across northern B.C. into Kitimat or multiple pipelines going to Prince Rupert. Seeing as there is more than one proponent in each of those communities, have there been any discussions on that?

I also note that in other countries in the world — again, going back to Australia, because they've been in LNG for a long time — they didn't do that. As a result, their cost structure went up dramatically over time when they had separate pipelines and separate facilities built right next to door to each other. In fact, if they had collaborated earlier on in the process, they could have kept their costs down dramatically.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're encouraging that to take place. At the same time, some of the companies are in discussions with each other relative to that taking place. That's all going to evolve as they get along the road to their final investment decisions. At this stage, I would suspect they're looking at their costs as their input costs independently. Let's take Prince Rupert, for instance. Not knowing whether two would go ahead in Prince Rupert, both companies have to look at their financial work and their fiscal prudence relative to what it would cost if they were the only player in the market.

At the same time, if there's an indication that both players are going to go forward…. I know there's been some discussion between them as to whether they could
[ Page 848 ]
share a corridor or whatever the case may be, which would make some sense.

R. Austin: In the minister's discussions with First Nations in northern British Columbia, has there been encouragement from them to be able to try and have not just say in where the pipelines go but also to encourage the companies to work together so as to create, potentially, some form of pipeline corridor?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: As you can well imagine, there are a number of discussions with a variety of First Nations along a variety of corridors. This is part of the discussion, but it goes way beyond that to consultation and accommodation and probably into revenue-sharing, as we go forward, and certain issues like that. That's part of the process of economic opportunities for First Nations out of something like this, as it came together.

Certainly, some First Nations are quite comfortable with the corridors that they have. Others are saying: "We might want you to consolidate the corridor." They're also having those conversations with industry, who ultimately would make the decision on the pipeline and the investment.

We try and coordinate some of those discussions from this ministry. But obviously, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation have a mandate from government relative to consultation and accommodation that they can do, in relationship with us. It's part of the overall discussion.

As I said earlier when we started this, it wasn't as simple as the member described at the beginning. Each of these is one more complexity to make the package work.

R. Austin: In the estimates for Environment, my colleague asked numerous questions with regards to what is essentially the third line-item in this minister's mandate, which is to maximize the use of clean energy in LNG projects while preserving maximum provincial revenue-generation opportunities. We didn't really get any clear answers as to how this government is going to maintain the law on the books with regards to greenhouse gas emissions and reducing them by 2020 while adding in all the greenhouse gas emissions coming from just one LNG plant, never mind two or three.

To the minister, seeing as I think he probably takes the lead in this regard on this file, could he perhaps enlighten us on this side of the House and British Columbians as to how it is that we're going to enable an LNG industry to exist while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as is the current law?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we continue to work with the proponents themselves on what their energy choices may be. They will vary from plant to plant and area to area of B.C., relative to access to the grid or upgrades to the grid that could bring it in.

As the member knows, we changed the Clean Energy Act a year ago to recognize natural gas as clean energy for the purpose of production of liquefied natural gas. There is a package being worked on that will go forward with regards to offsets and dealing with our GHG emissions and commitments. Again, because it is part of that total complex packaging around how the whole package will work and what will come forward on it to deal with it, it's confidential at this stage of the game. I don't want to keep hiding behind tax law but it is affected by tax law, in the packages.

Although I know where I think some of the recommendation will land, my colleagues at cabinet deserve the right to see whether the recommendations are what they're prepared to accept, or how they would like them to be changed or improved.

[1530]

We're well aware of our commitments. We're well aware of the tough choices we may have going forward, but our goal is to still make this the cleanest liquefied natural gas industry in the world. As we accomplish that, our proponents also recognize that we do have issues around carbon and how we would do offsets and that sort of thing, if necessary, to work that through.

R. Austin: There isn't really sufficient spare electricity, hydro, in the northwest to be able to fire up even one of these LNG plants. And the potential for some of the sites…. Even the independent power production facilities that are taking place now are a long way from coming to fruition and still don't have the kind of power necessary to power up a single plant.

Is it fair to assume, then, that the owners of these facilities will be able to use some of their own feedstock to power these, whether they be through direct turbine or whether the minister allows them to fire up and create their own electricity and fire them up electrically that way? Does the minister agree that the chances are that these are going to be using their own feedstock?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a combination here, we think. First of all, it's why we actually changed the Clean Energy Act to recognize natural gas for the production of liquefied natural gas as clean energy.

At the same time, we do know we can do an upgrade to a KVR line — from Terrace to Kitimat, for instance — to do a lot of the electrification of this that we would call, for lack of a better description, the non-production electricity demands. The companies are very interested, frankly, because they feel that is part of their clean commitment, if they can do it. They're also interested in working with the IPP sector and the other sectors up there. I know there have been some negotiations and discussions going on there.
[ Page 849 ]

In addition to that, though, I would expect that some may electrify by using feedstock, which would then be subject to carbon tax, obviously, because that tax exists on all natural gas that's used in B.C. If you take a couple of examples — and having just been through some briefings on it — Grassy Point, for instance, may be too remote to get a KVR line in there. That would mean the choice of electricity is different than it is, let's say, in Kitimat.

We've had work being done by some of the major proponents with regards to how they would participate in a relationship on upgrading some of the transmission to get our electricity from elsewhere in the province that we may have available there for them. How they would shape it in such a way that they'll be using power from the grid and off the grid, if necessary — all of these things are part of the negotiations. Discussions will take place over the next number of months and year.

R. Austin: I would like to ask a question with regards to the specifics of the airshed in Kitimat. As the minister is no doubt aware, the new Alcan smelter is reducing drastically four toxic substances that they monitor as a result of having new technology, which is fantastic news. But they are, of course, going to be increasing SO₂ emissions by 56 percent. That's a result of the increased amount of production of aluminum out of the new smelter and is a result of the source of carbon that's used in the aluminum manufacturing process, which is petroleum coke.

[1535]

Naturally, this has created quite a bit of controversy up north, as the airshed is tight. So my question to the minister is this. First of all, is he aware of that? And that being the case, is he recognizing that even one LNG plant or, potentially, two LNG plants in the Kitimat airshed would create a serious increase in terms of problems for those people who live up there? Does he recognize that? What would he be willing to do about that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we are aware of it, and there's work being done with regards to that as well. As a matter of fact, in June 2013 an emissions cumulative effects assessment workshop was held in Vancouver. That looked at all the potential air and greenhouse gas emissions from LNG development. The workshop with the follow-up activities provides valuable input that will help fully inform provincial policy decisions.

Obviously, we're looking at the cumulative impacts. We're in discussions with the communities. We're looking at the airshed — all of these things, our continued work with stakeholders and everybody else with regards to how these things can be affected by industrial development. Of course, it also means that would be part of the environmental assessment review, with regards to the environmental standards that have to be met.

But certainly, yes, we are aware of it. It is part of the total package of the ministry to look at all of those impacts as we bring the total package to government as far as our recommendations are concerned.

R. Austin: How do people who live in the northwest, specifically in the Terrace-Kitimat area, have input into these workshops that are taking place? To my knowledge, nobody up there is even aware that the ministry was doing any of this work. I assume that the ministry is paying for any of these cumulative impact studies.

Hon. R. Coleman: At this point, the Kitimat LNG airshed and GHG emission assessment project has been established. Participants include the province, the Gitga'at, the Haisla and the CFN. In addition to that, there will be, after that initial assessment this fall, community discussions with regards to the airshed. They will all be part of this discussion as we move forward.

R. Austin: At the LNG conference that was held probably about six weeks prior to the recent election, there were a number of presentations made. I know the minister was there, and so was I.

Jim Prentice spoke at that conference. I'm just going to quote him. He said: "But let's be clear. Getting into liquefied natural gas represents a big financial bet. The stakes are high, and the challenges are formidable. This is no slam dunk. We need to be confident and aggressive — but we must also ensure that we resolve and bring across the finish line a number of key outstanding issues."

One he brought up was the fact that because there are other major large-scale projects in the oil sands and elsewhere, "they're already stressing the available market of skilled workers. We're a big country with a small population, and we're building major infrastructure projects at a pace and scale which is unsurpassed."

My question is on skills training. Currently we have the smelter being built. As the minister would know, there's a large camp there with workers who have come from all over the province. About two months ago, Rio Tinto Alcan had to apply for the temporary foreign worker program to bring in people from outside of Canada to be able to work on the one large project that's actually been taking place for the last three or four years. Now we have a potential of several other large projects in the northwest.

[1540]

How is the minister going to coordinate this as part of his mandate to ensure that we have people trained in the next very short while to be able to take advantage of any LNG opportunities, should they come to fruition?

Hon. R. Coleman: The coordination across government of all training, advanced education, education and trades falls to a variety of ministers but is particularly led by the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and technology. The role
[ Page 850 ]
of this ministry is to make sure that we have a coordinated and focused plan that will be successful with regards to training — something that did not exist in the jurisdictions the member identified. At the same time, there were some other challenges with regards to those jurisdictions that were not just related to training, but they were also related to some other stuff.

We have, in consultation with the companies, sat down and looked at every type of job for every single plant and every single pipeline. They are providing us with the level of skills they need for people and how many they think they would need. We are creating a matrix across government to identify what those are, where they are, how many we need and where the training could be provided and how.

We will look at innovative ways as to how we train in the future. We have some training regimes that are somewhat cumbersome, relative to how other jurisdictions around the world train their people. So at the same time as we're doing that, we're going to figure out ways to train better and more efficiently for people.

We will then put that into a matrix with regards to jobs and opportunities in British Columbia and look at our own supply of labour and opportunities. But I think there's very little doubt that in the future, any British Columbian that wants to work would be able to go to the northeast and northwest and find work.

The member also knows that one of our challenges is getting folks to move to those areas of the province — because there has been a contraction of rural communities across the world to larger centres — and to market those opportunities to people so that they would actually go and stay or look for opportunities. We think that coming off the Rio Tinto project will be a number of folks whose skills would be able to be used in the next industry following.

There are two phases to this, of course, as the member knows. One is: you have the high-level construction projects, which would be a three-to-five-year buildout period. And then you have the long-term jobs to operate and maintain and provide the supports to both pipeline and to LNG facilities.

Those are two levels of skills. Some of the skills in these plants are not actually trained for in British Columbia today, so we will identify where those opportunities are. I met with one company that's very keen on how they could identify those training opportunities for First Nations communities — to be able to provide them with the opportunity to train to work for them.

All of that work is combined into a pretty aggressive file that will be moving very quickly over the next 60 to 90 days, as the ministers get their work done. Although it's always tough to coordinate, you want to make sure there are no silos in here. But having been the minister responsible for the homeless intervention project…. It had a goal of 1,800 — 100 seriously homeless people off our streets a month for 18 months — and achieved a goal of almost double that in the same period of time because all the resources of government, the different ministries, focused on results.

That's the objective of this ministry — to make sure we focus on those results here. There's no question that given the level of the possibility of investment here, there would be significant opportunities for British Columbians, and there will be a significant need for people with certain skills. Our job is to identify those skills, identify those opportunities for British Columbians and Canadians first, before we ever have a discussion of where we'd have to go elsewhere.

We have looked at the Australia experience and what happened there and how it came together. The member was right. There were some interesting fundamentals that didn't make any sense there. It was a race that took place that didn't quite match up to, as one company said to me, the practical investment. Yet in another area of Australia where they built a plant, they did not experience that situation because of how they handled their skills training in that particular area.

[1545]

So there are lessons being learned. But at the same time, very much so, I have all of the confidence in the minister's response. I've met with him already a number of times to confirm that we're headed in the right direction and that we're focused. The job here is to make sure that focus stays very strong and we get the results we need.

R. Austin: I have two questions that come from that answer.

Can I take it, then, that the government is encouraging the companies themselves to make major investments into training programs?

The second question is…. Relative to the rest of British Columbia, northwest B.C. still has a higher unemployment rate. That has stayed consistently high not just through the downturn of the forestry sector, but it's still higher even though there are lots of projects and potential projects taking place, whether they be mining or whether they be the Alcan build.

We see huge numbers of workers flying in and staying in camps, which the minister would acknowledge does not help to create vibrant communities, either in Terrace or Kitimat or Prince Rupert. My question is: how can the minister and his staff encourage and assist locally based training to ensure that we bring down our own level of unemployment?

In places like the Nass Valley I'm sure unemployment is in excess of 80 percent. That's probably not even a correct statistic, because really there's underemployment. For a lot of people, their only opportunity is to work for the band, the village government or the NLG.

Does the minister have any ideas? Through his ministry and his staff, is he thinking up ways in which we
[ Page 851 ]
can organize this training to encourage young people who live in the northwest to actually go and take advantage of these opportunities, instead of having to wait to have people trained all over the province or even, indeed, all over Canada and then flown in to work and to live in camps and not help to build our communities? This is what we need after so many years of being down in the dumps a little bit.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we have. As a matter of fact, the direction is to take this down to the degree of identifying the needs for trades and opportunities and taking them right to the community and job fairs and to the school system about training.

The nice thing about this is that if you were going to have a final investment decision in 2014, your construction would probably start around 2016 or 2017 for, let's say, a large LNG plant. We have the time to put in place a structure for the training. We think it's very important that local training be a focus.

By the way, ironically, the member asked me if I was encouraging the companies to invest in training. They didn't need to be encouraged. The first thing out of a couple of the companies' mouths was: "How do we enhance the skills of the local workforce, and how can we work with you to accomplish that?"

They think it's actually a benefit too. Obviously, the benefit is because of the long-term stay in the community and in being a part of the community and living there.

Part of the mandate for the minister of — I'm going to get the title wrong — let's say, communities…. Part of her mandate letter is to help build full communities in the north and to try and not have the same impact of camps and what have you. It's not to say that at peak construction there wouldn't be a necessity for some of that to take place because of other things in communities — accommodation and the capacity for people to live, or whatever.

At the same time, I've actually looked personally at each of the community plans of the three major communities that'll be affected — Kitimat, Terrace and Prince Rupert particularly — but also at Smithers and other smaller communities along there and at how they do their housing; how they do their commercial development; what land they have available; and, particularly, how they're managing that land to create opportunities for additional housing for people that might want to stay in the community, whether it be by rental or by construction.

There are, in my opinion, some significant opportunities there. However, I can't tell anybody where to invest. At the same time, that is something that will help to make fulsome communities.

Also, at the same time, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is looking at the infrastructure that may be required for these communities, in conjunction with the other minister. They, as well, will report back to this ministry with regards to those issues and how we can do that.

I think, handled correctly, we can actually build vibrant, long-term, sustainable communities in the northwest and deal with the local unemployment issue, particularly with training for First Nations communities as well — because, as the member knows, there's a higher level of unemployment there — and provide those opportunities.

[1550]

That means we need to get in and educate the communities. Where somebody is in the age group of 12 to 14 or 15 years of age and in the school system, what courses should they take if they want to pursue certain jobs that could be coming with regard to this? How are we going to deliver that training in such a way that they don't have to be displaced from their communities or their region of the province to be successful in getting those trades? That's one of those age-old challenges.

One of the things we found in a lot of trades is that we take people from areas of the province…. Say somebody is doing heavy-duty mechanic. They go down to BCIT for two months of the year. Then they go back up again, and they come back down again. Then, because they have been exposed to another area of the province, sometimes they find opportunities, people hiring them out of BCIT, and they don't actually end up going home.

I think that we need that training to be more focused, to be there. I believe that we could do that by not necessarily having to have the same model that we have. As a matter of fact, if you're doing heavy-duty mechanics today, the equipment that you work on as a heavy-duty mechanic is pretty old stuff compared to what you're actually working on in the job site — whether it's in Fort McMurray, in the northeast, in a mine or whatever the case may be.

Some of that on-the-job skill set that you can accumulate because you have that opportunity to keep a logbook and then how you do the other academic education to go with it, I think, are going to be important decisions and conversations that are taking place right now in government. We welcome any input with regards to that. I think it's important.

I also think it's important that we do get into — and we will be, because that's the plan — the communities in the next month or so. I've had a number of discussions with the communities already, but our minister will definitely be going to communities — probably around the first week of September, somewhere in there — looking at all these sorts of community-driven issues so that we can start to build a plan around how we're going to not only seize the opportunity to have this industry in British Columbia but how we get the long-term, sustainable jobs for the people that live and work in the communities.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

The minister mentioned having input. I have been
[ Page 852 ]
the Education critic for three years, have lived in the northwest for 18 and have seen the high levels of unemployment, particularly amongst young people, and the disengagement of many older teenagers who are still within the school system but who don't see a lot of value in the academic learning that's happening there.

The minister talks about changing the model of training. Has the minister considered working with the Education Ministry to think of ways in which kids who perhaps don't find academic work in grade 11 or 12 particularly inspiring…? They don't aspire to go on to college or university and are sitting there, sometimes, a little bit bored with life.

Has he considered working with the Ministry of Education to put in place plans for bringing training…? Not just waiting for kids to finish high school to go to the college but to increase programs like the ACE IT program — to actually encourage training to happen within the school system, which then is continued on at the college and vice versa, so that a lot of these 16-year-olds who are sitting there bored to death can actually figure that there is a future for them if they were able to, perhaps, do things which traditionally they aren't able to do under the B.C. school curriculum.

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I have two children. One of them has a master's degree in education. The other one is a mechanic. The mechanic has two successful businesses today and has also spent some time in the reserves and spent time in Afghanistan.

I'll tell the member a cute story. As you know, my mother recently passed away. I was at her bedside a lot. We have six children in my family, right? My brothers and my sister are all highly educated — two doctorate degrees, a master's and two BAs, and one that is not. One left and went into the RCMP out of high school. My mother looked over to me, and she said at one point: "Almost all my children got degrees, you know." I said to my mother: "Yes, but my son is highly successful, and he doesn't have one. He's a mechanic, Mother."

But I do think that the streaming is correct. The Ministry of Education has been given that mandate by this ministry, along with the Ministry of Advanced Education and the jobs training ministry, to build that plan in such a way, somewhat in the way the member describes. I think it's important. I do think that we do live in a world, oftentimes, where people think the academic stream is the only stream. Parents know and actually oftentimes think that's what they want for their children, because they want the best for their children.

[1555]

If we can go into the system and into communities and say, "We're going to need this many electricians. This is what an electrician can make. This is the opportunity for you to have a job…." Or a pipefitter, or sometimes it can be a program in electronics. It can be a number of jobs, and it's amazing how many there are. "These are the skills you need to get there."

Go in early and say: "Start thinking about this too." And then have your education system think about it as well — and deliver. That's the biggest key. For instance, I don't think my son, let's say, as a mechanic — or another friend of mine's son who is a very skilled finishing carpenter — would be able to do the job if they didn't know something about systems and computers but certainly about math, right?

So what's the value of math to the whole sector with regards to jobs? Can you understand the calculation of the pressure of a measurement on a pressure vessel if you can't do the multiplication? Or, for lack of a better description, if your technical support, computers go down and you need to actually make that calculation on the fly because it's important to the safety of someone.

I think that what we've outlined in government is a coordinated, integrated approach to this. I think the member is correct. There are young people coming through the education system who probably have, in many cases…. I don't think we should underestimate their intellectual capacity to get a degree, but they are not interested, in particular. But if you get them interested in something that they find they like, a skill, then they can turn it into a lifelong career. I think that's where we have to be very focused now.

That shift is going to be very, very important for the skills training in B.C. It's about going in. I would anticipate in the next number of months we will develop plans where we will go into, let's say, a First Nations community and talk to the community, explain to them all the opportunities and what the education requirements would be for the young people to be able to get those jobs and pursue them, and then where they can get those skills and how we can tie those skills in from the industry to the community to the education system to make it successful.

I'm not going to say it's going to be easy. There are obviously — as the member, as a critic of Education, knows — some institutional biases with regards to some of these things that will also have to be changed. But they have to be changed, and they have to be changed for the benefit of these folks that have the opportunities.

R. Austin: By the way, you've done very well for someone who didn't get a degree.

A couple of questions come out of this. With regards to the jurisdictional issues that the minister talks about, I think that if the education system was encouraged to have changes in their curriculum so that there was more focus on some of the trades within the school system, you'd overcome some of those institutional changes — about whether our kids should be in school until they're 18 or whether they should be going to the college earlier. I think that's something that needs to be done.

I was going to ask the minister what changes to the apprenticeship program are anticipated through his work,
[ Page 853 ]
taking a lead on this, recognizing that we're short of apprentices even as we speak, never mind with these kinds of potential projects coming on board in the next three to four years. What changes to the apprenticeship program does he envision recommending to his partners in the cabinet?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is really a collaborative effort. The Minister of Jobs, who basically has the lead on skills training, and I have met extensively. She's already coordinating with the other ministries with regards to jobs training and skills and how we can do it and what models would work better and more efficiently. I have a lot of confidence in the rest of my colleagues to get there. My job isn't to tell them how to do it — certainly give them some strong advice with regards to how I think we can get there and, obviously, knowing that I have the responsibility to report back on the entire success of the package and around liquefied natural gas development, which includes skills training.

In government there really is a focus that says that the ministry lead that's going to put this together, set the guidelines, timetables for success here is certainly this ministry. Then these ministries will go and do what they have and continue to coordinate with us.

I think you'll see the work, in the next few months as it comes through, that they've been doing. Quite frankly, I think they're working on some pretty innovative approaches to improve this. At the same time, as we improve it we need the people who want to do it.

[1600]

The available education, the education about the trade and the opportunity, is going to be paramount here — I think in Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers and right across, all the way out to Prince Rupert, going back even to Prince George and Vanderhoof, that whole region of the province. We need to get into those communities so we can speak to young people and their parents about the opportunities.

When I talk to a lot of my friends — I've got friends up in that region of the province — their biggest fear was always that they couldn't find a job or a skill and they were going to leave. They knew they were going to leave to Vancouver or somewhere else in Canada. They really wanted them to have the opportunities close to home.

So we have opportunities coming close to home. We have to make sure that the education and the training matches up so those folks can make the decision to stay close to home.

R. Austin: What amount of the minister's budget has been allocated to going up to the northwest and doing what I would call this road show the minister is describing, in terms of getting out there and marketing the opportunities, going to the schools or to the communities not only to get feedback on environmental issues but also to promote the sense of what kinds of job opportunities are out there and to help people there understand what it is they require and how to get there?

I think the challenge going into a lot of these remote communities is that somebody can come in and make a presentation or a speech or whatever, but because many of the people there have not actually gone and engaged in jobs like this, they're left with an impression but not knowing how to connect the dots to actually go through the door of opportunity.

The minister mentioned that part of the success in the outreach program for homeless people wasn't just taking homeless people off the street and putting them in some housing. It was all the ancillary services that accompanied that homeless person to help them deal with whatever issues they were dealing with, helping them to understand what it was to have the benefit of secure housing and then to deal with other issues.

My question to the minister is…. The same issue kind of exists in a lot of remote communities, where people have been living, in some cases for multigenerations, on social assistance. There isn't a culture of industrial work in a lot of these communities. For them to just come and listen to a presentation from one of your staff or somebody who comes up isn't enough. To what extent can you add to that to try and help move this forward?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's not just me going to the northwest and the northeast. They would get bored of me. Really, what it is…. My discussion, as I brought the ministries through and talked to them about the coordinated plan here…. My vision, as I have expressed it to the ministries is….

Let's take the jobs education–advanced education piece as one, for instance. My expectation is the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will be involved with those ministries relative to First Nations communities. My expectations would be that if we go into a community, we see: "Here is a list of jobs and opportunities. Here is a list of training that you need to get skilled up for these jobs and opportunities. Here is where you can get this training or where we're going to bring it to you, give you the opportunity. And here's the checklist that says if you're in grade 8 or 9 today, you need these subjects in order to enter this particular one or that particular one." So you can actually have, in my opinion, a road map as to how to get there.

While we're doing that, we want to build healthy communities and what have you, so Community, Sport and Cultural Development — which is basically the one that deals with municipalities — will be into the municipalities early in September to go through what they think their needs are and their concerns about growth and development.

The Education Ministry, Advanced Education and Ministry of Jobs will be working on a plan to go do what
[ Page 854 ]
I described. The Education ministries are going to have to back that up with where they're going to provide the training, or what kind of training and how they would do it. My expectation is that they would all do it in a coordinated fashion. My role is to make sure that that is exactly what happens.

[1605]

The reason I used the Housing one as an example earlier is because that's exactly what the case was. Each ministry that had touched the file was basically put in a room, and they said: "This is the objective. You're part of the objective. Your roles are to do this, this and this. Is there any issue around you being able to do those roles? We need to know now, because that's the mandate we have been given to do."

That's the mandate here. Frankly, I have the utmost confidence in all of these ministers and their staff in the ministries. Of course, there's the Deputy Ministers Council that is basically overseeing the natural gas development piece, led by my deputy minister, which includes all of these pieces with these ministries. And of course, there's a committee chaired by the Premier, a cabinet committee, of which I am the vice-chair, which is also being reported back to with regards to the progress on all of these.

I think that it has to come down to understandable descriptions for people to be able to make those decisions to see where their opportunities are and where they can be successful.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I would also add that I think part of the challenge for a lot of the folk who live in these remote communities is to also have someone to mentor them through the process.

Even once they are shown an opportunity and told, you know, which courses they need to enrol in, in grade 9, 10, 11, it just so happens that most of these folks — who haven't engaged in any kind of industrial work before and don't have a history of others in their community to show them the way — when they're in a program very often then find someplace where they're stuck, for whatever reason it is. If there was some sort of mentorship program to help them to go over that little hurdle, we'd find a much higher success rate.

I'm sure the minister has been in government long enough to know that that has also been a part of the downfall in the apprenticeship program, in the sense that it wasn't just the person who was showing them how to do something. When they got stuck at a particular place, if there were somebody there to encourage them to recognize that they can overcome that challenge and help them through that little bump, that little hurdle, they would then prosper and go on.

I would hope that as the minister is putting together this program and speaking with members in the government and staff, they would recognize that, particularly in First Nations communities, it really helps if there's someone to mentor them. I think that'll lead to greater success. That's more of just a comment.

I'd like to just get back…. I recognize that the whole tax situation is off-limits, in the sense that it has to be confidential. But I do want to ask the minister this question. While the government here is figuring out a tax structure, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is, of course, going to Ottawa seeking tax breaks for large-scale industrial projects to do with resource extraction.

I'm just wondering: how is it that the provincial government is able to deal with this and to think of whatever tax structures — essentially, some form of subsidies — are going to be needed to make sure that the industry is viable, while at the same time some of the big proponents are going to Ottawa and getting a tax break? How do you balance that?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, Member opposite, the word "subsidy" has never come up here — never brought up by the companies, never by anybody. We're only able to do what we are constitutionally empowered to do with any tax with regard to our resources. That work has been very complex in working to make sure that we protect our jurisdiction as British Columbia. We believe we've worked that out, and obviously, when it comes in the form of the package, we're very comfortable with it.

What CAPP does with the federal government I really don't have a comment on.

[1610]

R. Austin: Could I ask the minister: as we move forward in the months to come and the Legislature isn't in session until perhaps the fall, who would I as the critic be able to contact and speak to in your ministry to be able to get updates and to get briefings? Up until now, of course…. We're only here for four weeks. I did request a briefing, and we weren't able to get together on that. But outside of the legislative session, who would I be able to contact in your office to be able to coordinate my ability to get information through on this file?

Hon. R. Coleman: The contacts are through my offices, but obviously, the member knows that not only is it a truncated session…. You can imagine the amount of work that's going on with people new to operations across government, in having them get briefed up and to understand their job roles. Also, they have to then understand the files. But it would be contact through my office.

Obviously, going forward, it'll be a lot easier to facilitate that than it has been in the last six weeks, simply because, given all the things that are going on and the complexities of the file, how much work has got to be done, the focus has been in one place and one place only. Obviously, probably going into the fall, the member will find that we will have the ability at appropriate times to be able to do briefings that would be helpful.
[ Page 855 ]

A. Weaver: My question to the minister. First is a preface. According to the British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy, Canada contains only 1.1 percent of all world reserves of natural gas. B.C. contains a fraction of that, and the Montney formation a fraction of that.

So it's pretty clear that a lot is being put at stake on this rather very small resource, relative to the rest of the world. When choosing to focus its effort on LNG, did the government compare the projected return on investment from the LNG sector with projected returns on investment from similar levels of government support for other sectors or industries — in particular, the clean tech sector in British Columbia or perhaps the film industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we don't subsidize this industry like those other industries that the member mentioned. With regard to the film industry, that is not a debate I'm going to get into this afternoon, simply because it has nothing to do with my ministry. There's a difference between subsidy and actually having an industry that drives revenues and jobs for your jurisdiction.

We have about 84 years over and above our ability to supply North America natural gas that we know of in British Columbia today. We know that we could supply five to seven major plants for 84 years. The member opposite shouldn't just rely on the Montney base. We also have the Cordova, we have the Horn, and we have the Liard. We have some recent drilling results in all of those that lead us to be even more optimistic. Plus, we now know that the Montney is way bigger than we thought.

[1615]

We have this resource. We move about 1.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas into the North American market today, and the rest of it is sitting there looking for a market. We think it's our responsibility to pursue an opportunity. It's actually not just us but the companies that are around the world that are interested in coming here. They want to pursue this with us. It's our job to see if we can facilitate that, to move that resource, and that's what we intend to do.

A. Weaver: I was not looking at any subsidies here, of course. I was talking about the comparison to the economic activity of one industry versus others to see whether or not it's potentially as effective as the government has said.

As a follow-up, then, has the government…? In doing its revenue projections, presumably it has asked the question of what the projected increase in domestic methane prices will be to B.C. consumers as a consequence of enhanced export of B.C. products afar. I was wondering if the minister is able to share with us projected prices to the B.C. consumer.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm advised that our research tells us that by pursuing this resource into a global marketplace, it will not have an impact on the B.C. market, which is driven by a North American market and is a totally different consumer.

A. Weaver: My understanding is that most price forecasts for the natural gas in North America would be an increase in natural gas prices if the export activity were to increase to provide an Asian market. Perhaps I could ask the minister again the same question but North American gas prices, with respect to an increased export of LNG.

Hon. R. Coleman: The studies we've seen show a very minimal impact with regards to liquefied natural gas exports taking place versus the North American marketplace. There are a number of factors around that.

I can say to the member opposite that if the U.S. economy were to pick up dramatically and the demand for natural gas goes up, like it did in '06-07 — mind you, we didn't have the reserves identified that we have today in 2013 — that market gets affected by that. Given the fact that we have an orphan resource that needs to go to another market — technically I guess we could probably supply all of North America for about 150 years just by ourselves — we need to move that gas to another market if the opportunity exists.

A. Weaver: My understanding of the U.S. approach to natural gas is they are in fact moving towards replacing many of their coal-fired electricity plants with natural gas, thereby putting pressure on the natural gas price in the North American market. In order to realize the provincial revenue projections from LNG that the government is putting forward, what percentage of the Asia-Pacific LNG supply gap will B.C. LNG production need to fill in the long term?

On page 54, in reference to this document here, the budget and fiscal plan, it talks about a supply gap that B.C. will fill. My question is: what percentage of that supply gap must be filled for B.C. to meet its revenue projections?

[1620]

Hon. R. Coleman: These discussions are in and around five plants, and they'd be five large plants. Having said that, there are some smaller plants, and there are other major proponents here as well. Basically, what we do know….

Also, just for the member opposite, we have Europe in discussions with us about LNG now. We have Chile in discussions with wanting to talk to us about LNG, as well as other countries that are not necessarily in Asia, like India, that are also saying that they're interested in supply from British Columbia.

Wood Mackenzie estimated the demand for the region would substantially outpace LNG supply, and this is in
[ Page 856 ]
Asia-Pacific only, by 100.4 million tonnes in 2020 and 238 million tonnes in 2030. We have the ability to supply about 84 million tonnes of that natural gas in our supply today if we had five large plants operating. It doesn't take into account the other tonnage that is expected around the world, and the increases that are expected over those two decades are staggering, relative to this amount of supply that is being consumed today.

A. Weaver: Today in the Vancouver Sun the minister was quoted as saying: "We are encouraged to know that developing a brand-new LNG industry in B.C. puts us in a position to replace emissions globally by replacing coal with natural gas." Can the minister provide his evidence that supports the idea of the countries that are cited to have high natural gas demand — e.g., Japan, South Korea, China and India — will in fact offset coal emissions, as opposed to build enhanced capacity for electricity production or replace nuclear-powered plants, as is the case of Japan, as a result of B.C.'s natural gas industry and not simply seek other sources of natural gas from other countries regardless of B.C.'s involvement?

In essence, I'm looking for evidence for that statement that in fact countries will replace existing coal-burning electricity with natural gas as opposed to replacing nuclear power with natural gas or using natural gas for enhanced capacity while bringing on line renewable energy.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two pieces to that. First of all, the need for electricity, I would imagine, is going to increase with the demand in these countries, so they would have a choice to go to coal, natural gas, nuclear. Some countries are not going to go to nuclear for obvious reasons of some other natural disasters that have taken place. They don't want to go there. And to replace coal…. I've been told by folks from these countries that that's one of the goals of theirs — to replace coal with natural gas because they think it is better for emissions. That's where my comments would've come from.

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister.

[1625]

In the LNG strategy the argument is made that B.C. LNG, as the official opposition critic mentioned earlier, will be the cleanest LNG source in the world. The reality, of course, is that the main companies exploring opportunities in British Columbia with LNG have already stated they will go to direct-drive systems, which will require natural gas energy systems to actually power them as opposed to renewable energy systems.

Natural gas is clean energy — cleaner energy. It is not clean energy. Sorry. So to say that we are going to be the cleanest in the world would imply that our LNG industry would be powered by renewable resources or electricity-produced motors. There is no evidence that this will happen. What evidence does the minister have to bolster the statement that, in fact, this will be the cleanest LNG in the world?

Hon. R. Coleman: We said we would have the cleanest facilities in the world. We're working with industry on that to benchmark that commitment. The member opposite knows that we've changed some terms, obviously, last year in the Clean Energy Act to accept natural gas as clean energy. But it doesn't imply just by itself that it will only be from that type of electricity.

Our industries are looking at renewables. They're looking at the grid. They're looking at those opportunities. It also is a known fact that our gas is cooler when it comes out of the ground than most jurisdictions, except for a small area elsewhere in the world, and that our ambient temperature in the areas we want to make the natural gas is substantially cooler.

For instance, in Perth, Australia, in the summertime the temperature gets to 140 degrees, which requires more energy to actually liquefy the natural gas as a result. Because our gas comes out of the ground at 30 degrees cooler than anywhere else, it actually uses less energy to liquefy to the point where for a five-train plant in British Columbia, you would need a seven-train plant with all of the attendant costs and energy and pressures to create the same amount of liquefied natural gas. It's because of the ambient temperature of our gas when it comes out of the ground.

That has actually been identified not by us. It was a comment made at the same conference that the member, the critic, was at in February. We knew this. BG's senior person made this comment that this was one of the reasons they're here. It's because it's cooler, it takes less energy, it's easier to deal with, and the ambient temperature doesn't change dramatically in the areas you would site these plants. So you don't have this fluctuation in temperatures outside the plants that is taking place elsewhere in the world, like in Perth.

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to natural gas price forecasts. The budget update 2013-2014 to 2015-2016, in the appendices, had a number of new private sector forecasts added to it, when compared to the one provided back in February. Similarly, there are six private sector forecasts that were missing from the list.

I understand this is due to the ministry only using recently updated figures. Forecasts, as that, have been updated since February. Can the minister provide the updated forecast for those that were missing: AJM Henry Hub, AJM AECO–C Spot, Sproule B.C. Westcoast Station 2, AJM, B.C. Spot Plant Gate, Henry Hub, etc.?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have that at my fingertips, but we will get it to the member.

R. Austin: I just want to ask. In regards to potential infrastructure that has to be built on the public dime in
[ Page 857 ]
order to facilitate any of these projects, could the minister let us know what infrastructure needs he sees up in the northwest that would help to facilitate these?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: There is some infrastructure, obviously. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is working, or will be, with communities, as well as the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development with regards to those issues.

[1630]

In some cases, even though there is some significant infrastructure, the companies have already identified that as a cost that they're prepared to cost-share or cover in the future with regards, particularly, to road infrastructure and those types of things that have to get people in and out of work or with regards to ingress and egress for safety issues and that sort of thing. That's all part of the total package of discussion.

As we go through this community analysis, on top of housing and those types of things that will be needed to make whole communities, we've already seen some identification from some of the communities on some of these. On others, there is going to be some other significant infrastructure that'll be looked at with regards to how we can share that with port authorities, with communities or with the senior governments with regards to any infrastructure programs that they have and also with companies that may want to do specific things.

In some cases some of the companies made it pretty clear they need some infrastructure there, but they're going to build that into their budget, because it might be outside what we would normally provide with regards to infrastructure.

Our negotiations as we go through the fall will include these packages and will also, at that time, be identifying…. For instance, Kitimat has a specific road they're concerned about with regards to capacity, but we've already had indication from proponents that they might want to share in it. Then the question is: how many proponents are there to share?

As the member knows, there are a number of pieces of property along the route. If they all went ahead, they would be…. There may be three or four companies. It could be two companies. Whereas our position on it….

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has been tasked with that analysis and to do work with us to make sure that the infrastructure piece with communities and coordination with the minister responsible for communities is coordinated in such a way that we can put that all together.

R. Austin: Could I just be specific about two pieces of infrastructure? I think the minister has already alluded to one of them. I assume that the minister was alluding to the West Side Road in terms of the extension of the road past the Alcan plant that goes down to the potential sites.

I'd like to ask the minister about a second piece of important infrastructure that is in dire straits, as the minister knows. I'm sure he's been to Kitimat. The industry is on one side of the Kitimat River, and the residential area is on the other side of the Kitimat River. The only bridge crossing — it's referred to there as the Haisla Bridge — is in dire shape of repair. The community, of course, has a population of around 9,000.

Is that the kind of infrastructure that the Ministry of Transportation, along with these proponents, is looking at investing in?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the focus at this point has been on the first road with everybody — with regards to the community and what have you. We have had the bridge brought to our attention, and we will be asking, if it hasn't already been done, for us to take a look at that as well. We do know what the access issues are relative to the importance of recreational activity and those sorts of things and the aging state of the bridge.

Obviously, as you go into an opportunity like this, where you're actually creating a whole new industry, those things have to come to the forefront and be discussed as to how you would do that. It has been very clear from both ministers responsible, both from the Community side and from the Transportation and Infrastructure side, that they're going to look at those needs in those communities, and they would be coming back with recommendations together.

R. Austin: Could the minister also comment on what the structure is for the shipping regime that'll take place through the Douglas Channel? As I'm sure he's aware, there's been huge opposition. Not to LNG. That's been very well-received in the northwest, but there's been huge opposition to the Enbridge gateway project over the last several years. That's been based both on land and on ocean, with a huge emphasis on crude oil tankers, bitumen tankers, off the coast of British Columbia.

[1635]

Could he comment on the structure that will be in place to ensure the number of vessels that pass through, depending on how many potential plants could ever be built…? And how is he working with the federal government to look at that?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's quite a crystal-ball question from the member opposite. I do know that we have commissioned some reports. One is Charting a Course: LNG Traffic Along the B.C. North Coast. That's in draft. It's being worked on at this point in time. It's co-funded by us and industry to address coastal First Nations' concern regarding potential marine impacts of LNG facilities and export terminals. It's focused mainly on that, but it
[ Page 858 ]
does focus on LNG.

We are in discussions constantly with the federal government with regards to even how the port will work in the future and how we will structure the port. As this port grows, does it need a board? How does the harbourmaster's authority compare to other ports, those types of things? How will the traffic be managed? Will it all be part of the overall…? I think not just the plan today or going forward, but in the future it would be adjusted at a number of stages as this thing would evolve.

Obviously, if there are two LNG plants and there was another plant that wanted to ship something else, and if there happened to ever be a bitumen plant or something that was going to ship that, all of those things affect the traffic patterns and planning for the channel. The expectation would be that those people would make sure that marine safety and security were the priority on that.

Having said that, the member also knows that we have five pretty clear standards with regards to any shipping of any type of oil product on our coast, which includes a world-class spill response, a world-class plan, both on land and on water. We've been pretty bullish on that with the federal government as to what our expectations are. There's a lot of work to be done before we get there, I think.

It hasn't been, from our perspective, something we spent a lot of time or priority on, because it isn't here. Whereas the natural gas piece seems to be much more of a reality, considering, as you said, in the northwest and in the northeast that we don't have the same visceral opposition to something as there is to the pipeline with regards to oil. Certainly, as that would come along, it would also have to meet our conditions, but it would also have to be part of the planning of the channel, of the port and of the traffic.

R. Austin: I'm glad to hear your comments about Enbridge gateway, because I would agree with you that there is still visceral opposition to it. I don't see them ever coming anywhere close to the five conditions that have been laid out by the Premier and your government. That's a good thing. We're all happy about that.

I did want to ask you, in regards to the jurisdiction over the port…. As you're well aware, it's always been considered to be a private port, with most of the access to the waterfront controlled by Rio Tinto Alcan. Then a few months ago the federal minister declared that there was going to be a public port in Kitimat, which kind of surprised all of us up there. We didn't realize there was any space or even land, really, to be able to suddenly create a public port in what was, essentially, mostly private land held by Rio Tinto Alcan.

My question to the minister is: can you clarify this position as to who is going to be in charge of any port facilities that are set up on the marine side for LNG exports?

[1640]

Hon. R. Coleman: I won't comment on the federal government's announcements, but I can say this to the member. Obviously, the port jurisdiction is something we have to work with the federal government on. Our preference is that it would not become a federal port, that it would be in the jurisdiction of British Columbia in a relationship with the community and the users.

The situation is changing, evolving obviously, in Kitimat, where a couple of other large industrial users at one point in time are no longer there. You have this possibility of new industrial users coming into play. You have private land — Rio Tinto's property. You have First Nations land with the Haisla. You have Crown land with regards to other areas of the port, and some other private land.

Our hope is to come through the fall and work through a model with all those jurisdictions plus the federal government that would make this work, obviously, so that we could do it. We're not making an announcement as to what that model is, because we think it has to be a public relationship between the users and the community and an authority over the port to take care of things that the member described, like traffic and management and those sorts of things.

We think we can accomplish that, but the port jurisdiction is something that we really do have to work out with the federal government and others.

R. Austin: Thanks to the minister. To clarify this, the minister envisages a public port created in consultation with the private companies other than Alcan, who is currently there, but controlled by the province and not controlled by the federal government. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: I wouldn't say I envisage that, but I do think that's a possibility. Certainly, we want to see…. We know, obviously, that the jurisdiction over the coastal waters and that sort of thing sits with certain levels of government, and we have to work out the relationship there and how the port will be managed. Through the fall we'll be sitting down in consultation with all the affected parties to see if we can come up with some consensus as to what it should look like going forward. We don't have a particular bias today.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask, in regards to one of the Prince Rupert proposed facilities which is on Lelu Island: how is the minister dealing with the federal government in regards to ensuring that the environmental assessment process becomes a B.C. one, as opposed to one that's controlled by the federal government because it's port land authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: This one does have federal process to it because it is federal land, but we have an MOU with them on how we will coordinate the process.
[ Page 859 ]

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic for letting me pose a couple of questions to the minister. Thank you to the minister, and congratulations on his new role — and thanks to the staff. I see he's gesturing in enthusiasm about his new role.

I have a couple of specific questions, and I'll start with the first one on the Kispiox Valley Community Association. It's a longtime community association, decades old, in the Kispiox Valley.

[1645]

They rarely, if ever, have taken a stance on a so-called political issue such as LNG. But they wrote a letter back in April, signed by the executive and all directors of the Kispiox Valley Community Association.

They outlined a number of issues that they were asking for information about, including the potential fragmentation of a globally significant salmon habitat in the Kispiox Valley, which potential LNG pipeline development across the Kispiox watershed might impact upon; about the province's sustainable long-term plan with regard to natural gas; concerns around LNG pipelines being converted to use for transporting oil; issues around fracking in the northeast; electricity generation that will be required for a potential LNG plant; and, finally, the potential cumulative impacts of multiple natural gas pipelines and how those are being considered in the current process. It's a whole host of issues.

They wrote this letter in April. It was sent to all the northern MLAs, so MLAs on both sides of the Legislature. From my understanding, it was sent electronically to the Premier as well. They haven't received a response yet, so I would ask the minister to advise regarding when they can expect a response to the points they raise. You know, these are legitimate questions in the process.

They're typifying it right now that they feel that the cart of development is being put before the horse of assessment. If the minister could advise around when they might expect a response and when the kind of consultative issues and cumulative impact issues will be fully canvassed in regards to the pipeline development and Stikine.

Hon. R. Coleman: The letter didn't come to us, so we will track it for you and find out where it is in government and get an answer to that piece of the question.

The EAO does, of course, consider community impacts, and there are community consultation and hearings and what have you whenever we do something. Earlier we did talk about coordinating corridors for pipelines and that stuff relative to how the companies are going to work together and that sort of thing.

That letter did, according to what you just described, outline a number of issues, so we'll find out for the member where it is and who's responding and what the status is.

D. Donaldson: Thanks very much. They'll be pleased to hear that you're going to track that.

As far as the comments…. And that's a nice segue the minister made around cumulative impacts. Perhaps he misspoke. We know that the EAO doesn't have the ability to track cumulative impacts because the words "cumulative impacts" are not in the Environmental Assessment Act. In fact, they were removed in 2002. If the minister would like to elaborate on how the EAO assesses cumulative impacts in regards to the LNG proposed development, I'd be happy to give him that opportunity now.

Hon. R. Coleman: If you could maybe get the information — specifically, what you're speaking about with regards to the EAO — because our understanding is they do assess community impacts in a regulatory process. They do that.

[1650]

I will confirm that, but that's our understanding with our officials here, so we will get a quick check on it for you.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I will have to check Hansard. Perhaps I misheard. I thought you said "cumulative impacts," not "community impacts." So perhaps that's where we're crossing wires.

I'll get on to the next question I have. I want to bring the minister up to speed on a situation that, if he doesn't know about it, I think it would be important to him to know about it. It specifically relates to the Ministry of Natural Gas Development mandate to facilitate a positive climate for the economic, environmental and socially responsible development of British Columbia's natural gas resources. That is in regards to the Gitanyow First Nation, the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

They were asked to comment on proposed natural gas transmission systems from northeast B.C. to the Prince Rupert area. Those are two proposed pipeline projects that would cross the Gitanyow hereditary territories under the current proposals. They were asked to comment. They responded, in response to a letter May 6 from, again, the B.C. environmental assessment office. The environmental assessment office did not add the list of Gitanyow wilp into a schedule of the section order 11.

This is longstanding. I mean, government policy on the minister's side has been to engage with the wilp, which is a house group, which is the basic social, economic and political entity in the Gitanyow system — and, in fact, signed a reconciliation agreement with the Gitanyow in the fall of 2012 that recognized the wilp.

That was just one of their issues. But more pertinent to the minister's file is the fact that the answers they've gotten back from the EAO, the B.C. environmental assessment office, as documented in these letters to them, is that this reconciliation agreement that the government signed with the Gitanyow in the fall of 2012 included a land use plan.

There was a lot of work put into this on both sides, and
[ Page 860 ]
I congratulate the government on the work that they put in on their side. The land use plan actually dovetailed with other government land use plans in the northwest in regards to forestry, for instance, and other resources.

When the Gitanyow pointed out in this consultative phase around LNG pipeline development that perhaps will be crossing their traditional territories that their land use plan was a document that needed to be respected, they were told by the environmental assessment office that their land use plan would have no bearing on environmental impact assessments through their office on this proposed development.

So you can see that this is not going to be the best of situations, if it proceeds like this. I'll quote from the latest letter that the Gitanyow have written to the Minister of Environment, July 15, where they say:

"One of the main purposes of the Gitanyow R and R agreement" — recognition and reconciliation agreement — "is to create increased certainty to land and resource management decisions. Forcing the Gitanyow to go to court in order to obtain a serious consideration of Gitanyow aboriginal rights and title with respect to EA decisions will not provide that certainty and will increase the possibility of non-reconciliation and disputes. It appears to us that the EAO was operating under different directions to green-light all projects proposed for this region, and in doing so, they are showing complete disregard for our rights."

I understand I am quoting from a letter in regards to the environment office, but going back to the fact that the ministry that the minister now heads…. Part of their work is to facilitate a positive climate.

I'd be curious. Could the minister advise: is it his view that the Gitanyow land use plan, something they've signed off on with the government, does not impact the plans being considered for LNG pipelines across the Gitanyow territories? If it doesn't, then how is this leading to facilitating a positive climate?

[1655]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is so far away from my ministry for the most part that I really can't comment on it. I can tell you this. I've always had a very good relationship with the Gitanyow. I've done a number of deals in different ministries over the years with the Gitanyow, and I have the utmost respect for these folks. They're actually pretty incredible people, and I have a lot of respect and like for them as a First Nations group.

I will, now that it's in Hansard, check with the ministry that has effect with this and also with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I don't know. They may or may not have done their estimates already.

Certainly, we're going to facilitate relationships, obviously. I think that every piece of government needs to facilitate those relationships. I would expect that that's probably what we're all being told, or that's what we all have an understanding of — to build those relationships for success for all British Columbians, including First Nations.

So I will take the information from you, and I'll talk to the ministry and find out what language is in there. With regards to…. If the member wants to share a copy of the letters, because I don't have them, that might save me searching for them. Otherwise, I'm sure we can find them within government. Certainly, from that standpoint, that's how I would approach it from here.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate the minister's approach that he would take.

I do note in the ministry Vote 39, under "Oil and gas," that consulting with First Nations and other stakeholders is part of the mandate of this ministry.

I will definitely forward you the letter after we're done here today. I would encourage you to use the good relationship that you have with the Gitanyow to get to the bottom of this.

R. Austin: With your permission, hon. Chair, could we have a five-minute comfort break?

The Chair: Sure. On that, we'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:02 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

V. Huntington: As the Chair may or may not know, but as the minister probably does know, for the last number of years I've been quite interested in the issue of water and water consumption in the non-conventional gas play. I know that the ministry, in the last two or three years, has been working with other ministries to try and get a grip on the amount of water that is being used and how much is available, and that recent studies have been modelling the water flow and predicting the environmental industrial allocations that will be needed. The study I'm particularly referring to is the Chapman study on the Montney.

The question I have at the moment is: does the minister intend that the Oil and Gas Commission will control the pace of development based on its water permit allocations, or are these studies basically telling the ministry how much water they will need to supply to the industry as the time goes by?

[1705]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a variety of answers to the question. I'll give you all of them, hon. Member.

Obviously, the OGC does track and control the pace of development relative to the use of water — we do both — to determine an amount. The water that's used is less than 0.075 percent of the water that is in the annual runoff in all northeast river basins in the northwest. That's 0.075 percent. That's not a percent. That's 7/10, three-quarters
[ Page 861 ]
of a percent.

In addition to that, we also have the Encana-Apache Debolt water treatment plant which uses saline water for the Debolt formation. That is about 500 to 1,100 metres below surface as water. Then in addition to that, we also use…. With Shell, they treat and use the municipality of Dawson Creek's grey-water effluent for using in the mine.

V. Huntington: The surface water is expected to be able to provide about 65 percent, I understand, of the predicted need. In addition to the saline, to Dawson Creek's wastewater treatment and to the treated flowback waters, what is the percentage of water that will be needed in addition to those three expectations or expected delivery mechanisms?

Hon. R. Coleman: Now, at this point, none — no requirement for any more. If activity increased, there might be a small percentage of additional water needed, but at the same time, more and more companies are moving to recycling their water and using it so they can use it more often. Obviously, the management of the OGC is that if there are drought conditions or something, they start shutting down portions of the industry relative to water use.

When we're talking about 7.5 of 1/10 of 1 percent of the water in the whole area, it's a pretty small amount of water relative to…. But it is managed to stream and lake level to make sure all other priorities on the water table are taken care of first.

V. Huntington: Yes, I do understand those priorities are expected to be taken care of. What is the ministry expecting to service the industry through the Williston or Site C? How much is presently being pumped out of Williston for Encana purposes? Do we anticipate using Site C for water in the industry?

[1710]

Hon. R. Coleman: Two other shale gas developers, Talisman Energy and Canbriam Energy, have been granted water licences — and this is relative to Williston reservoir near Hudson's Hope — to a maximum of 10,000 cubic metres per day. They're operating a pipeline to transfer water from the reservoir to their drilling sites. Williston reservoir holds 74 billion cubic metres of water. If they used all the allowable water, the reservoir water might drop, but it would be dropped by less than a centimetre.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether there is any science being undertaken at the moment to determine what the impact on the water cycle is from this permanent withdrawal or what the impact to the environment is from this permanent withdrawal from the water cycle. Are there studies being undertaken at the moment to answer that question?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is all peer-reviewed. We have the NorthEast Water Tool which is…. Basically, we get information from the peer review by UBC, Simon Fraser University and University of Northern British Columbia. They do the assessment and the modelling, and that is put on line at the NorthEast Water Tool.

V. Huntington: Just very briefly, then, are the reservoirs considered part of the surface water opportunity Is that part of the 65 percent? How are the reservoirs calculated as being part of the requirement — or provision, should I say?

[1715]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member should be clear on her question. I want to make sure it's understood here.

So 0.75 of 1 percent of the water that's used comes from the sources, including Williston — 0.75 of 1 percent of the water. That could amount to 65 percent of the water used by the industry, but the amount of water being used is 0.75 of 1 percent of the water that would come from streams, lakes, runoff — that sort of thing.

So in answer to the member's question: yeah, Williston is part of that number.

V. Huntington: That is very helpful — for me, at any rate. But let's be clear: 0.75 percent, 65 percent of the need, is still nine million cubic metres. It's a lot of water, and I think the questions are fair.

I do think that the work that has been done by the OGC and the ministries in the last couple of years is very worthwhile. It's been absolutely essential, and I'm extremely pleased to see that they are starting to get a grasp on what the needs actually are.

I should ask one final question. Is the OGC now starting to limit its water permits based on what it knows is the actual use of water, rather than the requested size or allocation of the permit? Just to follow up, that was an issue when I was being briefed at the OGC. They were now beginning to realize that the permits they were issuing were for far greater amounts of water than the industry actually needed.

To make my question a little clearer, then: are those permits now coming down in size so that they represent more the need rather than the desire?

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to that question is: yes, we are bringing them down so they're closer to the need.

J. Horgan: I just want to follow along on the line of questioning started by my colleague from Delta South.

The minister said that there would be no increase in water consumption. We're here, of course, talking about
[ Page 862 ]
a potential bonanza and, one assumes, an increase in production of natural gas to service markets outside of our traditional area of domestic consumption here in British Columbia or export to the United States.

Can the minister confirm that despite the assertions of $1 billion in revenue, a debt-free British Columbia, there'll be no increase in water use as a result of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, no, I didn't say that. I said that we don't anticipate….

The reality is this. If we were at the drilling levels of '05 and '06, I think it is, for the next four years, we would meet our needs and capacity for LNG because that would be increasing the amount of drilling activity that we'd have in the area.

The question was: "Are you anticipating an increase in that percentage?" No, because the amount of activity that would even increase, even measuring previous activity levels — given the changes made with the recycled water, using stuff like the grey water and using the saline water — is actually keeping this at a level.

As more and more companies start to recycle, we will actually find that we're using less of certain sources of water versus others. The reality is that if we look at our historical drilling activity, depending on our activity, it can change, but it is not going to change dramatically.

J. Horgan: My apologies. Being in three places at once is a task, so I'm not certain of the answers that the minister may have given to some of these questions.

I wanted to move to a bit of a discussion about upstream resources. I understand that the committee has been focused on the export potential. Consequently, that potential leaves the minister in a position of not being able to give comprehensive answers because we're predicting the future. That's fair enough.

[1720]

Let's, if we could, be retrospective for a moment and look at upstream production. The minister just made reference to '05-06 drilling numbers. Perhaps the minister could advise what the increase has been, any number available to staff there, in recent history — 2010, 2011, 2012, any one of those — relative to the boom period of 2006-07.

Hon. R. Coleman: It has been around 500 to 600 wells, within a range, in the last couple of years. The first quarter this year from January to the end of March…. Basically, in January to May 2013 there were 238 wells, compared to 241 during the same time period of 2012. So it's pretty well flat the last two years so far, from the trending.

I do know that there is some increased investment activity expected by a number of companies that expect to do more. Some of them will actually go back to the existing well sites, as well, because they have some periods when we may have some two-tier levels of activity. In other words, we have a gas level here and a gas level there, so they don't have to move the pad. How we will actually count those as wells would be interesting.

Of course, the other challenge is with the pad. As the member knows, it's equivalent to a number of conventional wells versus the number of wells that are actually being drilled. So it has changed. Certainly, there was a peak when the price was up during, basically, the traditional issues in and around natural gas, back around '04, '05 or '06. Then it flattened off and went down over a number of years as the natural gas price came down in North America.

Now we're expecting we'll probably see an uptick in that to go back in activity to a more traditional level as companies start to build their upstream resources in anticipation of LNG.

J. Horgan: I know the minister will know that one of the challenges for our unconventional plays is that it's, by and large, dry gas. Of course, the Chair has the benefit of having the Montney play, which has a significant amount of liquids. If the staff can probe a little deeper into that 500- to 600-per-year number, I suspect that those wells are where they can get liquids, not so much where we find dry gas.

Again, the challenge is the major finds of the past five to ten years that have led to the optimism that I think the minister is…. Again, I haven't been here, but I know him to be an optimistic fellow, so I can only assume that the first couple of hours of committee work were all on the upside. And of course, it's incumbent upon the opposition to highlight the potential downsides.

[1725]

So one of the questions I would ask on the question of liquids or wet gas versus dry gas is: can he confirm my assumption that the bulk of the activity over the past two or three years has been in and around the Montney and not in the Horn or the Liard or Cordova?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to be very careful here, because of some market information I know that I don't want to disclose. I'm privy to some stuff that I can't talk about. But I can tell the member that our reserves are better than what some people think they are.

I will confirm for the member, however, that the Montney has seen the bulk of the activity. As the member knows, when there's liquid, there's something else that can offset the cost in a down market, in particular, because the liquids are an advantage in certain plays.

I do know of some other drilling activity elsewhere and some other assessments that will be coming out probably by fall. One particular drilling activity that took place — not in that particular area — is, for lack of a better description, showing highly optimistic results. At this stage the particular participants have chosen not to release their market information for probably obvious reasons.
[ Page 863 ]

At the same time, the member is right about the Montney being our most active play at the moment and will continue to be for a while as we go through this. That's not a bad thing, because it's the one that's using recycled water and doing a number of innovative things that we will be able to use and apply to the industry elsewhere in B.C. in the future.

J. Horgan: The minister, in his wisdom, has led me to my next question or assumed my next question. That is: if the bulk of the activity over the past number of years has been located in and around the Chair's constituency, where there is innovation with respect to grey water, where there's access to the Debolt saline deposits, then what happens when we start to aggressively pursue the dryer plays, or even if there are wet plays in these other basins, what happens to the water then?

I'm speaking specifically around the Horn and the consequences for water in that region. I've met, and I'm sure the minister has or his staff have met, with representatives from the Fort Nelson First Nation, who have not just anecdotal but, I think, significant evidence of impacts on groundwater and impacts on surface water as a result of the activity in '06, '07, '08, '09, as we were exploring and expanding in the Horn.

I'm just wondering if the minister would give me some comfort that the water use that was requested or discussed with the member for Delta South will not be impacted fresh water when we start to more aggressively attack those plays that are currently marginal on the domestic price.

[1730]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, just a clarification to the member. The Debolt saline thing is in the Horn. It's not in the Montney. So that's what Apache and Encana are using now. Obviously, they're using recycling techniques as well up there.

The description I gave earlier with regards to the northwest water assessment project will continue as the Horn starts to expand as well. Ironically, there are some people that do like dry gas that are trying to specifically use it for a purpose, like LNG, and some of the proponents are not actually particularly interested in the liquids. They see it as something they have to find another use for. So each one is a bit different, in my discussions with the proponents that are obviously looking at this.

We'll continue to manage water as we have in the past, and measure it and all the rest of it. If activity picks up in the Horn, we'll still use as much saline as we possibly can with the Debolt. Then we'll continue to manage the water as we have elsewhere.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his answer.

Has the minister or his staff engaged in discussions with the Fort Nelson First Nation with respect to water use?

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely. We have engaged with them on a number of occasions with regards to water. They did want to go their own way on one review that they did. But we're continuing to engage with that particular First Nation through the OGC, and continuing to try and find ways we can work together.

J. Horgan: I'd like to move to seismic activity, if I could. The minister will know that the Oil and Gas Commission did a review of seismic activity in an area of the Horn Basin. It was published last year, perhaps, identifying a number of what were characterized as human-induced seismic activities, all modest by Richter's measurements.

In fact, I'm anecdotally advised that not measurable by standing in a kitchen watching the china cabinet bounce up and down, which is what we do here in my community of southern Vancouver Island. However, significant concern about the potential consequences of seismic activity, human-induced seismic activity.

I wonder if the minister could talk specifically about the review that was done by the Oil and Gas Commission and any other work that's planned in the near future.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have lived in two places where I measured it two different ways, once when my house shook because somebody was blasting some rock in a subdivision near me, and another one where somebody was trying to do some seismic testing in the Fraser Valley to determine if there was storage for natural gas many, many years ago. In that particular case, my house did shake. That's just an aside.

We did the report, and the report had seven recommendations. I'll read them into the record for the member:

"(1) Improve the accuracy of the Canadian National Seismograph Network in northeast B.C.

(2) Perform geological and seismic assessments to identify pre-existing faulting.

(3) Establish induced seismic monitoring and reporting procedures and requirements.

(4) Station ground motion sensors near northeastern B.C. communities to quantify risk from ground motion.

(5) Study the deployment of a portable, dense seismograph array to locations where induced seismicity is anticipated or has occurred.

(6) Require the submission of microseismic reports to monitor hydraulic fracturing for containment of fracturing and identify existing faults.

(7) Continue studying the relationship between hydraulic fracturing parameters and seismicity."

[1735]

Seismicity. That's how it's spelled. I got it right after about four tries. S-e-i-s-m-i-c-i-t-y, for the members and probably for Hansard.

All of them are being acted upon.

J. Horgan: She sells seashells by the seashore. I just never thought I'd say that for Hansard, but there you go. You can write that down.

I thank the minister for reading out the recommenda-
[ Page 864 ]
tions. I did see those when the report was issued. One of the areas that I don't believe was touched — and most of this is NRCan…. The focus at the time was on: what can the federal government to do to assist?

I'm wondering if the minister and staff or the Oil and Gas Commission have contemplated retaining Geoscience B.C. to do more expansive work, not just in the designated area that was reviewed for the report but in areas where we anticipate increased activity.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have a three-year project ongoing with UBC on this — the University of British Columbia with regards to that. We would be pleased to work with Geoscience B.C. if we thought it was necessary, so we'll look into that relationship.

J. Horgan: I think it's a good idea. The minister knows the organization well. I know that the deputy does. They do good work not only in identifying mineral plays for the mining sector, but also they're very useful at using technologies to leverage other activities, and this is certainly one. The minister will know that seismic activity is a significant concern of those that are disconcerted by the increase in activity.

Visiting Peace River South probably less than a year ago, doing the lunch circuit, as I called it, I went to various farms and sat and ate some spectacular food, met some great people, all of whom were not adverse to more action in the region in terms of job creation and wealth creation and also potential to supplement their agricultural income, which can be marginal sometimes.

They were concerned about seismic activity, not in that area that was in question and that was part of the review but right in the heart of the population centres in Peace River North, Peace River South. This is from Hudson's Hope up around and coming up the back side into Fort St. John — I suppose, right in the heart of the Montney. People were concerned that they were feeling seismic activity, not part of the review.

I'm wondering if the Oil and Gas Commission keeps records of the number of complaints they get from residents in the region when it comes to seismic activity.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we do, and we're working with NRCan to actually expand the array to take that into account.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. Can he quantify the number of calls, the number of interventions by citizens? And can he identify…? For me, the work that NRCan was doing was mostly in, I believe, the Liard. I'm wondering how expansive this work is, if you could identify the particular regions. The minister and the staff will certainly know that there's increased activity in some parts and decreased activity in others.

[1740]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the number of complaints is actually quite small, but we'll get you the actual number. We don't have that here today. Also, the expansion of the array — we will provide that, because we don't have that as well — with the NRCan piece. We'll get that to the critic.

J. Horgan: And maybe the terms of reference for the UBC work as well. That's news to me, so certainly, the critic and I wouldn't mind having a look at that material. Great.

The next issue I'd like to touch upon is well casings and the number of failures that are identified by the commission and what percentage of casings they examine in the course of their activities.

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been no well casing failures. The seismic and microseismic data is provided by the companies and is analyzed by the OGC. In addition to that, we also have a research project — which I'll get the member the terms of reference for — for well casings as well. Basically, UBC is doing a research project to back up, basically, what we know.

J. Horgan: Perhaps a better question would be: could we have access to all of the studies that are now underway or contemplated by the ministry? That's the second one that we've learned about. If there are more, maybe we could get an inventory of those.

In the interim, while we're looking for an answer to that question, I'm wondering if the minister could identify if there are any audits done of the information with respect to well casings that are provided by companies in the region.

[1745]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we review all the data. If we see an anomaly, which is very rare, we immediately ask for other information. Every hole is submitted to a pressure test before it's even allowed to go into production, and we review all that information on pressure testing. If we do have an anomaly, we would request another pressure test. So we monitor the data, and we watch it for anomalies — which are frankly rare, if at all, most of the time.

I have an appendice to some of our notes here. I could probably take the next ten minutes and read these into the record, but what I'll do is get this copy, then, sent over to the critic with regards to what current studies are underway. Then we'll have to put together the terms-of-reference information as well, so you should know that they're underway. We haven't got the final results of the studies, but we can certainly give you the terms of reference.

J. Horgan: Great. I appreciate the minister's offer, and
[ Page 865 ]
we'll welcome that information at an early opportunity.

I want to go back to the question, though, of anomalies and the response from the commission and, specifically, the value of audits. I'm going to move by way of that to my next question. But before we get there, I'm just wondering if there are any audits that have been performed on casings in the past five years based on those rare anomalies.

[1750]

Then I'd like to move to a second question so that people can…. We're running short on time. It's how we're going with respect to recommendations in the Auditor General's report on orphaned wells in the northeast of B.C.

Hon. R. Coleman: While we're looking up the orphan well piece…. We might see one anomaly a year. We then do a review, like an audit, of it. We send folks out to do it. Like I say, it's very rare that we would see an anomaly on well casing, and we haven't had one fail for…. We don't have one that's failed, so we don't have a record of one that has.

Obviously, we continue to build our information as we continue to be a safe industry. Obviously that's why we will have a study done to make sure that we're on the right track to see if there's anything that somebody else from outside would come and see, what else we might want to put on as far as a lens to look at what we're doing. We do go out immediately and do a review, audit — whatever you want to call it — with regards to one, if we have an anomaly, and usually there's an explanation.

There were five recommendations that affected the Oil and Gas Commission: recommendations 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9. I won't bother to read them into the record. They've all been fully or substantially implemented with regards to what the recommendations were. I'm happy to provide that to the members.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his offer. We'll be happy to take that information.

I'm wondering, though. One of the eye-popping elements of the report — and I think it kind of took away from the actual useful work that was done by the Auditor General's office on the specific recommendations that the minister referred to — was the large number that was attributed to liability to the Crown as a result of the number, I think it was 27,000, of potentially orphaned wells. This is going back three, four decades. It was a long way back, but the number was eye-popping.

I'm wondering if staff have available an opportunity to comment on the consequences of that large number, in terms of liability to the Crown — if the province has taken steps to reduce that liability or just disregard it altogether.

[1755]

Hon. R. Coleman: Today there are 28 orphaned wells. We had 54 identified when we did our detailed review. It's down to 28. There have been 4,129 wells restored. There are 2,435 with restoration to come, but they're actually with companies we can identify that are going to do that work over the next few years.

Then the suspended wells, which means they could be reactivated. There are another 2,600 of those, which are in the hands of those companies to do. In terms of, basically, cradle to end on a well, it's the responsibility of the company that actually downed it, which we would identify as 28 truly orphaned wells.

J. Horgan: Good. Thank you, Minister. That's good news for the people of B.C. and for the sector.

Just before I pass back to the critic, in response to an earlier question about water use, I thought I heard the minister say that the commission has a mandate to "shut down the industry in drought conditions" or some variation on that.

Maybe I'll just put the question again. You remember the question? It was just a moment ago. Can you expand on that? What would be the criteria whereby we would shut down the industry? What would be a drought condition in the Peace?

[1800]

Hon. R. Coleman: We've actually done it twice, once in 2010 and once in 2012. We monitor the water situation in the whole area, and what we do is we advise the industry that if it reaches a certain level, we would be shutting down. That's what happened in those two situations. It's usually a seasonal situation, where there has been a lot of lack of rain and a very hot climate. We have this water modelling, where we have the ability to say to the industry: "If it reaches this level, you will be slowed down or shut down for a period of time until that comes back up."

J. Horgan: Of course, the minister will note that the Chair knows more about the water levels there in his neighbourhood than either of us do.

The matrix that you referred to, or the point at which the signal is given to the upstream producers that the water levels are sufficiently low — is it something that laypeople would understand, or is it a collection of data that the ministry looks at with respect to rainfall, reservoir levels, stream flows, that sort of thing?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try to do it the layman way, because there are a number of inputs. Really, it's the NorthEast Water Tool which we have. People can go and see what that is. If in dryer times the water flow in our streams, particularly, drops to…. If the water required by industry exceeds 15 percent of the low…. So 85 percent of the water flow has to be protected. If it's going to go above that, below the 85 percent, then that's the time, the level
[ Page 866 ]
of which we say to industry that we have to shut it down.

Now, just so you understand, that could be by a small region within the area on a particular watercourse. It doesn't mean the entire industry gets shut down. The water tool allows us to assess this by pretty much small areas around the entire region, as to how it would be affected, if affected.

R. Austin: This being a new ministry, I'd like to ask the minister a few questions around the structure of the ministry. Could the minister tell me how many FTEs, the number, are currently working in this ministry?

[1805]

Hon. R. Coleman: We manage to numbers, so it's tough to just give you a full-time equivalent. So I'm going to give you approximate numbers. In the natural gas development side, there would be approximately 80 people. In the housing and construction standards side, there would be about 125.

R. Austin: Noting the time, I'll combine these next two questions. Can the minister tell us how many vacant positions there are in the ministry? Also, what's the impact of the hiring freeze on this ministry generally?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have the number of vacancies here. Basically, if there are critical positions, you'd go to the…. Your deputy minister works with the deputy to the Premier with regards to that. If they're critical positions, we are filling those. If they're critical, we do we make the case for that. Since it's a pretty new ministry, we really don't have, I doubt, many vacancies, considering that it's only been in existence for about 60 or 80 or 75 days — somewhere in there.

R. Austin: Have there been any contracts tendered out through this ministry?

Hon. R. Coleman: There would have been some that we inherited. There are some others that will either be worked on or whatever, depending on our need going forward.

R. Austin: Can the minister tell us what kinds of reasons these contracts are for and if they were directly awarded?

Hon. R. Coleman: We can do direct award, but they're all based on the procurement policy of government. One of the challenges that we will run into from time to time with a ministry like this or an industry like this is finding somebody with the expertise who isn't conflicted out with a relationship with the industry somewhere.

Sometimes you get to a situation where that could happen, where it comes down to…. There's really only one consulting company that has the expertise you're looking for and that isn't in some way in a relationship with one of the people that could be involved in the industry.

At that point in time you do have to sometimes make the decision on direct award, because there's really nobody else that could actually do the work for you with the expertise you need. They conflicted out because they could be working for one of the oil companies or natural gas companies or pipeline companies or whatever the case may be or have relationships with them.

That can happen from time to time but always followed strictly under the government procurement policy.

R. Austin: Could the minister inform us what the advertising budget is for this ministry for this year?

[1810]

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no advertising budget.

R. Austin: That takes me back to our earlier discussion. As the minister's staff go around the province, engaging people in the opportunities around LNG, presumably you're going to be creating an advertising budget to go around and do that. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. That is handled by government communications and public engagement on our behalf. Obviously, given our earlier discussion in and around advanced education, education, community services, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation…. Materials that will be developed to go in on the job site, for instance — my expectation is it would be done with government communications and public engagement.

We'd have input, but we don't need a budget here to accomplish that. As the facilitator on this, obviously, if I'm going into a community, that's not advertising. That's travel — or that sort of thing when we go in and sit down and talk to people. Materials that could come with us would come through those other means and not through this ministry.

R. Austin: Could the minister let us know how many FTEs there are in his own office? I realize that the Natural Gas part, LNG, is brand-new, but has the number changed on the Housing side from last year?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the same number of people as I had before. I believe it's five.

I imagine we'll move all the votes at the end, because the ministry's got dual…. I just move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.
[ Page 867 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); J. Sturdy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,953,255,000.

The Chair: Would you like to make an opening statement, Minister?

Hon. A. Virk: If I may.

I have, first of all, some introductions as well. Not in the order of importance, or perhaps in the order of importance, we have assistant deputy minister, acting, Joe Thompson here behind me. Also supporting is Assistant Deputy Minister Dawn Minty; and behind me, as well, executive director on policy Susan Brown; and the deputy minister in the Ministry of Advanced Education, James Gorman.

[1440]

We all understand that the advanced education system in British Columbia is the envy of British Columbians. It's the envy of Canadians, and it's the envy of citizens all across the world in terms that they send their daughters and their sons to this province for education. I'm very proud of this government's record in terms of where we are in education — the demand for education, the fact that we must be nimble and flexible as we move forward to meet the future job demands as well.

Having said that, I'm very open to my colleague across for any questions that he may have on the budget.

D. Eby: I'd just like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his appointment to be the Minister of Advanced Education. It's a great responsibility and a great compliment to his work with the Kwantlen board that the government has recognized his work in this way. I look forward to working with him throughout these estimates processes.

Just to aid those who are assisting the minister and the minister in understanding where I'm going, I'll ask some general questions about the budget and then I will be asking some specific questions that relate to statistics that I requested from the minister during a briefing. Then, if we have time, I'll be getting into some other areas related to the ministry service plan, but I expect I won't get to those till tomorrow.

To begin, my question to the minister: are there any asset sales from this ministry budget, and were there any ministry assets that were considered for sale and rejected?

Hon. A. Virk: I've just become aware that these kinds of questions in other ministries have also been canvassed. They've been canvassed to the Ministry of Finance. So if I may ask the member…. Those kinds of questions are best and most appropriately addressed to the Ministry of Finance.

D. Eby: Do I understand, then, the minister to be telling me that nobody in his ministry has any responsibility for asset sales with respect to this ministry budget for the coming year?

[1445]

Hon. A. Virk: Asset sales throughout the province of British Columbia are the purview of the Minister of Finance. However, having said that, the number of assets throughout this province that are owned…. They are owned, actually, by the universities. Therefore, prior to it going to the Ministry of Finance, it requires ministerial approval from my ministry.

D. Eby: The question to the minister, then: are there any applications or matters related to asset sales which the minister is currently or anticipating considering or has approved or will approve in the following year?

I'm going to rephrase that so that we can all understand what the heck I said. Is the minister currently considering or does he anticipate considering any applications to sell assets in the coming year?

Hon. A. Virk: Throughout the year there are times when universities do consider acquisition and/or sales of assets, and at that time, they do come to my ministry. At the current time, right now, there is nothing before me for approval for sale.

D. Eby: Did this ministry receive Treasury Board approval for access to the contingencies and new programs vote? If so, what ministry programs did this fund?

Hon. A. Virk: The short answer is no. The ministry has not sought or received access to any of the contingency funds in this fiscal year.

D. Eby: I'm going to talk about two different service plan documents, the 2012-13–2014-15 service plan document and the 2013-14–2015-16 service plan document. I'm saying that slowly because it can get a little confusing in the question here.

I'm hoping that the minister can please identify all areas of the ministry budget where planned 2013-14 spending included in that original service plan, the 2012-13–2014-15
[ Page 868 ]
service plan, was reduced in the 2013-2014–2015-2016 service plan budget.

[1450]

I'm glad to repeat that if that got confusing. There are two service plans. There's one that encompasses three years, started in 2012, and there's one that encompasses two years, started in 2013. The question is: was there a change in the planned spending in the coming fiscal year between those two documents?

Hon. A. Virk: The question, in terms of differences in budget in the two service plans…. There is a reduction of $3.083 million from the previously mentioned service plan to the next service plan. If you'll allow me, I'll explain that as well.

There are a number of factors that we must take into consideration. There is a $499,000 administration shaving. There is an offset of some $2.4 million for 32 medical seats for UBC Okanagan. So there is a $5 million overall reduction in the service plan from one year to the other, offset by a $2.4 million increase for 32 new medical seats and a $499,000 administration shavings.

I've got to accentuate what we mean by administration shaving. This is about economies of scale. This is about shared services. This is about shared purchase of software and hardware. British Columbians expect our universities to be run a little bit more efficiently, sharing services, sharing resources and shared purchases.

D. Eby: Has the ministry made any cuts to discretionary spending?

[1455]

Hon. A. Virk: The objective of our government is to keep as much funds on the front lines for students but, at the same time, to realize many administrative savings as well. In terms of discretionary spending, the ministry itself, which is responsible for administering the post-secondary sector, is getting leaner by realizing efficiencies, by cutting costs, by shared purchases.

In that respect, I'm quite happy to report that in terms of…. British Columbians should be very happy that the ministry that runs the post-secondary system is itself leaner than the year before.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify the amount by which the ministry is leaner, in his words?

Hon. A. Virk: I'm quite happy to report that within the ministry, when I speak about being leaner in terms of the administration…. There are, first of all, some 262 staff in the Ministry of Advanced Education that administer the post-secondary system in the province. In terms of them being leaner, there is some $499,000 less spent in the current year as opposed to the year prior.

[1500]

That's about getting leaner — and, may I say, leaner and meaner in some ways. It's saving on simple things like postage, paper, travel, on using technology, using video conferencing as opposed to travel, shared purchases — a whole number of areas. The ministry is that much leaner than the year prior, and the idea is to use those savings where they count — for students.

D. Eby: What funding has the minister identified to be reviewed in the so-called core review process that's going on?

Hon. A. Virk: To the member: as you may be aware, this question was certainly canvassed in the Premier's estimates last week. As of right now there are no terms of reference that have been solidified or agreed upon. However, once those terms of reference are formulated, that core review will commence in the fall.

D. Eby: Since 2009 this government has said that it is reducing obvious expenses, that it's saving taxpayers' money and getting leaner. I hope that the minister forgives my skepticism that half a million dollars in savings came from postage and paper expenses.

I request that the minister provide specifics in relation to this cut to the ministry and, in particular, how specifically he is realizing this half a million dollars in savings, especially given that the core review and areas of spending in the core review are not being identified.

[1505]

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite would certainly be aware of the Finance Minister's previous directions in terms of lean initiatives — lean as the acronym — across all the ministries of government. This includes, also, a number of corporate savings. I'll give an example of not filling vacancies, an example of a freeze on non-essential travel and of office procurement.

While you mentioned that you find it hard to believe it's through savings by not buying more paper, it's a combination of a whole host of events of savings all across all the ministries. The Ministry of Advanced Education has been no different in that respect.

D. Eby: Are any ministry programs funded by gaming funds at all?

Hon. A. Virk: No.

D. Eby: Have there been any fee increases or new fees imposed for either public or private institutions in British Columbia? If so, for what? And how much revenue are they generating?

Hon. A. Virk: If I may start by perhaps defining my answer as well. First of all, there are fees that are regulatory and licensing in nature that the ministry administers. In
[ Page 869 ]
that respect, I can report that in those fees there has been no change.

[1510]

The other side of fees is fees that are tuition and mandatory fees that are charged by the public sector universities. Those are capped at 2 percent.

D. Eby: Then to clarify, in short, the ministry plans no fee increases other than the inflationary increase for student tuitions and related fees for the coming year.

Hon. A. Virk: If I may answer in a similar manner, I intend to define the two sides. In terms of fees for regulatory or licensing that the ministry itself charges, there is no plan for any increases. Now, in terms of the fees for tuition and the mandatory fees that the post-secondary public institutions…. There's a maximum. It's capped at 2 percent. It's within the purview of each university and the board of governors, to a maximum of a 2 percent increase.

D. Eby: Can the minister provide both public and private institutions with some level of business certainty for the coming year and say that there will be no increases for their fees coming from this ministry, rather than that there is no plan currently?

[1515]

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, as a point of clarification, private institutions in the province of British Columbia can and do set their own fee structures. That's something outside of government purview.

However, for the post-secondary public universities in British Columbia, there is no plan for any increase in fees in this fiscal year.

D. Eby: What is the current number of full-time employees working in the ministry? If it's 262, I apologize. I just want to clarify that.

Hon. A. Virk: I confirm that. It is indeed 262. The member opposite is correct.

D. Eby: How many vacant positions are there? The minister mentioned earlier that there were some vacancies due to the hiring freeze. How many of those are there currently?

[1520]

Hon. A. Virk: Of the 262 positions on the organizational chart right now…. As you can well imagine, there are some ebbs and tides in employment, but currently there are 14 positions that are vacant.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify how many of those are at the ADM level and above?

Hon. A. Virk: The answer is none. There is a deputy minister in place and three ADMs in place. All those positions are currently filled.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify the impact of the 14 vacant positions on the ministry's operations?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said before, there is always an ebb and tide in any organization — private or public. This is well within normal vacancy patterns, so work continues on as people come and people go. In that respect, the impact is minimal at best.

D. Eby: Can the minister identify how much was spent on contractors providing services to the ministry in the last fiscal and whether this has gone up or down since the previous fiscal?

[1525]

Hon. A. Virk: In the 2012-2013 fiscal year approximately $760,000 was spent on operational contracts. If I may make a couple of points of clarification as well, in the 2013-2014 fiscal year this is not expected to change. It's budgeted in a similar amount.

I must also clarify the terms, the reason for these kinds of contracts. First of all, they are short-term in nature, where hiring of full-time employees is not particularly appropriate or timely. Secondly, these are specialty skills not readily available, hence the need for contracts.

D. Eby: How many of the contracts were tendered, and how many were direct awarded of that $760,000 in contracts?

Hon. A. Virk: In the 2012-2013 period eight direct contracts were provided. I specify that of the eight, seven of them had a value of less than $25,000. There was one with a value of $66,000, based upon the contractor's very unique qualifications, subject knowledge.

If I might touch on the tender process as well, all contracts of direct and tender are reviewed by ministry contract specialists. They hold regular training sessions for all contract managers, and there is a hierarchical contract approval process in place as well.

D. Eby: Could the minister undertake to provide a list of those eight direct contracts, and in particular, including the dollar amounts and the reasons for bringing in contractors on those?

[1530]

Hon. A. Virk: Staff is able to get a list together. We'll ensure that they make it to the member opposite's attention.

D. Eby: I thank the minister for that.

Of the 262 staff in the ministry, how many full-time
[ Page 870 ]
employees are there in the minister's office? How has that changed from last year's budget?

Hon. A. Virk: In 2012-2013 and in the prior period there were five employees in that area. Now there are also five employees in that area.

D. Eby: Has the ministry budgeted for any wage increases for non-political staff — in other words, for government workers?

Hon. A. Virk: A very difficult question. No.

D. Eby: Has the minister appointed any special advisers or contractors of any kind?

Hon. A. Virk: No, the minister has not.

D. Eby: How much money was spent on travel for the minister and the minister's staff? Is this higher or lower than the previous fiscal year, and how much is budgeted for the coming year?

[1535]

Hon. A. Virk: In terms of the total budget for the entire ministry's travel, in 2012-2013 it was $353,000. Specifically for the minister's office, $62,000 was spent in 2012-2013. We anticipate similar amounts for 2013-2014.

D. Eby: Can the minister provide a list of the names of people in the ministry earning over $75,000, their job titles and descriptions and the salaries those people are earning?

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, through you to the member: as I believe he may be aware — if not, I'll educate him — that information is publicly available through public accounts for all such employees making over $75,000.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise what the advertising budget is for this year and how that compares with last year, in particular — I believe the acronym is STOB; I'm not sure about that — in category 67 and 68, provide some explanation for those amounts, which I believe relate to advertising?

Hon. A. Virk: Just for clarification, STOB is a standard object of expense. It's used to categorize expenditures throughout government, throughout ministries.

In terms of the budget, the question asked what the budget was in each year. In 2012 the budget was $1 million, and the 2013-14 budget also allocates $1 million.

D. Eby: I have with me the document marked Supplement to the Estimates. I'm on page 20 of that document. There's a category marked 68.

[1540]

In the Supplement to the Estimates that's described as "Statutory advertising and publications." Can the minister advise about the $19,000 in that category and what that's intended for?

Hon. A. Virk: Line 68 refers to statutory publications. There's a $19,000 budget in there. That's a budget that was allocated for those obligations where public notification of regulatory changes may or may not be required within the ministry. In the Ministry of Advanced Education none of that was drawn upon in that last year.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise what advertising campaigns the $1 million in the previous fiscal paid for?

Hon. A. Virk: I think most every citizen in British Columbia realizes the incredible opportunity that's going to arise in the trades area. In specific reference to the question asked, the advertising money was spent on Discover Trades. We do need to absolutely raise awareness of the trades and promote trades as an occupation and as a career and as part of the economic building of this province.

D. Eby: Can the minister confirm, then, that that $1 million paid for jobs plan advertising?

[1545]

Hon. A. Virk: I'll just segue from where I left off a moment ago in terms of the tremendous opportunity, and I look at it as a tremendous opportunity. What an envious position to be in, in a province where we're forecasting one million jobs. It's an incredibly envious position, I think, that every other province or, perhaps, state or country would want to be in — that we're forecasting one million jobs.

In order to fill those jobs, we have to make sure that we get to the individuals that we want in those jobs — especially the underserved areas: women, aboriginals, youth and immigrants. We've got to talk to every British Columbian to realize that the trades are an opportunity. It's an opportunity that is, indeed, going to be realized, and we must absolutely have these occupations in the next short term, medium term and long term in order to fill these incredible jobs that are going to be available in British Columbia.

D. Eby: Can the minister confirm that the $1 million intended to be spent in the coming fiscal is also for, then, jobs plan advertising?

Hon. A. Virk: On the same subject once again, what an incredible opportunity — over one million potential job openings, according to the B.C. Labour Market Outlook, between 2010 and 2020. And 43 percent of those opportunities are going to require some or a lot, or a mixture in between there, of technical and paraprofessional. Let
[ Page 871 ]
me paraphrase: paraprofessional could be a combination of university, technical or otherwise skilled occupations.

It's absolutely important that advertising is not done in a finite period. We must continue to change the paradigm that skills training is something that parents and youth and workers, and those retooling themselves, want to work towards.

We're engaged in a retooling, in a rethinking of society in the sense that the trades — and these are skilled occupations — are where the future of this province lies. There are a lot of universities and institutions that are very excited about this — the opportunities for renewed trades facilities in the Okanagan; at Camosun College; at my old university, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, as well.

There's a real renewed focus on the opportunity and the incredible opportunities that are going to arise between 2010 and 2020.

[1550]

D. Eby: The minister should be cautious about how much awareness he's raising, because in the media there has been a great deal of commentary about wait-lists at trades institutions and the inability of students to get trades training.

Then the question to the minister that follows from this spending of $2 million on advertising: is he monitoring wait-lists at trades-training institutions? If so, can he advise, by institution, the wait-list periods for the most popular programs? I would just say that the top two most popular trades programs would be sufficient.

Hon. A. Virk: We speak often of the job opportunities that are going to rise in the future. I've mentioned before the need for nimbleness and flexibility in our post-secondary institutions to meet that demand.

The question that the member opposite refers to…. First of all, the ministry does not maintain any wait-list data. Each institution responds to high demand, and they respond to high demand by creating more high-demand programs. They have a constant look at those programs where there is no longer a labour market need for those areas. That's an example of flexibility and nimbleness that we absolutely need.

I think this government has responded in a number of different ways. There is some $75 million that was invested in the last year alone, investing in trades — investing, in fact, to help these institutions become that much more nimble and that much more flexible to meet the future job needs.

D. Eby: Well, if the minister is spending $2 million on advertising to raise awareness and increase interests in the trades, it's surprising that the minister doesn't know what the wait-lists are or if there are any wait-lists or what's happening at post-secondary institutions across B.C.

Are there some kinds of effectiveness studies, then, that the minister is relying on, or some kind of a survey that indicated to the minister that there was a need for this education — something to tell taxpayers that this isn't just $2 million spent on advertising to advertise programs that are not available to British Columbians?

[1555]

Hon. A. Virk: I think that…. First of all, a point of clarification. It's $1 million in the 2013-2014 calendar, and it was $1 million in the 2012-2013 for advertising.

I think it's very important. I'll sort of segue backwards — usually you go forward when you do a segue — and look back upon the jobs that we speak of, the jobs that we forecast. The market analysis, the industry working tables that we're engaged in — the universities and the institutions are providing data on a continuous basis in terms of jobs, in terms of their needs or otherwise. In that respect, there are some 456 seats with funding of $1.8 million in the 2013-2014 calendar. These are 456 seats that are specifically related to market demand.

It's very appropriate, and more than appropriate, that as a government we continue to advertise the opportunities that exist in this province and that are going to exist in this province. It's absolutely necessary that we continue to advise British Columbians about the availability of jobs in the trades in this province.

D. Eby: On the minister's answer, then, $1.8 million for 456 seats. It seems like you could increase the number of available seats by 50 percent by taking that advertising money and actually spending it on spaces for B.C. students to get trades training for the jobs that the minister is very eagerly anticipating and the many jobs which are already going lacking in B.C. We know we're bringing in people from other places to work in British Columbia as temporary workers.

[1600]

To the minister: given that you don't have any information on wait-lists and that you have industry in university now, you say, telling you that they need additional spaces for trades, why on earth is this ministry spending $1 million on advertising instead of new spaces for B.C. students?

Hon. A. Virk: As the economy of this province continues to shift to new areas and new jobs, some of which don't even look like today are going to materialize, I think it's very important for government and it's incumbent upon the government to be able to advertise a switch of what opportunity is available. Let me give you an example.

We continue to train students, and parents continue to push their children, or students continue to push themselves in fields that are no longer required. The parents are always…. It's the same thing, especially in ethnic and
[ Page 872 ]
immigrant communities — doctor, lawyer, engineer or otherwise, an emphasis on doctor, lawyer, dentist or engineer. This is where parents and/or students are pushing, yet at the same time, we have to make sure that those meet the needs and the demands of the future. I'll give you a specific example.

We hired some 800 teachers last year. We have phenomenal teachers. Our K-to-12 teachers are some of the best in the world, phenomenal teachers, and I have a great deal of respect for the occupation. We hired 800 teachers. We graduated 2,000, and we got some 850 from out of province that came to British Columbia and were licensed.

There's something wrong there. If you do the math, there are 2,850 new teachers in this province and some 800 jobs. We have to retrain individuals in different fields that are high in demand. We must continue to advertise and do a paradigm change that there are new jobs, that there are new fields and that there are different places in this province — to encourage some mobility as well.

We're going to continue to encourage British Columbians to capitalize on the incredible opportunity of high-paying jobs, some incredibly high-paying jobs in the non-traditional fields. Trades, as opposed to some other areas, are where the future lies in British Columbia.

[1605]

J. Shin: I would like to extend my congratulations to the new minister. It's a very important portfolio.

I have some specific questions as well as some general ones. The first one that I would like to get some clarification on is: would the minister please comment on the interest rate for student loans, being currently at prime rate plus 2.5 percent? I think that's been the case for a little while now. For a fixed rate, it's prime rate plus 5 percent. What that equates to is students paying more interest on their educational loans as opposed to even just house mortgages and car payments. If I can get some comment from the minister, that'd be great.

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you for the congratulations. I am indeed very proud to have the ministry. I think it's an opportunity to shape a generation and match skills with jobs. What an incredible opportunity. Thank you very much.

Let's talk post-secondary education. First of all, students pay approximately one-third of the cost of the education. What an incredible system you have where the hard-paying taxpayer pays approximately two-thirds of the education. So it's proportional. Parents and students and society as a whole proportionally pay for education.

I don't know if the member opposite suggests that perhaps society pays for the entire cost and students shouldn't pay for any of the costs, but we have an incredible system where the hard-paying taxpayers of this province subsidize two-thirds of the tuition to begin with.

At the same time, there is a very robust loan program that's available for qualifying students in British Columbia, and for up to ten years the British Columbia taxpayers are once again subsidizing that student interest-free for up to ten years while they go to university. Well, I think that's an incredible program. For up to ten years there is no interest on the principal that is borrowed.

In terms of tuition rates — fourth lowest in Canada. For an excellent education system, fourth lowest in Canada for six years running is a phenomenal record of this government.

Now, in terms of any suggestion that interest-free should continue…. As I said, there's a proportional relationship of students, parents, perhaps grandparents and society in terms of paying for the education, so society has subsidized education to the tune of about two-thirds for the entirety of that education and then subsidized that tuition so that they're not paying interest for up to ten years while they're in school.

To charge interest after a student graduates, for having them pay back their debt to society, is entirely appropriate. Should one suggest that there should be no interest, there's some $37 million that would be required in order to forgive at the end.

I think there are proportional amounts that everybody is putting in. I think there's a responsibility for everybody to be involved in education, from the parent and society as well. I believe currently that proportion is very appropriate.

J. Shin: Thank you for the answer, although what I was trying to get an idea of was if the ministry has any plans, considering the fact that over just south of the border in the U.S., current student loan rates are far less than what we are charging the students here. That's where I was hoping to get some more clarification.

[1610]

For the record, I don't think I was implying the fact that we were trying to make education free for all. I know it's an unrealistic dream at this point. But certainly, I was hoping to get some better idea as to what the ministry's plan is for the student loan rates.

Hon. A. Virk: Last year the hard-working, tax-paying citizens of British Columbia paid over $9 million in interest on behalf of students because of the fact that they weren't paying interest while they're in school.

In response to the member, there is no plan to change the current model of interest rates.

J. Shin: I'll move on to some of the questions that I've been getting from different universities and colleges when I had the chance to meet with them. As the minister is aware, the ministry funds about — from what I hear, and please correct me if I'm wrong — 57 percent of the universities' and colleges' operating costs. That's down
[ Page 873 ]
from 80 percent back in the '90s. I hear that the funding has barely kept up with the inflation of just about 1.3 percent over the last ten years or so.

I was hoping to ask the minister: what message can I take back from the minister today for the universities and the colleges that I meet with as to how they should, for example, continue to provide space for about 15,000 students when in fact the funding only covers for about 11,000, and how they should make the desperately needed repairs, replacements — some of the updates that we need — for some of their aging campuses?

[1615]

Hon. A. Virk: To compare the '90s and the 2001 decades is like apples and oranges in the broader respect. But let me just put some things in perspective.

So $5 million a day being spent today on post-secondary education. I think that's about $1.96 billion a year in university funding. Now, that's about a 47 percent increase from 2001 alone, so there's an incredible increase. Per-FTE funding has gone up some 25 percent since 2001, from some $8,400 to over $10,000 per FTE position as well.

There's something that we have to look at. The efficiencies of universities are entirely different creatures now from then. The availability of funding from other resources — we encourage universities not to be looking entirely for the public money. You have to use creativity and other funding resources. You have to look at them to create funds on their own. In fact, there's an incredible shift — the internationalization of post-secondary education, the incredible increase of international students that are coming to this country because of the quality of education.

The universities do not have to count on the hard-working taxpayers of British Columbia to fund the amount of education as they did in the past. The international students, in themselves, and other funding areas have allowed them to have other funding resources and, therefore, rely less upon the government to provide them operating costs. This is a testament to increased efficiency. We want all of our public institutions, every time, to reduce costs and to be that much more efficient.

Post-secondary institutions in the province have shown exactly that. They're resourceful. They're able to create funds in a variety of means and, therefore, to rely less upon the taxpayer. I think that's a model of success.

J. Shin: That's a little bit different from the stories that I am hearing from the presidents and from the faculty associations. Their concern is that while our demographics and the population size has increased by 16 percent or so in the last decade, demanding bigger classes and more seats available for some of these programs, largely due to the lack of funding, they're having a hard time being able to meet those demands.

[1620]

Also, at the same time, like the minister has suggested, in their attempt to make the numbers work, they have increased the number of international students enrolled, often charging them a great deal more for tuition to treat that as a source of revenue. By doing so, they're not able to increase the number of seats for our local students, and that's further choking the accessibility for education for our local students that are in B.C.

Again, if I can get some clarification as to what some of the other creative revenue sources are that the minister is hinting at, besides the internalization of bringing more international students and more international funds, that would be great.

Hon. A. Virk: Excellent questions, indeed. I think it's very important in British Columbia. It's sort of a cradle-to-grave educational system, a kindergarten to post-secondary type of training system. Then individuals that may already have degrees or have designations or have things like Red Seals require retooling, reinvigoration, retraining — and must retain relevancy as well. That's one example where I can say that, in terms of creativity, the universities are providing.

I'll give an example: the professional that comes back for an MBA, the professional that comes back for a weekend seminar. You have classrooms that sit empty 50 percent of the time. The power still has to be turned on. The ability to take that professional, who went to university a number of years ago, to retool, to reinvigorate, to relearn — that's an opportunity for creative funding models.

Indeed, that is a difference from a decade or two decades prior, where I think now we must become lifelong learners in order to survive in the world that we're in.

In terms of international students, international students and their families have not paid taxes to the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. Therefore, they are charged the full cost of a university education, unsubsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Those opportunities exist for British Columbians to use those tuition rates. Those universities…. That's another creative source of funding for them. The more international students, the more opportunity there exists to use that funding.

I've got to specify. There's a misnomer that if we use international students, they are taking away from domestic seats. That is just not the case.

[1625]

I must play the role of myth-buster in that sense — or "Ripley's believe it or not!" — that international students do not take away from domestic seats.

B. Ralston: My question concerns Simon Fraser's Surrey campus. This is a question I've asked, I think, for a number of years running. I'm going to ask it again this year.
[ Page 874 ]

Back in 2006 the government made a commitment to increase the number of — I think it's poetically called FTEs — full-time-equivalent student spaces at the Simon Fraser Surrey campus from 2,500 to 5,000. Indeed, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in 2011 unanimously recommended that the minister consider this.

As the current deputy will know, the former Deputy Minister of Advanced Education is now the vice-president external for SFU, Mr. Steenkamp, who is very acquainted with this issue and has, I think, lobbied strongly on behalf of Simon Fraser University — not only Simon Fraser University, but the citizens of Surrey and of the Fraser Valley.

I think it's recognized that in terms of what is called post-secondary conversion rates…. That is the number of students in high school who go to post-secondary. It's one of the lowest in the province. In fact, it's lower than the provincial average, particularly among males between the ages of 18 and 25, which is a target demographic.

Of course, in Surrey we're dealing with the biggest public school district in terms of numbers, so this is important in the whole context of the province and the Lower Mainland.

In addition, the minister will know or will be advised that the city of Surrey strongly supports the expansion because the development of the university has a catalytic effect on redevelopment plans for downtown Surrey. The city is making substantial investments. A new city hall is under construction and will be complete in the fall. The new city library is there, adjacent to the Surrey campus of SFU.

So the commitment has been made. I have pursued this with a number of ministers, yet we always seem to fall short.

Given that this minister is new to the file, perhaps a little added pressure, since he is from Surrey…. What commitment will the minister make to fulfil the agreement that was made to increase the number of full-time-equivalent spaces at SFU Surrey by 2015, as the agreement set out some years ago?

[1630]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: To the member: thank you for your question.

As a member, an MLA, from Surrey, it is indeed a subject that's near and dear to me. I'm reminded of the 2006 MOU that speaks to the increase of FTE positions in Surrey. I'm reminded also of the parameters around the MOU, speaking to the availability of funding and resources as well. So I remain absolutely committed to that MOU, and I remain committed to fulfil that MOU when the funding is available.

As you know, Mr. Chair, this government was elected on a platform of financial responsibility, of spending within its means. However, having said that, when the means are available, as indicated in the MOU, absolutely, I believe that we, at the appropriate time, should live up to the terms of the MOU.

Now, in terms of the FTE increases at SFU, let me speak to that as well. SFU has been incredibly resourceful, and kudos to an organization that somehow got me through university. So kudos to SFU in that respect.

They have about a 112 percent utilization rate. They're very creative in funding and filling seats. In 2003 they had some 16,850 seats; in 2013, some 20,203 seats. So there's been a 19 percent increase in the total number of seats. It's certainly also within the purview of SFU's administration to allocate those seats appropriately among their different campuses. So there are opportunities within their administration to make some changes.

B. Ralston: Well, as the minister will know, or as he will be advised, there's also a three-year fiscal plan. I hear from the minister the answer that there's no plan to fulfil this agreement now. Where in the three-year fiscal plan does the minister anticipate fulfilling this plan?

As I'm sure he's aware, our universities try to plan for the long term, not simply from fiscal year to fiscal year. This agreement has now been outstanding since 2006. It would seem reasonable, perhaps, that maybe in 2015 or 2016 that agreement might be fulfilled. What commitment is the minister prepared to make beyond a simple answer of "not at this time"?

[1635]

Hon. A. Virk: If I may clarify that the terms of the MOU speak to increases in FTEs when the capital operating funds are available. So in terms of that, the terms of that agreement have been lived up to because the capital operating funds are not available in a government that has committed to operate within budget, much like a family spending no more than they earn. In the next two years the forecasts certainly do not suggest capital operating funds being available.

But the capital funding being available certainly is contingent upon the performance of our economy, the performance of our new resource sectors that are going to be opened, the performance of our responsible extraction of our resources and responsible sale of those resources to those countries outside of Canada that are looking for our resources.

My response, in that sense, is contingent upon when our economy does better, when this province does better. Then we can continue on and fulfil those terms of the agreement. Right now that MOU is being fulfilled because the caveat is when the capital operating budgets and the funds were available. They are not available yet.
[ Page 875 ]

D. Eby: I've heard the minister a number of times — and in his most recent answer as well — suggest that when we do better, then we can invest in education, implying, to my ears, that the hard-working taxpayers are paying for the students. The minister should know….

There has been some wonderful work done about the increase in income that comes from accessing post-secondary education — college and university — and the return to our government through increased taxes that people who have done post-secondary education bring. So the emphasis of this ministry, hopefully, will be on getting more people into post-secondary institutions, not waiting for when we do better, because we will do better through increased post-secondary institutions.

On that point, can the minister please provide the first-year student head count, by public institution, broken down by — I'm looking at three specific categories — B.C. residents, according to the ministry's definition of that; Canadians who are not B.C. residents; and international students. I'm looking at full-time and part-time numbers.

It sounds complex to many, I'm sure. But I have provided this…. I'm getting into the segment, now, of the statistics that, during the briefing process, I provided a list of to the minister.

[1640]

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, I've got to clarify the question. The question asked and the manner that he asked it…. The ministry does not collect the data in that manner to the level that the member is requesting.

Secondarily, I can report a few things. One of them is that 75 percent of grade 12 graduates transition to post-secondary within five years of graduating from grade 12. That's the data that is available.

Just to repeat the first part of the question, the data to the level that the member is asking is not available — the breakdown between B.C. residents, Canadian and not B.C., and international for first-year head count.

D. Eby: That's surprising information to me. How does the minister hope that institutions are going to meet their goal of doubling, or increasing by 50 percent, the number of international students? How are post-secondary institutions reporting back to the ministry how they're using the $10,000 per full-time-equivalent that the ministry is giving them if not by reporting head counts — how many people actually show up to sit in these spaces that are being funded by taxpayers?

I'm sure that I misunderstand. What I'm looking for is the number of students attending these institutions that are publicly funded. I'll just give the minister another shot, because that just seems completely counterintuitive.

[1645]

Hon. A. Virk: As usual, clarifications are always required. The first question he was looking for was a first-year head count. And if I may clarify that as trying to break it down into first-year or second-year or third-year was the….

When my response was that we don't collect that data or have that data, let me clarify. Overall data is available and is collected. Now, in terms of international students, there are a total of 94,000 international students, but that's also K to 12. That's public, and that's private. Specifically, if you're looking at post-secondary education, in the public post-secondary — 28,000 positions or international students in public post-secondary.

I can't answer whether they're first-year or second-year, because that data is not available to me currently. What I can say is there are 28,000 currently, so there are some baselines available. When I'm looking to increase that by 50 percent, a baseline number is indeed available for public post-secondary.

D. Eby: So 28,000 international students. How many Canadian students who are not B.C. residents are attending B.C. institutions?

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, I'll add a response to the previous question asked as well: is all that data also publicly available in terms of the 28,000 public post-secondary international students? That's available on the open data website as well. All those numbers are accessible to the general public and to the member as well.

In terms of the question asked right now of how many Canadian but not B.C. residents there are, the Ministry of Advanced Education does not collect or differentiate between B.C. and/or other Canadian students.

[1650]

D. Eby: Then can the minister clarify the total number of non-international students who are actually attending B.C. publicly funded post-secondary institutions?

Hon. A. Virk: Also available to any member of the public on the open data website. You'll find that there are 412,000 domestic students. That's publicly available information.

D. Eby: Can the minister clarify that these are actual students — physical people who are attending institutions and not just spaces — and, in addition, give a breakdown of full-time versus part-time for these students?

Hon. A. Virk: The question was: are these real people? Yeah, they do exist. They are real people. There are 412,000 students. In terms of distinguishing between whether they're full-time or part-time, that breakdown doesn't occur. It's very difficult to distinguish the sliding scale designating full-time or part-time.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and his staff.
[ Page 876 ]

I have two issues. I know we're fairly short on time here, so just two issues.

The first one is on the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences. I've had some discussions with the minister already on this, and I appreciate the time he's devoted to me to do that.

Just to begin with, just for the record, I'd like to read into Hansard:

"As Premier of the province of British Columbia, I'm very pleased to welcome everyone to the opening of the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences. The province takes the safety of its workers very seriously, and we commit ourselves to making sure that their well-being is a priority.

"I understand this institution will be dedicated to workplace health issues. This is a great opportunity for students to study such an important subject that impacts communities and families across B.C.

"A lot of commitment and hard work has gone into establishing the university, which is unique in Canada and internationally, and I would like to commend all of those who gave so much of their time to see this come to fruition.

"On behalf of the province of British Columbia, I congratulate you all on this fine achievement and wish you all success in your future endeavours."

That's signed by the Premier, September 6, 2011, at the grand opening of the university.

I just wanted that in the record so that those watching…. I know that the mayor and council in Port Alberni are very excited about this economic diversification opportunity of having this university and the international role that it's looking like it's going to be playing.

The last of the hurdles, I believe, is over for the university, and I thank the minister for helping me with that too. The last was the financial security agreement — plus the transcript maintenance agreement for the university. So those were the last two things, I believe. Sometimes it seems like new things come up.

I've been given the information that all of these conditions will be met this week, based on the models given by the minister's staff. The first question is: when does the minister expect to be able to have sign-off, assuming we have all of the conditions met this week?

The concern that I'm raising — and the minister knows this but, again, for the record — is that September is the launch for this university. The international community has already embraced it. The need to do hiring, to finalize or change any of the curriculum, stuff that needs to be put into place to open the doors of this university…. With September being the time, we need the minister's sign-off a.s.a.p., maybe by end of week if possible.

Is that possible? Or can the minister apprise of when that would be possible, assuming all the conditions are met this week?

[1655]

Hon. A. Virk: I very much appreciate the enthusiasm and time that the member is spending supporting Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences. I can obviously see the passion and support.

As I have had a number of conversations with the members, what I can perhaps let the member know is that as soon as is practical, when the university complies with the conditions as set out in the last correspondence that we sent from the ministry….

If they can comply with those last conditions and report back to the ministry that the conditions are complied with, then a decision note would come to my attention. We'll certainly endeavor to make that as seamless as possible — when those conditions are met and I'm aware that they are met.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I want to note and reiterate that we all disappear to our constituencies after this week. So the concern that I have — and I've spoken with the mayor and council, too, about this — is that if this sort of falls off the radar screen because we're not here and then September comes around and there's still not sign-off, then the opportunity to do the hiring and everything that's needed to open….

Again, I understand the minister; it's if the conditions are met. But if they are met, is the minister hopeful that this will be signed off and they will be able to proceed with the economic development portion of this for the area before the September launch — the hoped-for September launch?

Hon. A. Virk: I guess I don't want to speculate — if the conditions are met. I think the ministry certainly has to see some proof that the conditions and documentation…. That is, I guess, where the race starts — the documentation provided to the ministry that conditions….

I'm not sure of the exact conditions that need to be met, but when those conditions are met and the documentation proof is presented to the ministry, that's when the opportunity starts for the ministry to provide, then, a decision note from myself, for a signature.

I would encourage that the university fulfil their obligations as soon as it's practical and they communicate that to the ministry — that they have met all the conditions — and provide proof of that as soon as possible. Then that's when it triggers that decision note coming to me, and we'll endeavour to do that as soon as practical after receiving that information.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. Just so that the minister knows, I spoke with the university this morning and then again this afternoon. As of just after one o'clock, they did receive the last of the guidance and the information around the security issue, which is being compiled right now. They got it this afternoon, so it's just hours later. The soonest the courier will have the completed documents as per prescribed by the ministry will be a day and a half, I think.

We'll still be here, so there'll still be the chance for the minister to actually sign the paper. If he's doing that this
[ Page 877 ]
week, I'd like to see it, just because I have been working on this for a long time, and others have been watching it closely. I thank the minister for that.

Then, I do have one more issue that I'd like to raise.

Hon. A. Virk: I'm just going to respond very quickly. I don't believe I'm going to disappear off the face of the planet when the House rises this week, so I'm certainly available should that come in a timely fashion. I'm around.

S. Fraser: I'll find you. Thank you, hon. Minister.

I have a request with this one too. This is an initiative taken on by the district of Tofino. Mayor and council and many people on the west coast have been working on this for a while. It's about creating a locally based hub for post-secondary institutions to work through to provide in situ academic studies, trades training and professional development, and there are students here on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

[1700]

Your predecessor — I can't say her name — the previous minister visited and, I think, was impressed with what they're looking to do.

Just for the edification of everyone involved, the Clayoquot Sound area, where Tofino is located, is the first and only one of two UNESCO biosphere designations in British Columbia. It was created in the year 2000. The idea of creating a link with post-secondary education as a real-life academic setting unlike anywhere else in the world…. It's unique, and there's a lot of potential there

So we're seeing this as an economic development potential, and the previous minister was very impressed, from what I'm told, with what she saw and what she heard.

The local governments have already been providing some funding. Everyone knows money is tight, but we'd sure like to have the minister be able to come up to speed on this. It's not a tough request. There's a request for the minister to be able to come and visit, meet with the mayor and the appropriate people — the experts that have been working on this.

Remember, this is Tofino. This is the summer coming up. So whatever your plans are, I'm sure you can amend those to go to the west coast of Vancouver Island, to one of the most magnificent places in the world. You would be treated very well. You would be given a real-life example of the why — the work that's been done already towards this union between a local academic setting and university setting.

I'd just ask the minister to consider that, and I'll wait for that response.

Hon. A. Virk: In response to that, once again, I really appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment to your constituency. I intend to travel extensively throughout the province to make sure I see firsthand the excellent work being done by all the post-secondary institutions across British Columbia, notwithstanding this location as well.

So I eagerly await the invitation. We'll see where staff can fit that into the schedule I have in the next several months.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased that the minister is hoping to travel around, keeping him on Vancouver Island and a little bit up to the Mainland coast.

I just wanted to focus attention on North Island College. It's interesting. I was going back through the Hansard transcripts of estimates debates back to about 2005-2006, where I've stood up arguing for improved funding for North Island College. Like many institutions, it has been facing, effectively, cuts over the last few years, a lack of funding. But in addition to that, there is a great disparity between funding that goes to rural colleges and funding that goes to urban centres.

North Island College covers four constituencies. My colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim — it's located in his riding. It's located in the riding of the Minister of Community Development. It's located in the north Island, and it is also located on the north coast. It goes up to Bella Coola. There is a campus there.

We've already seen a retraction in service for students. In my own constituency the Gold River campus closed. The Cortes Island campus closed. We've seen a focusing on two main areas in my constituency — Campbell River, less in Port Hardy.

But I would hope that the minister, as a new minister with a new outlook, could start to address this issue of the disparity between funding for rural colleges and funding for urban centres.

[1705]

Hon. A. Virk: To the member: thank you, once again, for your passion for your riding and your college. Some numbers, perhaps, are important for us to discuss, I think. On average, universities and institutions across British Columbia are funded about 42 percent of their total operating capital. So 42 percent is tax-funded, and the other they raise through tuition or other means.

Recognizing the location of North Island College and the nature of the college, that one receives 67 percent of their funding, as opposed to 42, which is government-funded. They are, whenever I do the math, 25 percent more than everybody else in terms of their funding.

There has been an increase of about 24 percent in North Island College's core funding from the government since 2000 as well. In fact, their operations had a surplus in this fiscal year, 2012-2013 — a small surplus in their operations.

Now, speaking about the small locations, that's a difficulty of a number of different areas — demographic
[ Page 878 ]
changes and, perhaps, less learners in some areas. Some of the small locations are no longer economically feasible or viable to continue on small-scale operations, given the operating costs associated with those locations.

North Island College itself is partnering with a number of different institutions. The member may not be aware of their partnerships with VIU, their partnerships with Camosun, their partnerships with Royal Roads, to deliver a consortium of programs in common locations to realize efficiencies — efficiencies not only in the financial sense but efficiencies in academic credentials or otherwise that you can realize when two or three institutions do partner.

You increase the wealth and depth and breadth of the experience for that student when you can have universities such as Royal Roads, VIU and colleges such as North Island and Camosun partner. You get a richness and depth and breadth of education when they partner. Those are all the things that are occurring with these.

[1710]

I think the public absolutely applauds the fact that North Island College and all these other institutions, universities and colleges are partnering so that students get absolutely the best-quality education. There are a number of them that serve that area. You also have to keep in mind that there are all nine, as well, that are available. That's an incredibly new learning tool that's available too.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for his response, but just to underline the issue of rural education, on-line learning is fine if you've got access to broadband and high-speed Internet, but sometimes it's very limited. For instance, in Port Alice we have a cap on the number of people who can get onto the Internet, the amount of bandwidth that is available. It really is a big problem, and the more rural you get, the harder it is to have that access.

Look at Sointula and Alert Bay — where, actually, North Island College started. Again, you have Internet access, and you don't have a physical college there. Add that in with the increased cost in ferry fares and being able to get to a location, and it really does limit the people's access to education and access to post-secondary education.

I would hope that the minister, in his willingness to travel around, would come up to North Island, come to North Coast, come to my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim's constituency and see the real needs for our communities.

We do need to ensure that we do have fully funded programs and that we are able to keep our young people in community, because while we can keep our young people in community, they're likely to stay there and work there rather than having to move down to Courtenay, down to Nanaimo or down to Victoria for post-secondary. If we can actually keep them in Port Hardy and Campbell River, we're going to get much better long-term results for our communities.

Hon. A. Virk: I appreciate the invitation, and I indeed intend to travel as far and as often as possible — within budgets, of course. We do intend to live within budgets. It's very important, absolutely, to train learners where they live, for the jobs that do exist where they live. At the same time, I do encourage that perhaps…. You know, we've crossed oceans to populate this country, and we might have to cross the strait, to move where the jobs are as well.

I'd encourage, within British Columbia, that we may need to move around to where the jobs are, but we have a commitment to teach where people live, where the jobs are. And absolutely, I'm going to avail myself of the opportunity to travel to as many institutions as possible and recognize local needs as well.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise on the first-year student completion rates for British Columbia public-funded institutions? What I'm looking for here — and I'd certainly accept a reasonable substitution — is the number of full-time students who start in September in first year and then start the following September in a second-year program. That is, they've finished first year, and they've started in second year.

[1715]

Hon. A. Virk: I want to go back on the question from North Island, because I just received a little bit more information, and I think it's more than appropriate for me to share that.

In terms of bandwidth, there's a real plan to increase that bandwidth over 11 months. There are 11 post-secondary institution and campus locations where bandwidth has been increased. There are 12 more planned, as well, to increase bandwidth from two to ten times the current amount.

It's well recognized that as a post-secondary system if you want to encourage use on line, bandwidth is indeed an issue that needs to be worked with. As you can appreciate, in rural locations there are a lot of variables, but the plans are in place. When I see increasing the bandwidth to 12 additional locations and from some 2½ to ten times the current bandwidth, I hope that can alleviate some of the concerns that the member spoke about, about bandwidth.

In terms of the question at hand, there are some 78,000 students that were tracked in year 1, and at year 2 — if you were asking the question from September of this year till September the next year — some 80 percent of them were retained and/or received some level of accreditation, whether that be a citation or diploma or otherwise, in that one calendar year.

In terms of the gathering of statistics that the ministry feels particularly important to collect in conjunction with other universities in other provinces across Canada, British Columbia is noted as a leader in the collection of
[ Page 879 ]
pertinent data and noted by other provinces as a leader in the data, on making it publically available on the website for the entirety of the public to see.

D. Eby: It's strange to me that the minister has this figure for first-year student completion rates for B.C., given that the minister, a few moments ago, didn't have statistics for first-year students in British Columbia. I'm not sure how much reliance can be placed on this number.

Perhaps the minister can clarify who these 78,000 students are. Is that the number of first-year students in B.C.? How are these students chosen? It doesn't match up with me that previously I couldn't get an answer for the number of first-year students attending, but now I can get an answer for the number of first-year students who are going into second year.

[1720]

Hon. A. Virk: If I may remind the member, the question was not the one that he posed right now. The question he asked was first-year head count divided between three categories: (1) B.C. residents, (2) Canadian but not B.C. residents and (3) international. That was the question he posed, and I replied at that time that that particular breakdown is not available.

Now, in my response to the last question, I did say that the kind of data that the Ministry of Advanced Education, with their expertise in conjunction with the similar ministries across the country…. For the data they believe that is pertinent to collect within the university world, British Columbia is indeed a leader in the collection. If the member would avail himself to the information that's available on the public website, he will see all the data that is available and then be able to collect that.

D. Eby: We can go back through the Blues, but it doesn't seem particularly productive. Maybe I'll just ask the question again, then.

What is the first-year student head count by institution in British Columbia this year? That means actual students attending a first-year course in British Columbia.

[1725]

Hon. A. Virk: I think it's very appropriate, once again…. The question as asked and a clarification, perhaps, is that it depends on what a definition of a first-year student is in British Columbia, or in any province in this country. We would all agree that when a high school student goes to university, we would classify them as a first-year student. But in terms of first-year students….

You know, somebody goes from Douglas to SFU. Are they a first-year student? Or they come from Western University or elsewhere to an institution in British Columbia. Are they a first-year student? A returning learner that has come back — is that classified as a first-year student?

The ministry, through their wisdom, has determined that what's more appropriate to track is institution to institution, and those retention rates as specified. So if you have a Douglas student that goes to SFU — I'll just use that as an example — those movement rates are indeed tracked. They're tracked from staying in one institution.

The definition of a first-year student is very loose. It's not a measurement that the ministry finds totally collectible and/or appropriate within the university world. The first-year student has so many different variables, so many different measurements, so many different angles — especially in this day and age of returning learners.

Perhaps, in a traditional sense of 20 years ago, it may have been simple. There was a transition that was very linear. Post-secondary education is no longer linear. There are laddering points of jumping in, jumping off and transition and movement and retraining and re-education.

D. Eby: I'm afraid I still don't know how we got 78,000, given that there's no way of knowing who a first-year student is, and how we got to 80 percent retention to year 2. Maybe I'll take another tack.

In the minister's mandate letter, page 3, item 6, the minister has been directed to "include the requirement for post-secondary boards to undertake an institution-wide core review of their programming" — and this is the important part — "to ensure student seats are being filled."

I'm not trying to trick the minister. I'm not trying to fool him. I just want to know: how many student seats are there, and who is sitting in those seats? Are they being filled? Are they not being filled? Are they being filled by British Columbians, by international students, by students outside Canada?

If the minister can provide some information to the public about how he is going to ask boards to achieve goal 6 in his mandate letter — what statistics he'll be using, what information he'll be using, what information he'll be asking them to be using — that would be very helpful.

Hon. A. Virk: In terms of the core review, I think it's very important to work together. It's the ministry's intention to work with the post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and look at a process by which an examination to ensure that administration, efficiencies, effectiveness and alignment are absolutely done. So it's a process where you work with the ministry staff and the university staff. We'll work together to design and look at the parameters of the core review within the university sector.

I think the public demands, when they're paying their tax dollars towards public education, that there are efficiencies within that system, that there are alignments in that system, that their funds are being used for the best practical purpose. So in the next several months that discussion process will indeed commence.
[ Page 880 ]

I have personally committed to the post-secondary institution presidents, the many that I have spoken to and the many that I intend to speak to as well, that it's indeed a collaborative effort in terms of collectively looking at efficiencies and collectively designing a process by which to do that core review.

Having said that, if I may humbly request a small five-minute recess as well, please.

The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:30 p.m. to 5:35 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

D. Eby: I tried and I tried in the minister's answer to hear a statistic that he'd be relying on in implementing directive No. 6 from the mandate letter. I didn't hear one.

My question to the minister is simply this. When the mandate letter says, "Ensure student seats are being filled," I think anybody reading that is going to think student seats aren't being filled. Is there any statistic, any information that the ministry has, to come to the conclusion that requiring boards to do this is going to address an issue, or is this simply a made up, speculative type of mandate?

Hon. A. Virk: Thank you for the new question in a new area. I think it's very important as we move forward that we align education with opportunities and we ensure that the right opportunities are coming forth, such that the right courses are being taught at the right time, at the right place, to capitalize on the right job, whether that's short-term, medium-term or long-term.

In that sense, that mandate that I have in part of the mandate letter is to do an examination, as I said before, in partnership with the universities. Is it the right course, at the right time, at the right place? Are they realizing their efficiencies, and are those seats indeed being filled, based upon the allocation of government and public funds to those universities? In that sense, absolutely, there's a commitment to properly analyze sectorwide, provincewide: are we effectively using the resources to teach the right things to the right students, at the right time, at the right place?

D. Eby: Mr. Chair, I have to say I'm absolutely astounded at the lack of statistics collected by this ministry.

The minister has stood up and said that $5 million a day is what we're spending. Yet the minister can't tell me how many British Columbia students are actually attending British Columbia's publicly funded institutions, and how many students from outside the province in comparison.

[1740]

He can't tell me how many students are in first year. He can't tell me where the 78,000 figure and the 80 percent retention figure come from. I'm a bit speechless. If I've misunderstood about the statistics that the ministry is collecting about who is sitting in the seats in British Columbia's publicly funded institutions, then I hope the minister would take this opportunity to correct me. Otherwise, I'm going to move onto the next area.

Hon. A. Virk: I think it's more than appropriate. Let me go to Data B.C., openly available. Perhaps the member suggests that certain areas aren't available. I think experts in the post-secondary industry have determined the kind of data they need to collect. If the member wants to suggest there are more important areas that'll serve his own particular purpose, perhaps the ministry can look at that. But the ministry, through their decades of experience, has determined there are a number of areas where data needs to be collected.

I'm going to list them off for the benefit of the record, so that they're into Hansard and the member can look and retrieve that.

There are survey results of developmental students by program grouping available; survey results by baccalaureate degrees and graduates by program clusters; survey results of diplomas, associate degree and certificate students by program cluster; apprenticeship students by program area; locations of B.C. public and B.C. private degree-granting and non-B.C.-granting post-secondary institutions.

There is data available on adult basic education head count by gender and age group in public post-secondary institutions, and English-as-a-second-language domestic and international student head count by age group at public post-secondary institutions.

Student satisfaction with B.C. public post-secondary education is publicly available; and unemployment rates of graduates from a B.C. public post-secondary institution by credential type; domestic and international student head count by economic development region and institution; B.C. grade 12 graduate transition to B.C. public post-secondary; student loan default rates at B.C. public post-secondary institutions; credentials at public post-secondary institutions by level and category; student loan default rates at B.C. private post-secondary institutions; British Columbia post-secondary transition rates by demographic characteristics; full-time-equivalent enrolments at B.C. public post-secondary institutions; full-time domestic tuition fees for arts programs at B.C. post-secondary institutions.

This is not exhaustive but just an example of some 18 or 20 areas I noticed. It's available on Data B.C. It's open publicly.

If the member wants to suggest that there are some areas, perhaps, for his own purposes that aren't included in the statistics, he's certainly free to do so. But I think, as I noted before, the data collection in the areas that the ministry feels are important for post-secondary education….
[ Page 881 ]

[1745]

It's a leader by Canadian standards and continues to be a leader by Canadian standards.

D. Eby: I think most British Columbians would be astounded that $5 million of their tax money was spent every day, but the minister can't tell them how many British Columbia students are benefiting from that. But I will move on to the next area.

What study was done of institutional capacity in advance of setting directive 9 in the minister's mandate letter? That directive was: "Deliver on the B.C. jobs plan targets contained in our international education strategy, including doubling the number of international students studying in B.C. by 2016." The question relates to physical capacity of post-secondary institutions in B.C. and whether or not they can absorb a further doubling of international students or 50 percent more international students. It's not clear to me, because there are two different targets set out.

Hon. A. Virk: I think it's important to realize that across post-secondary and all other educational institutions across British Columbia, half of them, frankly, sit empty for about three-quarters of the day. So if the member is suggesting, perhaps, that there's not enough space or otherwise, I think we must look at efficiencies and try to fill our institutions or buildings. It's not about building new bricks-and-mortar buildings. Let me talk about building new buildings.

Some $2.1 billion of capital investments since 2001. I think that equates to about 500,000 square metres of additional space. That's a definite increase in the amount of space. But bringing new students on is across sectors. It's public. It's private. It's K to 12. It's post-secondary, abroad.

In terms of the planning, there was a project council across the sector that included all different sectors — public, post, private, language schools or otherwise — to look at where there was need and where there were opportunities as well. It's not all about public funding as well. It's about home stay. It's about the community being involved in educating international students as well. It's a very wide definition of where students come in.

You have communities. You have cities. You have municipalities that are involved as well. This is internationalization. It's exchange programs where we have British Columbia residents going to other countries to train as well. It's a broader perspective than just analysis of building more space for students. But there has been an incredible amount of new spaces built in the last 12 years as well.

[1750]

D. Eby: I heard the minister say that half of the facilities sit empty three-quarters of the day. Is that an actual statistic from some sort of survey that the ministry has done? Were these schools asked about their capacity to absorb the mandated increase in international students, or was there any work done by the ministry to determine whether they could absorb these international students? Is that where this statistic comes from?

Hon. A. Virk: I think perhaps I'll step back on that. The member opposite certainly knows where a colloquial term is thrown out. We all recognize that all of our institutions, whether they be gyms or facilities, are certainly empty at certain portions of the day. The use of my loose statistic can't be turned…. I must recognize that many of our institutions do sit empty for a portion of that day. So that's where the statistic comes from.

It's common knowledge that the layperson sees and hears and feels. Anywhere you drive by a university, you can see that by the parking lot or the institution. It's just referring to the fact that we should try to look at efficiencies in the system.

We should look across…. Where can we realize efficiencies in the system and use the capital that we have sitting in front of us in the best possible way? That's adding additional space, where possible, and that's adding students to a different schedule, if possible. It's a broad examination of the public expecting us to be efficient with the facilities that they've built for us.

D. Eby: It seems the minister is flying blind with respect to this mandate requirement — that there has been no work done with respect to capacity. If there is so much excess capacity at post-secondary institutions, then surely the minister will be recommending to his ministry to immediately stop all capital investments at these universities.

It seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there is excess capacity in the system, in which case you stop building capital, or there is not enough capacity, in which case you start making new buildings. Both of these questions seem incredibly relevant to doubling — or increasing by 50 percent; whatever it is — the number of international students. Can the minister clarify?

Hon. A. Virk: This is going on the line with a lot of the discussions that we heard in the House over the last week now. It's going from facts. I'm here to present facts. I've been presenting facts for a quarter century, and I'm going to continue to do so. It's a mixture. There's a mixture of where you need capital events, and there's a mixture of where you can use existing space and capitalize on that.

Everything involves an equilibrium and a balance. To suggest otherwise is pure political mileage. Through you, Mr. Chair, if he has some questions in terms of the rest…. There are policy differences we may have, but if he certainly has any questions on the rest of the estimates, we're certainly ready and able to provide those facts to him.
[ Page 882 ]

D. Eby: I agree with the minister 100 percent that it is certainly a mix and that each institution is different. Just to clarify, then. I understand from the minister that he, the ministry, has done no work to understand which institutions can absorb more international students and which institutions cannot.

To the minister: has any work been done — period?

[1755]

Hon. A. Virk: To suggest that these targets are arbitrarily arrived at without consultation is just not the fact. As I mentioned before — and perhaps if you want to rewind to some of my answers — there was a project consult across the sector, which was public and private, post-secondary or otherwise. They were involved in the consultation process prior to the targets being set. So the post-secondary sector was indeed consulted in developing the targets, and all were consulted in that.

Secondarily, on an annual basis all universities do an assessment of their facilities and their needs and what they need for future growth. They submit capital plans, annual capital plans, and in order of priority. The ministry looks at the capital plans in order of priority and assesses at times scarce capital resources and at times other resources to address those priorities.

As I said previously, since 2001 those priorities have come forth. They have been assessed at what was the highest need, and there was some $2.1 billion invested in increasing capacity at post-secondary institutions across British Columbia. That equated, among other improvements, to some 500,000 square metres of new space in universities. So this is all a part of an equation.

In a sense, to suggest this is done willy-nilly on the back of a napkin…. I've heard that term a number of times. This was done with a great deal of consultation, a great deal of planning, a great deal of annual plans and a prioritization exercise that occurs every year with the post-secondary institutions.

I'm going to reiterate: $2.1 billion of capital investment and 500,000 square metres of new space in the last 12 years.

D. Eby: I'm glad to hear that the ministry has done extensive consultation with post-secondary institutions. I wonder if the minister would commit to releasing the results of that consultation, the consultation documents, to the public so that they can read for themselves what the universities and colleges are asking for and what the ministry is delivering.

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, once again I must lead — through you — my friend to publicly available information.

[1800]

Those consultations occurred as part of the international education strategy, which promoted the two-way flow. I've got to say, two-way flow, global…. We have a lot to learn from having our students go to other countries as well. So part of the international education strategy that was indeed…. The consultations are available. They are publically available. If the member wishes to avail himself of those, that strategy is certainly available.

D. Eby: I wonder if the minister could clarify, given that this target was so carefully thought out and planned, based on consultation…. The June 10, 2013, mandate letter says, "Doubling the number of international students," yet when I turn to the revised 2013-14–2015-16 plan, it has changed to a 50 percent increase in international students studying in British Columbia. Can he clarify which goal it is that he's committed to meet here, which was based on such careful capacity consultations with the universities and colleges?

Hon. A. Virk: I think it's appropriate just to clarify that in the jobs plan there was a 50 percent increase in the number of international students. Kudos to my friend for being very good at numbers. I hope to see that continue on as we discuss more numbers in the next four years to come.

The 50 percent is indeed the correct fact. It's a transposing error on the document that he read.

D. Eby: The B.C. Innovation Council has a voucher program. With respect to that program, which is related to the commercialization of business innovations in British Columbia, can the minister advise how many of these vouchers were issued and how many were used by institutions?

Hon. A. Virk: The Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services has conduct of that area. That commercialization voucher program is in the mandate of Minister Wilkinson. That question can be posed to that minister.

D. Eby: I am sorry to bring us back one step. I just wonder if the minister could clarify, because it wasn't clear to me which number was incorrect. The Premier gave the number of 100 percent, or doubling, and the service plan gave the number of 50 percent. Which of those two numbers was incorrect?

Hon. A. Virk: The number is 50 percent in the jobs plan and in the service plan. The number that's on the mandate letter is the one that's incorrect.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise on the number of participants in the EmbraceBC program and the cost of that program?

[1805]

Hon. A. Virk: That program has been transferred to
[ Page 883 ]
the Minister of International Trade, and the member may find answers there.

D. Eby: The minister earlier said that it's really important for post-secondary institutions to find innovative sources of funding and ways to work with the private sector. The public institutions report, unfortunately, that when they get equipment donations from private industry, oftentimes when they advise private industry of the terms of the donations, private industry then decides not to donate the equipment.

This is equipment that's still good, that could be used by B.C. students to learn trades, to learn other valuable skills. The core problem when someone tries to donate equipment to a B.C. post-secondary institution is that the post-secondary institution has to advise the business that the business must accept unlimited liability for that donated equipment.

Is the minister prepared to examine that unlimited liability requirement and allow post-secondary institutions to accept this equipment and reassure B.C. businesses who donate equipment that they won't be sued for everything they're worth if they try to help out post-secondary institutions in B.C.?

Hon. A. Virk: Just on that question, I'm quite aware from my previous life, as well — and having worked and seen with other universities — it's not uncommon practice for universities to accept all sorts of different donations in the interest of student advancement from industry, including equipment.

This is not a particular issue that's been brought to my attention before. If that is indeed the case, I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. I certainly will further that.

In discussions, perhaps, as we have in the hallways, I'll report back to him in terms of where those discussions led. If there, indeed, are barriers that have been presented in particular instances, I will certainly look at how we can remove those barriers or examine that liability issue if it does exist.

D. Eby: Another thorn in the side for post-secondary institutions in B.C…. The ministry is certainly well aware of this. It was addressed in a Speech from the Throne a number of years ago. Universities and colleges are not allowed to carry over funding year after year. They also must spend down their grants within the accounting year.

You wouldn't run a business like this, and universities and colleges are asked to be more and more businesslike. Is the minister prepared to fix this longstanding problem and let our post-secondary institutions carry over funding and spend it over a two-, three-, four- or five-year period, rather than having to spend it in a given year?

[1810]

Hon. A. Virk: The question, in terms of carrying over funding and spending down grants…. The short answer is that under law, and under the current process here, the institutions are prohibited by law from running a deficit without approval. That implies that within any given year they must spend what they receive. Carrying over a previous year's surplus to current-year spending would then imply they've spent more than they've earned in this current year.

Under current reporting rules, I must emphasize that all institutions come under the GRE or the government reporting entity. That was required in stipulations from the previous Auditor General. In order to get an unqualified financial statement under the GRE, you could not carry over funding and you can not spend down your grants, as suggested in previous years.

So the short answer is no. There are no provisions, unless you get appropriate approval. There are no provisions currently to carry over funding and spend it in the next year.

[1815]

D. Eby: The last question to the minister is simply whether he will be changing that situation to address the concerns of post-secondary institutions.

Hon. A. Virk: What may seem like a simple question is indeed very complicated. It requires…. It's a whole host of implications to the government reporting entity. This question here is best answered by the Minister of Finance, who, while I won't put words in his mouth, must consider the broader position, the broader financial statement of the province of British Columbia in coming to a conclusion whether that can be done.

Right now the answer once again, the short answer, is no, but that question must be posed to the Finance Minister in the context of a broader analysis on British Columbia's financial position.

Mr. Chair, Committee of Supply, Section C, estimates — not completed. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada