2015 Legislative Session: Fourth 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, April 20, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 7

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

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: I have the great honour today of introducing to the House the mayor of Fort St. John, Lori Ackerman, her councillors, Gord Klassen and Bruce Christensen, and the city manager, Dianne Hunter.

As you know, the Peace country is fairly busy. Last year Fort St. John grew at about 5 percent. These folks are down trying to educate some of the ministers on what they’re looking forward to with the coming of Site C and the coming of LNG projects.

Would the House please give me a helpful hand in welcoming them to this precinct.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s a pleasure today to welcome to the chamber the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., led by their able CEO, Ann English. She has brought with her a fleet of engineers to make sure the place will stand up while we’re here.

Would the House please welcome them.

[1335]

L. Throness: We have some special First Nations visitors who are here for meetings today.

I want to introduce Dalton Silver, who is Chief of the Sumas First Nation; and, from my own riding, Clarence Pennier, Grand Chief of the Stó:lō Nation; Doug Kelly, Grand Chief of the Stó:lō Tribal Council; and Chief Clem Seymour, who is Chief of Seabird Island First Nation.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to add my personal welcome to Grand Chief Doug Kelly, who is also chair of the First Nations Health Council, and acknowledge his tremendous leadership on that file. He’s leading the Beefy Chiefs challenge once again to encourage increased exercise and thinking about our health for all of us. We look forward to the Times Colonist 10K run next week, when a lot of us will be setting that example and, hopefully, surviving 10Ks on the streets of Victoria.

Welcome to Grand Chief Doug Kelly.

J. Horgan: Of course, you’ll recall that last week I made a statement about Women’s Sevens rugby in Langford. It was spectacular. My colleague from Kelowna across the way and I had a wonderful time in the sunshine, watching some of the best women’s rugby you’ll see anywhere.

It’s appropriate that today I acknowledge in the gallery the retirement of George Jones, QC, a great rugby player himself, a coach of some renown and also the parent of seven children, one of which has the I’m going to say good fortune of being married to the member for Vancouver-Hastings. That’s Cate Jones, the hilarious Cate Jones.

George was called to the bar the year I was born. That was some considerable time ago. He’s a great British Columbian, a great Victorian and a great sportsman. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

D. Bing: I have some visitors from my constituency of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows today: Mayor John Becker from the city of Pitt Meadows; Katzie First Nation Chief Susan Miller; and the treaty negotiator, Debbie Miller.

Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Popham: It was such a pleasure today to have lunch with George Jones and a friend of mine, Dave Ward. Dave Ward worked at the Saanich fire department for 35 years, seven of those as chief, and just retired as the chief of the Esquimalt fire department. I’ve known him for years. He built my house. It’s nice to see him in the chamber today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ACTION ON GANG VIOLENCE
IN DELTA AND SURREY

M. Hunt: This weekend a young life was ended because of gang violence. Unfortunately, this is something that happens far too frequently, and it shows that the lure of gangs to many of our youth is very strong. In the past six weeks there have been 23 shootings in Surrey and Delta. It’s a miracle that there have not been more deaths.

Most of these shootings are linked to gang violence and the drug trade. Gang violence remains a serious issue in our province, especially in parts of the Lower Mainland, including my city of Surrey.

What’s the solution? Is it tougher sentences? Is it more anti-drug and anti-gang initiatives or resources? Well, maybe these are all part of it, but often the solution starts with individuals. There are those who know who these offenders are. They or their friends and family need to come forward so other families need not grieve the loss of a child, a brother, a sister, a cousin or other loved one. Gangs do not want the public to come forward. They operate through intimidation. Let’s, instead, remove their veils, and gangs become vulnerable.

Tomorrow a meeting will take place at Tamanawis Secondary School in Surrey. I hope this meeting is packed with residents who are not afraid, who want to end the influx and influence of crimes and the violence that’s associated with them and who want to find solutions. This weekend’s tragedy is a terrible reminder that we have work to do together.
[ Page 7376 ]

ESSAY ABOUT ANXIETY
BY HANNAH TROMBLEY

D. Donaldson: “My anxiety has affected me largely at school. It has ruined relationships with my friends, and it has made me afraid to try new things, to commit, to trust.” Those are some of the words of grade 12 Hazelton Secondary student Hannah Trombley from her winning essay in the Score One for Mental Wellness contest run by our Stikine MLA offices. The theme this year for the contest, where we’ve partnered with Smithers’s Dan Hamhuis from the Canucks, was how teens address their and others’ mental health needs.

[1340]

“The turning point of my anxiety was when I finally talked to my mom and friends,” wrote Hannah. “I’d come to the conclusion and understanding I do, in fact, suffer from anxiety. I first thought having this mental illness defined me as crazy, that I have ‘lost it.’ I have learned I am not the only person who struggles with anxiety. My anxiety is a companion every day, and I have come up with coping methods for it not to control my life.”

Hannah’s coping methods include continuing to talk about her anxiety and ensuring physical activity — in her case, dance — brings balance to her life. You can read Hannah’s brilliant, heartfelt essay in full on my MLA website.

Hannah won a trip for two to Vancouver to see the Canucks beat Edmonton at the end of the season. Now they just have to take care of that other team from Alberta. She took her dad, who hadn’t been to a Canucks game in 20 years.

It was a fitting prize. Hannah’s grandfather is Ken Trombley, as in the Ken Trombley Memorial Ice Arena in Hazelton. The 44-year-old facility was closed last month due to structural issues. The community has raised almost $4 million and is looking for matching funds from the province to replace the structure, in large part because it provides the critical outlet for that physical balance Hannah describes as necessary for all those working on mental wellness.

Thanks to Dan Hamhuis and our sponsors for once again supporting this contest, and congratulations to Hannah for her courage. She deserves the final word: “Once you start loving yourself exactly for who you are and want to be, the world becomes a much more beautiful and enjoyable place to live in. Impress yourself, not others.”

ESSAYS FOR PLAYGROUND FUNDRAISING
AT BURNSVIEW SECONDARY SCHOOL

S. Hamilton: On the heels of a very serious and concerning statement by the member for Surrey-Panorama, I stand before this House to share a story about an inspirational group of grades 11 and 12 students at Burnsview Secondary School in my riding of Delta North.

With the firm belief that every child deserves the time to play regardless of the difficult experiences they may experience during the early years of their lives, this group of students started forward on their mission to raise money for a playground at a second-stage transition house in Surrey. With the help of their teachers and armed with the power of the pen, these students wrote a collective narrative of essays describing some of the personal adversity that they have faced and overcome.

These students dedicated three months to put this book together, with the plan of sharing it with the community. The essays were printed in a book entitled Enriching Times. So far, through the sales of their book they have raised $9,500 towards the construction of this playground, which is slated to begin June 12, with the help and continued generosity of donors. I’m so very proud of these students, who have proven, without a doubt, that it does not matter how old you are and that through determination and hard work you can truly make a difference in your community.

Will the House please join me in thanking the students, as well as their great teachers, who have enriched the lives of so many in our community.

BROADWAY YOUTH RESOURCE CENTRE

J. Kwan: Supporting youth at risk requires a vision and a plan. It means concrete action and a community that is equipped with the resources to meet a need. It means finding ways to give young people the support they need to do more than just survive but to thrive, and to have the chance that every young person deserves to meet their full individual potential. That’s why Broadway Youth Resource Centre in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is so important. As an integrated resource centre, it gives voice to young people and nurtures their strength.

I was at the official opening of the Broadway Youth Resource Centre in 1999. I was proud to be part of a government that recognized why practical resources for young people at risk are such an important priority for our community.

The Broadway Youth Resource Centre provides a wide range of social, health, education, employment and life skills services to homeless and at-risk youth between ages 12 and 24. It works to address the social and economic determinants of health, it supports young people in care as they transition to adulthood, and it acts as a safe place for young people to be themselves.

Now the expanded Broadway Youth Resource Centre has reopened in the new Kwayatsut Building, which will also provide a home for 30 young people. Kwayatsut is from the Coast Salish language. The word means to seek one’s power, and the building was named by Squamish Chief Ian Campbell.

Many thanks to the continued work and the involvement of the Pacific Community Resources Society and its partners in the Broadway Youth Resource Centre — LOVE: Leave Out Violence every time; the Urban Native
[ Page 7377 ]
Youth Association; as well as the Vancouver Native Housing Society; and the Streetohome Foundation — for their roles in creating the youth housing at this new site. I also want to thank the centre’s youth volunteers and youth advisory committee, whose involvement is key in giving voice to the experiences of young people.

[1345]

If we as elected officials commit to hearing the young people who know what they need and make the commitment to meeting those needs, then wouldn’t that truly be supporting young people in seeking their power and achieving their full potential?

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF NORTH SHORE
STUDENTS AT GYMNASTICS COMPETITION

J. Thornthwaite: It’s with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to talk about the great success North Shore athletes had at a recent provincewide competition. Last month two North Shore high schools took the podium’s top spots at the 2015 B.C. secondary school gymnastics championships, where more than 250 athletes from 50 schools across B.C. competed in five different skill levels.

North Shore athletes dominated many events, including vault, pommel and parallel bars. Windsor Secondary came out on top, winning the overall team title, while Argyle Secondary finished second. Windsor Secondary’s Claire Bent finished third in the level 5 all-around and came in second on the vault and parallel bars.

Argyle’s Michael Sibley, who recently competed with Team B.C. at the Canada Winter Games, won the level 5 all-around title and finished first in five out of six events. I was able to meet Michael at this month’s Artistic Gymnastics Championships at Capilano University, where he and the rest of Team B.C. were honoured for their nine-medal finish at the Winter Games in Prince George.

Also finishing on the podium were Greg Burns, Jacob Piccolo, Sabrina Perera, Olivia Terretta and Braden Massullo of Windsor Secondary; Douglas Forrest, Michael Mitruk, Micah Barrass, Mieka Halliday-Gunn, Marco Misceo, Jacqueline Hollstedt and Tea Ham of Sutherland Secondary; Matthew Dander of Seacove; and Lelia Kostiuk of Argyle.

Sport has the power to bring communities together, and it’s one of the many aspects that make the North Shore such a great place to live. We are known for our commitment to health and fitness and our dedication to athletic development.

On behalf of the community, I want to congratulate all of our winners and wish them well as they continue to refine their skills and work towards representing the province and the country in future events.

TIMES COLONIST BOOK SALE

R. Fleming: This past weekend hundreds of people dropped by the Victoria Curling Club with bags, wagons or trunks full of used books to donate to the 18th annual Times Colonist Book Sale. Over the next few weeks a great group of dedicated volunteers will sort through this bibliophile’s cornucopia and arrange them into categories like fiction, political biography and fiction, history, gardening, travel, culinary, mystery, biography, children, and the like.

The Times Colonist Book Sale began in 1998 to raise funds for family literacy programs on Vancouver Island. Since that time it has raised over $2 million to support organizations like READ Society, Literacy Victoria and the Pacific Centre Family Services organization.

Early literacy is crucial to lifelong success, yet studies by the TD Bank, among others, show that up to 35 percent of British Columbians do not have the literacy skills they need to thrive. Organizations in my community such as Literacy Victoria and the READ Society help individuals improve essential skills like reading and writing, giving them the confidence and tools needed to succeed.

This year the Times Colonist Book Sale is scheduled to take place on May 2 and May 3 at the Victoria Curling Club, again. I want to thank all of the volunteers and sponsors who make this momentous event a great success every year. The proceeds raised provide invaluable support to literacy initiatives on Vancouver Island.

I encourage everyone to stop by the book sale. With over 250,000 titles donated this year, there is surely something there for every reader.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GUN VIOLENCE
IN DELTA AND SURREY

J. Horgan: This past weekend I was in Surrey to celebrate Vaisakhi with hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians. To participate in a day of joy, optimism and harmony was a truly a real privilege to be part of. Yet 12 hours after that wonderful celebration, the 23rd gun violence incident took place in Surrey, Delta and a life was lost. A community is beyond concerned, and a family, of course, is devastated. Twenty-three gun violence incidents in less than six weeks.

[1350]

My question to the Attorney General is very straightforward and in the interest of non-partisanship. Could the Minister of Justice advise this House and the people of Surrey what steps she plans to take to ensure that we can stem this violence and get back on to the track that Vaisakhi represents of harmony, peace and joy for all?

Hon. S. Anton: The events in Surrey and Delta have been a terrible concern to the community and have now resulted in a tragedy, a death. These events are obviously of great concern to me, as minister responsible for public safety. They are a concern to the RCMP, and they are
[ Page 7378 ]
an extreme concern to the communities of Surrey and Delta — the mayors, the councils and the people who live in those communities and who are affected by these kinds of incidents.

These are extremely dangerous incidents. Shootings are dangerous. They’re dangerous for everybody involved, and they’re dangerous for bystanders. There are very significant resources which have been deployed. The RCMP is fully engaged, along with the Delta police department, Surrey RCMP. The CFSEU — the anti-gang unit — is very significantly engaged, as is IHIT, the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team.

There is a missing piece, though. That is a piece that has been referred to by both the police and by the mayors in their speaking to the community. That is that the families, the loved ones, need to be involved as well. Every one of these gang members, every one of these people involved in these incidents, is surrounded by family and friends who love them. They, too, can help. They can help by coming forward with information. They can phone 911. They can phone the tip line. They can contact the police. They can do it anonymously.

The police are devoting extremely significant resources, and the community as well can help. I, along with the mayors, along with the RCMP, encourage them to come forward. This is a tragedy. The young man who died was surrounded by a loving family, and it is a tragedy for them, and it’s a tragedy for their community.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response. Tomorrow night the Surrey RCMP, the city of Surrey, the Surrey school district as well as the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit are holding a community forum. That’s going to be an opportunity for those agencies to give the public a sense of what steps they’ll be taking in the days and weeks ahead to stem the violence.

It’s also, in my view, an opportunity to demonstrate leadership from the provincial level and to demonstrate leadership for of all of us in this place. I plan to attend the meeting with my colleagues from Surrey. I know that members from Surrey on both sides of the House feel very, very concerned about the turn of events we’ve seen over the past number of weeks.

I pose the question to the Minister of Justice: will she join me — standing together, lockstep — demonstrating to the community that the province of British Columbia stands with them to thwart this violence from increasing? Will the minister agree to do that?

Hon. S. Anton: I have been in very close contact with the mayor of Surrey — in fact, with the previous mayor, because there have been concerns leading up to this. I’ve spoken in-depth to the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, and there’s no question that there is very grave concern.

I know that there’s a meeting tomorrow night, and I will make sure that we have people there to attend the meeting. But again I would encourage those families around these young men to step forward, to phone 911. There is a new tip line, which is at 604-915-6566, and there’s a very good website called endganglife.ca that families can turn to. Gang members can turn to that website. There are resources there for people who want their family members out of gangs. There are resources there for people who are in gangs and recognize that they need to get out.

As I said a moment ago, there are very, very significant resources being devoted to this. It seems like a situation which looks like it may be escalating, and it needs to de-escalate. The community needs to feel safe. I think it’s a joint effort, as I said, by everyone involved, and as I said, there are very significant resources involved. I know that we all are determined to bring an end to this.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION PROCESS
AND ACCESS TO RECORDS

J. Rice: On April 15 the Minister of Citizen’s Services was asked how government was responding to a recent report by the Information and Privacy Commissioner about government’s responses to public information requests. The minister responded: “As I said, there is an ongoing examination of the efficiencies of freedom of information, and the report was certainly helpful….”

Does the minister stand by this statement?

[1355]

Hon. A. Virk: British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is widely recognized across Canada as having the broadest of coverage. It’s very clear from the act what information can be released. It’s also very clear in the act what information cannot be released. There are some 10,000 requests under that legislation, and they’re handled by trusted public servants whose decisions and actions are indeed guided by the act. They will endeavour to provide the information to the public that’s permitted within the act.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: On February 24 we asked the Minister of Citizens’ Services about the apparent disappearance of records, minutes and notes from government meetings about Highway 16. First ministry staff had told the opposition they had meeting notes but they needed time to have them transcribed. But then in official correspondence the ministry claimed that there were no records, that those notes never existed.

Can the minister explain why government would claim that important government records do not exist?

Hon. A. Virk: First of all, as I said, government responded to approximately 10,000 requests in the last fis-
[ Page 7379 ]
cal year. The privacy act is very clear in the manner in which a request is received, in the manner the requested information goes out.

Trusted public servants indeed work with the individual that requests information to help them define their request. As they define the request, they ensure the information they put out is as defined by the request, is as succinct as possible. They’re going to continue to try to be as succinct as possible, depending on the request that’s received.

C. James: This government is no longer simply skirting FOI rules or failing to hand over the occasional document. It’s now adopted a widespread practice of claiming that important government records don’t even exist. Last fall we requested copies of any briefing notes — very succinctly we asked this, as the minister said — prepared for the Minister of Finance which outlined the guarantees and indemnities authorized by the province for the past three fiscal years. Last December the ministry sent us an official response saying no such documents exist.

Could the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the minister who is responsible for freedom of information, explain why government would say these records didn’t exist?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, some 10,000 requests of continuing complexity. Many of those requests result in documents in the thousands of pages long that have to be appropriately redacted based upon the different provisions of the act. I can’t speak of a particular request or a particular one request, whether it’s a year ago or two years ago. The public servants that we have in British Columbia are very well trained. They apply the act. They decide which information is released, not politicians.

If I may, you’ve certainly a new-found respect for requests for information. If I recall, there was an individual who had the gall to suggest: “If I had won the battle in cabinet, we wouldn’t have freedom of information.” Perhaps I’ll leave a little bit of suspense as to who would have said that and had the gall to suggest that we shouldn’t have freedom of information. Perhaps it came from somebody from this side.

C. James: I know we’ve used a lot of words to describe responses in question period, but I have no idea what the minister just said — not any idea.

[1400]

On August 20, 2010, two executive directors in the Ministry of Finance prepared a briefing note that outlined, just as we’d previously asked, the guarantees and indemnities authorized by the province that year. We have the document, and I will table a copy of that report at the end of question period.

This is not a transitory document. It’s not a casual e-mail or a text. It’s a very important government record that explains the extent of the government’s financial exposure to legal claims to the Minister of Finance. For the sake of accuracy, as the minister raised earlier, we FOI’d this exact document. In fact, we FOI’d the exact title of this exact document.

Could the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain why the government claimed that this document did not exist?

Hon. A. Virk: Let me finish a theme here. First of all, if the member opposite suggests that there’s political interference in what is released, what’s not released…. Public servants apply the act. They apply the act judiciously. They apply the act in time, and they release what they can release. Let me finish a theme. The quote was: “If I had won the battle in cabinet, I wouldn’t have freedom of information.”

There are a number of present leaders and future leaders and top five and bottom five sitting in the front row here, but the speaker of these words was none other than the former mentor and the former leader of that party — the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

D. Routley: There is a pattern here. Government is now routinely returning “no records” responses to FOI requests in an effort to avoid public scrutiny. To prove our point, we filed an FOI for all documents, all e-mails sent by the Minister of Citizens’ Services top political adviser, Nick Facey, during a 12-day period last June. We received a “no records” response.

During the period that the Minister of Citizens’ Services was embroiled in the Mingay review of Kwantlen Polytechnic, his chief of staff didn’t send a single e-mail to anybody. Can the minister explain why his chief of staff sent no e-mails during this rather important period in the minister’s recent history?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member is clearly trying to make the top five. Perhaps he’s going to be moving up the ladder.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

Hon. A. Virk: The ability to send FOIs and send them widely across government is an increasing phenomenon. Blanketing all of government and asking requests from a variety of different governments is an increasing phenomenon. Applicants now can file cross-government searches, regardless of the fact that there may or may not be slim chances.

If the records exist, the trusted public servants that administer FOI will ensure that — with the appropriate safeguards that are built into FOI — they will continue to provide information that’s available.
[ Page 7380 ]

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Unfortunately, the claim that Mr. Facey sent no e-mails during that period is simply not true. We filed a similar request for e-mails received by the minister during the same time frame — and surprise, surprise. The minister received 41 pages of e-mails from Mr. Facey.

Can the minister tell the House whether it was his chief of staff that made false claims about his e-mail records, or is he going to blame ministry staff for claiming the records did not exist?

[1405]

Hon. A. Virk: The FOI staff, as I said, are trusted public servants. They receive requests. They seek information from a variety of different ministries. They respond to those requests based upon the information. If the information is available, they respond.

They apply the act, and they apply the act on its various different statutes. They apply the privacy side of the act, and public servants release the information that they have. They have released it. They will continue to release it and they will continue to apply — as public servants, not politicians…. Public servants will continue to apply and enforce the act.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a further supplemental.

D. Routley: The government likes to claim that e-mail records are transitory and unimportant. They just can’t do that in this case. In fact, most of the 41 pages of e-mails that the minister received from Mr. Facey were redacted under claims that they contained cabinet confidences and policy advice.

First, Mr. Facey claimed that he had sent no e-mails. Then we discovered that Mr. Facey sent 41 pages of e-mails to the minister but destroyed them. Then, when the minister’s office was caught out, they claimed that the records were advice to cabinet — which, if true, means that Mr. Facey destroyed records of policy advice he gave to the minister and cabinet. That is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

If the minister’s own office can’t abide by the act, how can he uphold B.C.’s freedom-of-information laws across the entire government?

Hon. A. Virk: I’d be very willing to provide a copy of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the member opposite. Part 4 and…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Virk: …part 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act are very clear, and they lay out the powers of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They lay out the recourse and reviews by the commissioner. The member certainly knows that, if he would read the act. There are remedies available if they believe that the FOI Act has not been appropriately administered.

CONSULTATION WITH
TSILHQOT’IN NATION ON GRIZZLY
BEAR HUNTING REGULATIONS

S. Fraser: The Tsilhqot’in spent more than two decades in the courts in order to get a historic judgment that recognized aboriginal title over a significant portion of their traditional territory. I want to remind this House that the Supreme Court said: “The nature of aboriginal title is that it confers on the group that holds it the exclusive right to decide how the land is used and the right to benefit from those uses.”

Now we find that the B.C. Liberals blindsided the Tsilhqot’in by increasing the number, significantly, of grizzly bear hunting licences in the area that includes their title lands without consent and without indiscriminate science being done.

My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. Is this how the B.C. Liberal government shows they are committed to reconciliation with First Nations — by ignoring their hard-fought rights?

Hon. S. Thomson: The decision to reopen grizzly bear hunts in the Cariboo and the Kootenays last year is based on the best available science. That’s what informs the regulations around the grizzly bear management and the grizzly bear hunting regulations. All wildlife harvested in B.C. follows those principles.

Consultation with First Nations on wildlife management issues is conducted. It was conducted on the proposed regulations in 2014 for the Cariboo, including the grizzly bear hunt. So consultation does take place.

On the title lands that are in reference, as the member opposite knows now, hunting is not taking place on those lands by resident hunters. It’s part of the respect of the title land. They have provided provisions, on a conditional basis, for guide-outfitter licences to continue in the current year while the longer-term arrangements with the Tsilhqot’in are worked through in terms of the ongoing management of wildlife in the title lands.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: It’s curious, because the minister’s own wildlife biologist, Pat Dielman — 2013 December — said: “The problem is no one ever updates anything in this min-
[ Page 7381 ]
istry. We draw an arbitrary line based on our best guess, and it remains fixed for 30 years.” That’s the best science this minister has?

Chief Joe Alphonse, tribal chair of the Tl’etinqox-t’in national government, said: “I don’t care if the hunt is on or off title lands or east or west of the Chilko River. The Supreme Court victory proved that the government has a duty to consult with us.” Xeni Gwet’in Chief Roger William says: “There has been no proper consultation.”

Just weeks ago the Premier blindsided treaty nations and their federal partners by musing about blowing up the treaty process. Now they are trampling over the Tl’etinqox-t’in’s hard-won aboriginal title and rights. How is this getting us any closer to reconciliation with aboriginal people and First Nations in this province?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the supplemental question. As I stated, consultation did take place on the amendments to the grizzly bear hunting regulations in that area. Consultation with First Nations did take place. The decisions were made on the best available science in terms of conservation first, and on First Nations principles and First Nations needs around culture and food for wildlife in the area.

As I said, the title areas are closed to hunting for resident hunters. They have provided conditional licencing or conditional agreement for guide-outfitters to continue hunts in that area.

We continue to consult on a going-forward basis with the Tl’etinqox-t’in around wildlife management in their title lands and their traditional areas. That work continues as part of the ongoing engagement with the Tl’etinqox-t’in following the Supreme Court decision.

USE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
FOR CARBON OFFSETS

L. Popham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week he told the media that he had asked the Agricultural Land Commission and his ministry to find out how much of the province’s prime food-producing lands have been acquired for conversion as carbon sinks. The minister has had time to talk to his staff. Can he tell us how much farmland is being used this way?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We canvassed this in estimates, but I’m happy to express the same answer here in the House.

There are approximately 2,000 hectares of B.C. agricultural land that’ve been used for carbon credits. About 1,500 of those are in ALR land. The other 500 are not. Given the information that I’ve received over the last few months by MLAs locally in the area that that might actually be a higher number, I’ve asked staff to go back and reverify those numbers. I look forward to hearing from staff on that matter.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich South on a supplemental.

L. Popham: Last week the ALC’s chief tribunal officer told the media that he had no idea whether companies seeking carbon credits would have to apply to the ALC for a covenant before gaining access to those carbon credits. It appears that the ALC is wrestling with a new issue.

My question is to the minister — whether he supports the practice of converting food-producing lands in the ALR into forests for carbon offset schemes.

Hon. N. Letnick: The ALC is not wrestling with a new issue. In November of 2011 this government provided a change to the Agricultural Land Commission Act which said that, basically, if you’re going to put a covenant on a piece of land, you must go in front of the ALC to get permission to use that covenant.

If you are going to go for carbon credits, you need to have a covenant if you’re going to tie up the land for 100 years. Therefore, any piece of land that would have a covenant to that extent would have to go in front of the Agricultural Land Commission.

[1415]

What is new here is the NDP policy statement that the critic made — I imagine on behalf of all of the members on the other side of the House, including the small-c conservative co-chair of the agricultural committee on their side of the House — which is that we should restrict foreign ownership of land in British Columbia.

Brand-new for this side of the House to hear that policy statement, but I look forward to hearing more on that idea as she introduces her private member’s bill that she said she would in the Globe and Mail.

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION

R. Fleming: A ministry report released on Friday shows the Premier has broken her promise to improve class size and composition in B.C. classrooms. The results show class composition is the same now as it was in 2014, which was the worst year on record in our province.

Before the longest shutdown of schools in B.C. history, this government continues to download tens of millions of dollars in unfunded cost pressures to school boards, resulting in cuts and teacher layoffs. This is even before the government imposes a $54 million cutback for so-called administrative savings.

Will the Minister of Education acknowledge his ministry’s own findings that show his government has failed to deliver on the Premier’s promise to parents and kids to make class composition the number one priority of this government?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, I appreciate the question. The reality here is that this government is indeed living
[ Page 7382 ]
up to its commitments.

We also acknowledge that teachers work very hard in very complex situations in classrooms, and we realize the contribution that they make to every special needs child in this province. But the facts speak for themselves. The six-year completion rate for students with special needs in this province has increased by 86.2 percent. That is 62.2 percent higher than it was in 2001.

In addition, to live up to our commitments, school districts already receive supplementary funding, ranging anywhere from $9,500 to $37,700 in the 2015-2016 budget year, to provide the supports in classrooms that are necessary.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: This government and the Premier will say anything when the cameras are rolling, and they never, ever do the follow-up.

In April 2013 the Premier looked the camera in the face and told kids and parents that her number one priority was fixing seismic schools in danger of failure during an earthquake, and then she did something else. She said it’s going to take ten more years to do the work than the promise she made.

In December this minister signed an MOU promising to respect, consult and work with school boards, and what we got in this legislative session was a bill giving him new powers to fire school boards at his whim. When this government promised the teachers’ settlement would be fully funded, instead what we got was a budget that gives with one hand and takes with the other.

To the minister, will he live up just for once to his word so the learning conditions of B.C. students can finally improve?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, again, the member opposite needs a little bit of an education in facts.

[1420]

Let me say this. The historic five-year collective agreement that this government negotiated with the BCTF commits an additional $125 million over the next five years for the learning improvement fund. Let me give the member some facts again. That will hire 300 new full-time teachers in classrooms to deal with class composition, and it will hire almost 350 new support staff because the Premier and this government are committed to living up to the commitment to deal with class composition in the interests of every single student in our province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report of the Representative for Children and Youth: B.C. Adoption Update, April 2015, a follow-up to Finding Forever Families: A Review of the Provincial Adoption System.

C. James: I seek leave to table a document.

Madame Speaker: Proceed.

C. James: I table the Ministry of Finance briefing document, as I referred to in question period — April 1, 2010.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I assumed that was a petition. It was a document, so we do need to ask leave.

Leave granted.

Petitions

E. Foster: I have a petition to present on behalf of 332 residents, respectfully requesting the provincial government repeal the changes to the wildlife harvest and allocation policy announced December 10, ’14 by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and limit the non-resident hunters and Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. members to the wildlife allocation specified in the 2007 wildlife policy.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, to be followed thereafter by committee stage debate on Bill 19.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:24 p.m.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are a significant number of students and teachers from Archbishop Carney School in my riding. They are here to observe the proceedings in our chamber and tour the Legislature. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.
[ Page 7383 ]

Debate Continued

The Chair: Now that we’ve completed the introduction, perhaps we’ll recess for a moment because I don’t believe we’re actually ready to proceed.

The committee recessed from 2:25 p.m. to 2:26 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Holman: I wanted to thank the minister and his staff for the briefing that he gave us a few days ago. Some of these questions will be repetitive, and I do expect some of my colleagues to weigh in on certain sections.

With respect to section 2, can you just explain a little more clearly the matters of jurisdiction here? Does this act — or how does it — apply to matters of federal jurisdiction? And also how does it apply to First Nations activities? A brief explanation of that would be quite helpful.

Hon. N. Letnick: If I may, first I’d like to introduce the staff that are with me, deputy minister Derek Sturko, Mr. Gavin Last and Ms. Linda Bates. And again, thank you to the member opposite for participating in the technical briefing and to all the members who did.

Because of the importance of this question, I’m going to read a longer answer than just paraphrasing, if that’s okay, just to make sure it gets into the record. On the first question, as to roles and responsibilities of governments regarding the fisheries, fish and seafood. Canada and B.C. share responsibilities related to fish and fisheries in B.C.

The federal government has exclusive responsibility for the management of fisheries. Canada regulates commercial harvesting of fish and the licensing of aquaculture operations. Harvesting of aquatic plants is an exception. It is a provincial responsibility because the species of commercial interest are almost always within provincial waters and attached to the solum or surface soil of provincial lands under the water.

B.C. is responsible for fish and seafood when it is a commodity. When the fish becomes a food product, however, subject to various processing activities that may lead to being distributed to the public for consumption, it becomes provincial responsibility.

Within the province, the legislation deals with processing of fish and seafood commodity — the one that’s in front of us now. Most fish and seafood travels along the food processing chain until it reaches a food premise and is offered for sale to the public. At that point it becomes the responsibility of the Minister of Health to ensure the safety of that seafood product. Interprovincial and international commerce of seafood is a federal responsibility.

On the First Nations question, management of the fisheries is exclusively, as I said, the responsibility of the federal government. Enforcing federal laws that regulate fisheries, including First Nations fisheries, is also a responsibility of the federal government. Regulating the harvest of wild aquatic plants is a provincial responsibility. It would be licensed under this act.

[1430]

We are engaged in discussions with other government ministries regarding licensing of First Nations and the impact of recent court decisions. The discussion will continue through the development of future regs setting out the new licensing system, and First Nations, of course, will be engaged during those discussions.

If First Nations are conducting an activity that is prescribed in a regulation and requires a licence, such as processing of fish or seafood to be offered to the public for human consumption, then this legislation will apply to them as well. Treaty First Nations laws are subject to provincial law where public health and safety are concerned. It is our understanding that the new act would apply equally to treaty First Nations as all others in that respect. We sent letters to all treaty First Nations engaged in further discussion with those who requested it.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Holman: On this section there is a question regarding whether the province has any responsibility as an entity that licenses, for example, fish farms, or as an entity that regulates sewage treatment, municipal or otherwise. Does the province have any responsibility under this section to ensure that fisheries, fish products, are not being contaminated?

Hon. N. Letnick: I believe I got two questions from that. One is: who’s responsible for sewage treatment coming from fish farms? I need a little more clarity to identify exactly what the concern is so I can point the member in the right direction — federal versus provincial versus municipal.

The other question was about fish products not being contaminated. Yes, this section — as well, of course, the overlying purpose of the bill — was to make sure that people have safe fish products to consume. There is a general duty applied to everyone involved. The province is involved both in terms of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Ministry of Health. At some point we hand off the responsibility to the Ministry of Health, and then, of course, all of those who are involved in the industry have a duty, a responsibility, to make sure that the food is safe.

If you wouldn’t mind clarifying the question on fish farms, I’d be happy to canvass that.
[ Page 7384 ]

G. Holman: Well, fish farms do deposit deleterious substances into the ocean environment, which may affect a species that is subsequently harvested and sold for public consumption. The province is responsible for tenuring fish farms, where they are located.

[1435]

In terms of the sewage treatment, there are a number of intertidal species, aquatic plants and aquatic animals that are affected by possible contamination from on-land sewage treatment. Again, the province establishes rules for those.

Really, what it comes down to is that the harvesting, growing, processing, the purveyors of fisheries products…. They have to take responsibility for safe food. The province, which is responsible for some activities that may affect that food safety, I take it, is off the hook, certainly in terms of this legislation.

It’s really up to the licensed activity, the person actually harvesting, growing and selling fish. They’re the ones that are responsible, regardless of the fact that the province may be establishing rules that result in the contamination of fisheries products in the first place.

Hon. N. Letnick: Fish farms. If the member is talking about food that is not consumed by the fish and falls below the farms, there is a small amount that still does that. Or if they’re talking about what fish do in the water and following down below them as well, that would be covered by the federal government, not by the provincial government.

On-land farms. The member has brought up the issue of sewage treatment. Sewage is actually human waste. Technically, it’s a human waste. It’s not considered a fish waste. Perhaps the member meant to say “effluents.” The effluent from fish farms on land would be subject to provincial regulation under the Environment Management Act, and that would come under the Ministry of Environment.

G. Holman: I’m clumsy in posing these questions, but what I’m trying to get at is that there are provincially regulated activities that do result in the contamination of aquatic plants, animals and fisheries.

[1440]

Perhaps this is not the piece of legislation where those responsibilities are determined or outlined, but that’s what I’m trying to get at. There are activities that the province regulates very clearly, very explicitly, that do result in contamination. Yet it seems like it’s up to the licensees. As defined under this legislation, it’s going to be their problem. They have to deal with that problem, and that’s a point that perhaps I don’t need to beat to death.

In section 3(2) there is a reference in terms of “products that may be consumed by humans, the person must ensure that all applicable prescribed standards are met and all applicable prescribed measures are taken to ensure the safety and quality of the fish.” Does that just refer to standards that would presumably be laid out in more detail under this act? Does it refer to standards — this is what I was getting at with the earlier question — under a federal jurisdiction as well, or simply standards that would be defined under regulations in this act?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. The answer this time will be a little shorter than my previous answers. By all means, this is not something that most members of this Legislature deal with on a day-to-day basis, so let’s move through these questions in any way you want, as long as we’re able to accommodate your needs.

All “applicable prescribed standards” are those standards that would be through our regulation, a companion to this act.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could provide us with examples or an understanding of what the phrase “or exempted from being licensed” would refer to. When does he think and where does he think that exemption might be exercised?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member for Delta South for also participating in the briefing and coming today with some very good questions.

Some examples: food premises regulated by the Public Health Act — grocery stores, restaurants. Those types of premises are good examples for you.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

V. Huntington: I’d like to go back to the issue of illegal food fishery sales. Does the province retain any authority if it is a non-native that’s transporting, distributing, selling illegally caught fish?

[1445]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As you can tell from the time that we took, there are federal implications and provincial implications, and I wanted to make sure that we got that clear for you.

A person may not possess fish or aquatic plants that they know or have reason to believe were “possessed, reared, grown, harvested, processed, stored, transported or distributed” in contravention of the act. The intent is to limit the possession, distribution and sale of fish that is the subject of an unlawful activity so that no one can profit from wrongdoing.
[ Page 7385 ]

I think the key here is the profit piece. And when you say “non–native,” I assume you mean non–First Nations, because you can be from Germany — right? — that kind of thing. Okay, so non–First Nations. If you are going to use the fish for your own consumption, the legality of that matter would be federal.

If you, however, are going to be trying to profit from the use of that fish, then clearly that issue comes under our act, and we would make sure that there’s a duty of care.

V. Huntington: Could I just briefly comment that I think this is going to be a complicated little piece of enforcement to administer.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Holman: There’s this reference to “restricted fish or aquatic plants,” and there are references to prohibitions or restricted “under an enactment of Canada or an international agreement.” Will this list of restricted species be published in the regulations?

[1450]

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes.

A. Weaver: Could the minister please expand on what basis this list will be determined?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to, I believe, the member opposite for the question. I’m not too sure. We’re going to have to get an explanation of that in a minute, I’m sure.

The restricted fish and aquatic plants are those that, under two categories, (a) are subject to national or international prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting and (b) may be subject to harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.

A. Weaver: That was an opening for me. I recognize it’s very hard to take me seriously when I look like Beak Man here. There’s always a teachable moment in everything that we do in our lives, and the teachable moment that I have here is that one should not text and walk. We hear a lot about texting and driving and the dangers of texting and driving, but let me tell you, hon. Chair, also texting and walking can be very dangerous, particularly if you’re jogging downstairs quickly while texting and not looking where you’re going.

With that, if I could continue on this. Does this mean that if an organization called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, through their red list, were to deem a particular species to be protected and subject to international restrictions, this law would then apply in the province of British Columbia to those on the IUCN red list?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thanks to the member opposite for the question and the teachable moment.

I’ve always thought, because I am one of those who is guilty of texting and reading messages while I’m walking, that someone should create an app so that while you are doing your thing, you can actually have a proximity indicator. If you are about to bump into something, it would flash at you to look up — or if not, at least maybe a little part of the screen with a camera in the front so that you can see before you bump into that pane of glass or whatever else it is that caused that unfortunate accident on your face.

I wish you the speediest of recoveries, hon. Member. I honestly do. That must have hurt.

Back to the question. The answer is: if the prohibition is part of an international agreement which Canada is a party of, then yes, it could be.

The Chair: Member, perhaps we should keep the discussion and discourse to Bill 21. It would probably be in the best interest of all members.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I will do that, but let me please point out that in British Columbia we have an incredible health care system too. I had a very luxurious time in the Royal Jubilee Hospital here on Friday last week, and I do compliment the staff there. On that note….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I had a nurse-to-patient ratio of four nurses to one patient, too, and that was pretty impressive.

Anyway, back to the question. That is actually quite exciting. What’s interesting there is….

[1455]

You will recall that during the session last time, I raised a number of questions with respect to banning the sale, trade and distribution of a variety of shark fin products. In fact, there are a number of sharks that are actually protected on the red list of the IUCN, to which Canada is a party.

My question, then, following this up would be: to what extent will these laws be enforced, and what penalties will be put in place? And how is the province going to enforce this legislation?

For example, if some people were to go in and purchase a product and have it genetically analyzed, and that product was then determined to contain hammerhead sharks, for example, which we know are on the IUCN red list, would the province then step in and ban the sale, trade and distribution of this? How would this be enforced?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, including his support for our health care system.

First of all, as I said before, this would be subject to Canada and the other parties being part of an international agreement. That’s one. Then we could have this
[ Page 7386 ]
provision take effect. There would have to be genetic testing to make sure that the species is on the list. That would usually happen, I’m informed, at the point of purchase. It could be restaurants or at a fish store or something like that. The Ministry of Health would be involved.

If there’s an issue, an offence, then the maximum penalties are dealt with in section 57 of the act. We’ll canvass that, I’m sure, in a few minutes. Specific penalties, subordinate to the maximum penalties, will be described in regulations.

A. Weaver: My final question on this section is with respect to 6(1)(b) where it talks about harvesting practices that are “inhumane.”

My question on that is…. Inhumane is a value judgment. Who is making the value judgment as to what is or is not defined as inhumane?

[1500]

Hon. N. Letnick: It would be defined in regulation. It’s not defined in the definitions of the act. And, of course, it would be applied by our inspectors, who would use their judgment in making that call.

V. Huntington: Section 6(1)(a). During our briefing we were advised that Canada’s Species at Risk Act could or could not apply. It might be a contravention. It might become part of the enforcement, but it wasn’t required to be. Yet I would suggest that 6(1)(a) definitely suggests that species at risk would be part and parcel of the enforcement and consideration given this act.

Could the minister confirm whether that’s the case?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for clarifying an important point, obviously.

We will prescribe which ones in our own regulations, which species are covered under this. Some from the Canadian Species at Risk Act may fall into our regulations. Some may not. We will also use other sources, international sources, when we compile our list that will go into the regulations.

It’s not going to be just copy the Canadian Species at Risk Act into our regulations. We’ll take more attention to it than just that.

V. Huntington: I don’t wish to belabour this section, but it goes hand in hand with the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and his series of questions.

During the briefing we were told a species listed for conservation…. The act may or may not be binding on those. Section 6(1)(a) suggests that they are “subject to prohibitions or restrictions on harvesting under an enactment of Canada.” Yet the minister is suggesting that B.C. will pick and choose which species may be considered restricted and put those in the regulations.

The act appears more specific than that general attitude towards what species might be restricted. Could the minister confirm, again, whether or not the Species at Risk Act of Canada falls under 6(1)(a)?

[1505]

Hon. N. Letnick: This conversation is important. The semantics are important, obviously. When you look at section 6(1), it says that in this section “‘restricted fish or aquatic plants’ means prescribed fish,” prescribed in our regulations, which may come from the enactment of Canada — not necessarily must come from the enactment of Canada or fully adopting a list that comes from the act in Canada.

It does give us the flexibility to put into our list, through regulation, a different list than the act would be from the Canadian government.

V. Huntington: I beg to differ; 1(a) says “‘restricted fish or aquatic plants’ means prescribed fish or aquatic plants that are subject to prohibitions or restrictions…under an enactment of Canada.” The “may” provision is pursuant to the “inhumane or unsustainable” practices for harvesting.

Hon. N. Letnick: Maybe by adding a couple of words in the first section just as an example, I think we might get clarity for all of us. Again, 6(1) — it says: “In this section, ‘restricted fish or aquatic fish’ means prescribed fish or aquatic plants that” and then (a) and (b).

If you put the words “if we” in between “means” and “prescribed,” it makes more sense. So it’ll read that “In this section, ‘restricted fish or aquatic fish’” means if we prescribed the fish or aquatic plants that are subject to prohibitions.

So it does give us the flexibility that we, as the provincial government, need to list it in our list through regulation. Not necessarily, again…. Just because the government of Canada has enacted a list, the Canadian Species at Risk Act, doesn’t mean that we have to include the whole list within our list.

V. Huntington: Well, I won’t pursue it, except to say that’s not my reading of this language. If you’ve had legal opinion that it is more general than those fish that are subject to prohibition or restrictions in an enactment of Canada, then I’d sure be interested in seeing it. Not that I would get it, but I just feel that there is no discretion under this section, except 6(1)(b).

However, to follow, just one other question. It’s again an issue of semantics from my perspective. Section 6(3): “A licensing officer may issue a permit, with or without terms or conditions, for the purposes of subsection (2) (b).” The purposes of subsection 2(b) is a permit issued by a licensing officer.

When I was reading this, just as an issue of semantics, “for the purposes of subsection (2) (b)” struck me as an awkward phrase. I wondered if the minister wouldn’t
[ Page 7387 ]
agree that language such as “pursuant to” or “under section (2) (b)” wouldn’t make it clearer.

[1510]

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer to the previous question is yes. We do have a legal opinion regarding 6(1). The way it is written is the way that our legislative counsel suggested — which is, by the way, also the answer to the current question. Legislative counsel has suggested that this is the correct wording.

G. Holman: If the language in here is as the minister and staff suggest — where, in fact, there is discretion about what appears on a prescribed list under this legislation — that does mean, then, that it could be legal to harvest, possess, etc., and sell fish that are designated as species at risk under federal legislation.

You’re suggesting that the province has the discretion. So there could be species at risk that, in fact, are okay to be in possession of and to be sold. That’s a comment, if the minister wishes to comment.

I had a question about 6(1)(b), which talks about “harvesting practices that are inhumane or unsustainable.” We did have some discussion of that during the briefing, around the issue of sustainability. Just simply put, and for the record, who determines that? Is it the ministry that determines that, or are there other provincial ministries that determine that? And how do you determine that — the question of sustainability?

Hon. N. Letnick: For clarity on the question of “unsustainable,” we would make the decision as to which are unsustainable after consulting with other governments — not only our own provincial government, federal governments, but other governments as well — and then we would include in our regulations the list of our work as to which species are unsustainable.

[1515]

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Holman: Just on this question of sustainability, section 7 is all about issuing licences. I do have a couple of questions here. The first one. I’m looking at section 7(2)(e), which permits a licensing officer to reject an application for a licence. Is sustainability one of those reasons?

In the previous section you’re not allowed to possess a fish that may be deemed by the ministry as unsustainably harvested. Perhaps there is a contradiction here. Maybe I’m trying to square a circle, but can a licence be rejected due to concerns about sustainability?

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, thank you to the member opposite. As the member knows, some licences are provided through the federal government, and some licences are provided through the provincial government. In particular, marine plants would come under our jurisdiction. So the short answer is yes. Any time someone would apply for a licence that would contravene the act, the decision-maker would most likely reject the application.

G. Holman: Thank you for that. There are a whole number of activities covered by this act and the licensing of such activities. Some concerns have been expressed to us by a non-government organization about all of the persons, all of the activities, that the act applies to — having to apply for a licence.

There is a concern that the staffing, the resources, the capacity are there to do that in a timely fashion, particularly since, at least in the act itself — and perhaps this is spelled out in the regulations — there’s no kind of time deadline, no turnaround. It’s kind of unclear what the process is. There has been concern expressed to us about the number of activities being licensed and the capacity of the ministry or its designates to issue licences in a timely way.

[1520]

Hon. N. Letnick: As we see throughout this bill, the general approach of the bill is to set up the framework and then consult with industry to set up the regulations. It’s a much better way of doing it than putting everything in legislation and then having to wait ten, 20, 30 years again before you can go in and make changes.

Having said that, most of the licensing that the provincial government will be involved with is through the processing plants that we have. So those service standards that we might incorporate in the regulations? Those will only occur, if they are to occur, after we consult with the industry as to what they should be, if this act is passed.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

G. Holman: A question here. This section refers to food offered directly to the public, which involves commercial fishers, among others. I guess my simple question is: are these the same rules that apply now, that exist now, that have just been put into this particular act? Is there anything new here that commercial fishers need to be concerned about in terms of new standards, new licensing requirements?

[1525]

Hon. N. Letnick: The answer is yes. There is something new here. Currently the way the act is written, they would apply — for instance, take an example of a fish-processing plant — for a licence without much information other than it’s a fish-processing plant. Here we’re asking for more information so that we can help them
[ Page 7388 ]
through the process faster.

For example, if they’re going to have a little bit of a retail section in that fish-processing plant to serve customers, then part of that might have to be referred to the Ministry of Health for a licence through them. This is a higher level of information that we would require than what’s currently being asked for today, again to help them get through the process better.

G. Holman: To be clear, I was referring to persons who intend to distribute fish or aquatic plants directly — not a fish processing plant but a fisher. Does the same answer essentially apply to fishers — that there’s a somewhat higher standard applicable here? The minister is nodding, so I think that’s fine.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

G. Holman: This is a specific section around protection of marine beds, which seems to me a good thing. One question that I raised in the briefing as well, again with respect to, say, fish farms, around which there certainly is controversy…. I think it’s fair to say there certainly are concerns about the environmental impacts of fish farms, not just on resources under provincial jurisdiction but under federal jurisdiction as well.

I guess my question is: did the minister, did government, consider a similar provision affecting fish farms and the potential deleterious effects it might have even on provincial areas of jurisdiction? For example, if there are fish farms located in areas where the province owns the seabed or if there are species under provincial jurisdiction that might be directly affected by fish farms, did government consider a similar section with respect to that particular activity?

Hon. N. Letnick: As the member knows, it’s the federal government that regulates and licenses fish farms. Through our Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, we have the ability to issue tenures for the land. This is meant to cover those areas of jurisdiction that the province does have, which is, quite frankly, one of the big driving forces of bringing this whole legislation in, in the first place, where we had conflicting pieces before the court case decided that the federal government would be the one for licensing of fish farms.

For example, if we wanted to harvest kelp, which would totally come under our jurisdiction, and we found out that the harvest was doing some damage and we wanted to stop the harvest for a little while, that’s where this piece of legislation would kick in.

V. Huntington: I want to explore a couple of the issues that arose during the briefing session.

[1530]

One of the problems that I had and that I know my colleagues also noted is that the ministry would be providing licences to harvest aquatic plants. However, we could find no answer to the issue of baseline data for the harvesting of wild aquatic plants.

When I first read this section, I thought, “Oh, they must mean farmed aquatic plants,” but they didn’t. It means also wild aquatic plants. How does the ministry intend to know how “to protect, or to prevent, reduce or address any adverse effect on, all or part of a bed on which aquatic plants grow”? If we have no baseline data before these fisheries are licensed, then how can we possibly be expected to know whether an adverse effect is taking place?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for highlighting this question before today so I can get a comprehensive answer for her and our colleagues.

Ensuring sustainability of commercial wild plant harvesting is an important part of licensing decisions. Unlike forestry, we do not allow taking of the whole plant. The member might know this, but the public does not. Only portions of a plant may be taken, and only 20 percent of any plants in a bed may be harvested. We’re talking about taking a portion of a plant and, again, only 20 percent of the plants in a bed.

This is much like pruning a garden. Actually, future growth of the plant is not impaired and, in many cases, improves the growth of the plant. This is not a resource extraction so much as it is a reaping the benefits of resource while ensuring its sustainability for future uses.

Baseline studies and field experiments in the ’70s and ’80s allowed us to develop an inventory of marine plants in many areas of the coast. Field experiments allowed us to determine on a species-by-species basis how and what portions of plants can be pruned without impairing future growth. For example, we do not allow mechanical harvesting. Plants must be harvested by hand using a sharp cutting instrument that cleanly severs the blades or fronds, leaving the bulk of the plant, including its roots, intact. This ensures renewed growth after the harvest is done.

Other field experiments allowed us to study fish populations and other animals that use kelp beds for habitat and the effects harvesting may have on them. Many of these studies were done in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and a number of joint papers were published. DFO is satisfied that our measures and conditions of harvest licences do not impair fish or fish habitat.

V. Huntington: Thank you very much. That is indeed extremely informative, and I am pleased that the information was made available. However, I would like to know whether the ministry, the minister, intends to put
[ Page 7389 ]
in regulation that the licensing officer must conduct a study of any particular aquatic plant marine bed prior to issuing the licence so that the knowledge is up to date on the quantity that can be harvested.

[1535]

Hon. N. Letnick: If this legislation passes, we will be consulting with industry, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to see what level of data would be necessary before a licence is issued. I don’t believe it’s necessary to look at doing a total prohibition on issuing licences subject to a study being done on an aquatic marine bed, again, prior to issuing a licence. There probably are lots of cases where we can, based on the best information that we have through DFO or through industry or other organizations, provide the information necessary to the licensing approving officer before they make that decision.

I don’t want to give you a blanket yes. I’m not giving you a blanket yes.

V. Huntington: In not giving a blanket yes, I hope you don’t allow these beds to be harvested in an unsustainable manner.

I would like to just…. Two other questions, actually, on this area. Obviously, there are times when these aquatic plant marine beds should be off-limits to harvest. Will you be working with DFO in that regard to determine when harvesting can and cannot take place — i.e., kelp beds and eelgrass beds, herring spawn and smelt spawn? Will you be working with DFO, hand in hand, to determine the allowable harvesting periods?

Hon. N. Letnick: That is the current practice, and yes, we will continue to exercise that practice.

V. Huntington: It’s always good to gets things on the record here.

Just one last question, then. This provision of varying or suspending or altering a licence appears only to apply to aquatic plants. If the province were to become concerned, whether or not it’s a federally regulated fishery in normal…. But if the province were to become concerned about the health or productivity or the need to protect a fish species, a class of fish, where in the act can the licensing officer specifically move in and vary or suspend the licence on a class of fish?

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to clarify the question. Are you suggesting that if an aquatic species is licensed by the federal government, the provincial government should be permitted to step in and change the conditions or put on hold a licence issued by the federal government? Is that the question?

V. Huntington: Well, I guess it is. Really, the licences here are to distribute, transport, etc., food fish and aquatic plants in a food-safe manner.

You have a section in the act that enables the licensing officer to vary or suspend an aquatic plant harvest licence. You have nothing that I can find in the act that enables him to vary or suspend a class of fish harvest and distribution if the province were to feel that a class of fish were under some threat, whether or not the federal government felt there was a threat and whether or not the federal government was moving on that consideration.

If the province felt that it needed to step in and protect a fish on the British Columbian coast from sale and distribution — so to provide less pressure on the fish — could the province do it under this act? I see no section that enables that to occur.

[1540]

Hon. N. Letnick: The intent, of course, is…. The feds have their jurisdiction as to what they provide licences on, and we have ours. We could vary or suspend the licence for a class of fish — for the distribution, for example. However, given our relationship with the federal government, I find that happening very infrequently, if at all.

Let’s use an example of cod. The federal government issues a licence for a cod fishery. We determine that, at some point, we don’t want the cod to be sold or distributed in the province. Technically, we could work to impact that, but in practice, we work very collaboratively with the federal government to come up with the best science and then move forward together.

Again, the legislation gives us the authority, but in practice, I would say that that would be a very difficult practice.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could point me to which section of the act does give the province that authority.

Hon. N. Letnick: I would refer back to section 10(1). It says: “In this section, ‘administrative action’ means to vary, suspend or cancel an operator’s licence.” Then refer to a section we haven’t talked about yet, which is section 12(1), which says: “In this section and section 13…‘decision’ means a decision of a licensing officer to…(c) vary, suspend or cancel a licence.”

[1545]

V. Huntington: Quickly glancing at 10, could the minister perhaps be a little more specific and point to which clause of section 10 would enable a licensing officer to suspend or vary a licence on a class of fish that is in danger of becoming an unsustainable product?

Hon. N. Letnick: I’m going to first repeat my comment before that this is really a cooperative matter between us and the federal government. While the act gives us the authority to take care of the issue, if a class of fish is in
[ Page 7390 ]
danger of becoming unsustainable, we could unilaterally do something. I’ll point the member to that in a moment. Again, I just want to reiterate that we would be working closely with DFO.

I’m going to move from section 10 and move her to section 59 of the act. Under section 59 of the act it says, respecting regulation powers: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (a) prescribing species of fish or aquatic plants to which this Act does not apply.”

[1550]

What would happen is, if someone was caught with a class of fish that was deemed by the government as unsustainable, we could go in and prescribe that that species of fish does not apply in the licence and thereby take it out.

V. Huntington: Just to understand completely, if, in the opinion of the province, at some point the sale of a class of fish could be detrimental to the sustainability of that class of fish, we would have to go through the regulatory amendment structure in order to prescribe that class of fish in an effort to suspend or vary the licence. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Letnick: I want to repeat that we’ll be working cooperatively with the federal government. This is a big issue to go unilaterally and say to the federal government: “We disagree with your conclusion on a particular fishery, and we want to stop the fishery from proceeding, notwithstanding that you, the feds, might disagree with us.” That’s really when this would kick in.

That kind of decision would have to be taken all the way up to the cabinet table, the Lieutenant-Governor. The short answer is yes, it would need a change in the regulation, which is not as difficult to get as changing the legislation might be.

So the short answer is yes, it would require a change in the reg.

V. Huntington: My last comment on it. So that then removes the idea that section 10 or 12 would apply.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

G. Holman: I do have a question on section 15 which speaks to reasonable practices of fish or aquatic plant processing, I guess kind of a two-part question. One is that I’m assuming that under existing legislation, there are such practices that are laid out. In general, would similar legal requirements around such practices apply in this legislation? In general, is there a kind of a raising the standard, raising the bar?

The second question is in terms of reasonable practices. Why not best practices?

[1555]

Hon. N. Letnick: The first question was: are we raising the bar on the standards? The way the act is written now, it’s basically if the act passes, the standards continue to be the same as they are currently. However, through the consultation with the industry, our goal is to try to raise that standard higher up.

We give guidance through the different subsections of that section, so (a) applying disinfection and decontamination measures, (b) using a type of equipment, (c) meeting any standard or taking any measures set out in the regs and (d) taking any measure required by an inspector in an order made under this act.

We will work with the industry to try to accommodate what we all want, which is a raising of the standards for the health and safety of our consumers.

G. Holman: Thank you for that answer. And the question about best practices versus reasonable practices.

Hon. N. Letnick: I thought the member would ask me that. Actually, that’s where we spent most of the discussion here, trying to come up with the correct answer for the member.

This is a new section in the act. It’s not something that we’ve taken from the other acts. Trying to give some flexibility as we do the consultation with the industry, to put in language such as best practice would really change the focus of the consultation with the industry.

[1600]

We want to come up with the industry to raise the bar — on a voluntary basis, working with the industry — to a standard that is reasonable in the whole but also higher on each individual area.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To put the words “best practice” in here would imply that for each item we’re trying to raise the bar on, it would have to achieve world standards or best practices, which might or might not be appropriate for what we’re trying to achieve. “Reasonable” is the word that we’re using instead of the words the member has proposed.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

G. Holman: A question here regarding the fact that seafood, of course, is perishable. Again coming back to the concern about the capacity to deal with such matters expediently, in a timely way, given that seafood is a perishable product, how many inspection officers are available in the province, either direct ministry employees or designates?

Hon. N. Letnick: In the briefing, I’ve been told, all the members were told three direct. We now have four, so a
[ Page 7391 ]
33 percent improvement in just a few days — four direct.

In section 41(2), the minister may designate as inspectors, by order, employees of a ministry of the government, employees of the regional health boards, under certain conditions, and employees of the government of Canada — again, under certain conditions. I don’t have a number as to how many this would mean, but it’s quite an extensive list of possibilities.

[1605]

G. Holman: Just a quick comment. It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of capacity. It’s a large province, a large number of activities that you’re overseeing. It doesn’t seem to be a great deal of capacity, although the increase from three to four is an encouraging sign. Big government.

V. Huntington: Section 18 is very specific to an operator’s duty to report that unsafe food may have been distributed. Where in the act does it enable the ministry to take note if an employee or any other person reports that unsafe food may have been distributed, and is that person protected under this act in any way?

Hon. N. Letnick: If I understood the question correctly, the hon. member is asking: where in the legislation would it facilitate an individual to blow the whistle on an unsafe practice, and does the government have any provision in this act to safeguard that person if he or she does so? The member is shaking her head up and down.

There is no provision directly in the act that covers that. Under section 56 of the act, it does say: “If a corporation commits an offence under this Act, an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the offence commits the offence whether or not the corporation is convicted.”

That puts the onus also on the individual as well as the corporation. But it doesn’t directly cover the question that the member asked, except for my answer, which is there’s nothing in the act that I know of that covers the issue of an employee or a member of the public who wishes to blow the whistle on somebody else.

V. Huntington: Perhaps I can turn the question around, then. Given that section 18 so specifically refers to an operator, is there anything in the act that would prevent the ministry from looking at comments or reports from an employee or any other person in this province with regard to the distribution of unsafe food?

I’m just a little concerned that the ministry is tying its hands here. If the operator doesn’t say anything, then how on earth are you going to know whether the corporation has, unless, I guess, an inspector has inspected and determined that? But I see no opportunity for anybody other than the operator to come forward. I’m just worried that the ministry won’t have to pay attention.

[1610]

Hon. N. Letnick: No, there’s nothing in the act that prohibits someone from identifying an unsafe practice and reporting it to one of our inspectors if they have reason to believe that a fish or aquatic plant the operator has distributed may be unsafe food — nothing at all.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

G. Holman: A question on section 20 that also applies to section 19 about the traceable systems language in the act, which, in itself, seems to me to be a good thing. There are analogous programs for land-based agriculture, and it is a good thing to be able to trace food back to its origins.

There has been a concern expressed, though, about the implications of 19 and 24 — existing non-profit NGO programs around certification. This was raised during the briefing process.

The language in section 20 suggests that “a person must not hold himself or herself out as being certified unless the person is certified in accordance with the regulations.” It does seem to suggest that there’s a ministerial kind of discretion here around certification programs, and there is a concern that that discretion might be used to favour, say, industry-based programs versus those developed by NGOs who perhaps have a more environmental bent, for example. That’s the current concern.

Can the minister explain…? Just what authority does the minister have over NGO-type certification programs? If the minister does not agree to an NGO program, is there any kind of right of appeal or process around that?

[1615]

Hon. N. Letnick: I’ll take a stab at it. If I don’t get the correct answer to the question, I’m sure the member will ask me again, maybe in a different way.

In the act, I was looking feverishly for NGO type. I couldn’t find it, but we did find community organizations. So if that’s what the member is referring to, then what will happen is voluntary associations…. I think maybe that’s what the member is referring to, because there is nothing in here about NGOs specifically that I could see.

If the act passes, we’ll do our consultation not only with industry but with those community and voluntary organizations as to what should go into the regulations for qualification. Then that will determine, through the regulations, what the criteria are. As far as appeal process, there is no appeal process. Once the decision is made by the minister, that is the end of the line on that one.

G. Holman: If there’s an existing traceability program, which I’ve kind of referred to as certification as well, I guess I’m not clear on what, if any, authority the minister has to say: “Yes, this is a certified program as far as I’m concerned, or it’s not.”
[ Page 7392 ]

Just the other comment I wanted to make…. And this applies more generally. I’m pleased to hear the minister suggest that community groups would be consulted with respect to this section. We have discussed other sections, as well — for example, issues around species at risk and sustainability — that do involve environmental concerns. It was one issue we did raise during the briefing. I may misunderstand this, but it’s our understanding, based on the list of groups that were consulted by the ministry, that environmental groups were not included at this point.

I’m pleased to hear the minister suggesting that community groups — which presumably could include environmental groups, NGOs — would be consulted with respect to this section. I’m hoping that would also apply to the act in general. It wouldn’t just be industry groups that would be consulted — and, of course, also First Nations, although First Nations were already, at least some First Nations groups, consulted with.

[1620]

Hon. N. Letnick: The act has no impact on existing certification schemes. I just want to make sure that we understand that.

As far as the consultation on the regs, it is our intent to consult with relevant stakeholders. We’re not going to do a wide-open, “Here are all the regs that we’re planning on doing associated with the act,” and then consult with everybody on the whole thing. We will seek input from groups that are directly stakeholders for a particular section.

In this particular case, we’re talking about traceability systems. The member opposite has brought to our attention some community groups that might be interested in providing input. If they had traceability systems in place, we would be able to consult with them on that.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

G. Holman: Just a quick question on inspection powers. Are these powers more detailed, more specific, further reaching than existing powers under existing legislation? Are there things that inspectors can do that they’re not allowed to do now under current rules?

Hon. N. Letnick: Yes, there are some more specific powers that are contemplated.

G. Holman: Could the minister provide one or two key examples of those additional powers.

Hon. N. Letnick: So more specific but not additional. If you look at 23(1), it actually gives us some examples. For instance: “(a) pass through a place to reach a vehicle or place that is to be the subject of the inspection; (b) be accompanied or assisted by an analyst or a person who has special, expert or professional knowledge of a matter relevant to the inspection.” Anyway, the list goes on and on. So it’s more specific direction.

[1625]

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

A. Weaver: Before I start, I want to reiterate that I’m very pleased that this legislation was brought forward. It represents a fine bill.

I do have one question on section 28(4). Now, my concerns here and the thread of comments will be, if I could frame it to the minister: why here are we being rather punitive to those who as…? Reading through 28(4): “A person has no right of action as a result of an action referred to in subsection (1)….” That is, the rights of an individual who will have seafood taken away as a consequence of some…. So unable to claim damages.

This is not consistent with similar legislation that exists within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency where, if I could read as an example here: “For animals ordered destroyed, the CFIA bases compensation amounts on the animal’s market value.”

My question to the minister is: why is there no compensation in the form of market value for product destroyed being contemplated here to protect somebody involved in this industry?

[1630]

Hon. N. Letnick: Two examples, I guess, are best for this one. One is if you are found to be distributing unsafe food, we wouldn’t want to have the taxpayer be responsible for providing compensation to the person or organization that was breaking the law.

The other one is a matter of scale. As the member understands, not too long ago, just at the end of last year, we had quite an incident in the Fraser Valley with chickens, I think close to 250,000 birds — so large scale, serious implications. When we’re talking here, we’re talking very small scale, small amounts of aquatic animals or marine products. We currently do not have any provision in the current acts that are in law for compensating, and we moved them over to this piece of legislation as well.

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for bringing up the example of the avian influenza, which I was going to refer to.

As the minister pointed out, we did have a very serious issue in British Columbia. In the case when the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stepped in with the outbreak of avian influenza on the two farms in the Fraser Valley, they did compensate farmers, according to the Health of Animals Act, up to a maximum level.

Why I think that that’s fair and why I raise this in this case is let’s suppose we turn now to Vancouver Island’s
[ Page 7393 ]
shellfish industry, an industry that’s critical for some small communities on the coast here. If, say, an example like red tide were to come in and were to affect stocks there…. They’re already struggling with the effects of ocean acidification and having a difficult time to actually make ends meet now.

The analogy, I would argue, is direct to the analogy with the Fraser Valley chicken farmers. If there were to be a case where the federal government, in the CFIA example, or the provincial government here were to step in to deal with a product that is deemed unsafe, as it was with the chicken influenza, avian flu, wiping out an entire stock, it can have detrimental effects on a struggling industry.

My question then, again is: is the minister contemplating any means at all for helping or protecting those struggling industries — say, the shellfish industry or other similar examples — that could be overly affected by stepping in and essentially seizing product that would otherwise make them end up going bankrupt?

[1635]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. When I heard the question, I was thinking my own analogy was just apples and oranges. The two issues are really related. In a sense, they’re both spiracle but a completely different taste.

The chickens, in the case of the spring-winter or fall-winter issue, was a disease beyond the control of the farmers. Probably, in large part, a lot of the animals that were put down were not infected.

I can understand why the government, provincial and federal, would want to help farmers to accommodate for that loss, in particular — not only for them, because it was a serious one for the farmers that lost the birds, but also to encourage them to come forward with information that would help us stop the spread of the disease.

The compensation package was part of the paradigm which helped us stop the disease rather quickly compared to in the early 2000s, when the disease really decimated the industry.

The shellfish example is a federal matter, because it would go in front of federal processing stations, for example. I’m informed by my staff here — who have way more knowledge on shellfish than I do, of course — that one option is for the shellfish owners to keep the shellfish in the water, and over time, that particular problem would move away.

The purpose of the legislation is to find people and organizations that knowingly are trying to sell products that are harmful for human consumption. If you are caught doing such a thing, then you should pay the penalties. The last thing I want taxpayers to do is have to refund the costs of their apples or oranges, in this case.

G. Holman: This line of questioning does remind me of an earlier question that I’d asked around provincial liability. Of course, if someone is knowingly selling contaminated product, that is one scenario. I understand the minister’s logic for stating that the liability for that should rest on the person who’s knowingly doing that. It is possible that operators, individuals could be selling product unknowingly contaminated. Furthermore, it could be contaminated as a result of provincial regulation in another sphere.

For example, it talked about sewage treatment facilities or coliforms running down a stream, contaminating a beach. Some contaminated sites actually involve more toxic materials, all of which are managed by the province. Yet here the operator would be forced to pay for contaminated product, knowingly or unknowingly, for which the root cause rested with the province.

I guess that’s a comment, not necessarily a question.

[1640]

Sections 28 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

G. Holman: Just a quick question here. There is reference here to designating inspector duties, responsibilities, to officials under the Canadian Fish Inspection Act and also fishery officers and fishery guardians under the Fisheries Act of Canada.

Just a simple question. I would assume that that happens now under current regulations — that the province utilizes those officials from the federal government to do inspections right now. The minister is nodding yes, so that’s my question, and there’s the answer.

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

G. Holman: Just a quick question. There’s a reference here to personal information, so the question is: has the Privacy Commissioner already reviewed this legislation, or is this done as a matter of course when you’re going out with regulations? I’m probably asking a question that I should know, but there it is.

Hon. N. Letnick: I’d like to thank the member opposite for a very astute question, so astute that I’m proposing a House amendment to section 46.

Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to section 46 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 46, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Power to collect or disclose information

46 (1) The minister may collect or disclose information under this Act, or disclose information collected in the course of administering this Act, for one or more of the following purposes:

(a) to administer this Act or another enactment, or a program administered by the minister;

(a.1) to administer or to assist with the administration of an enactment or a government program, of Canada or any
[ Page 7394 ]
jurisdiction in Canada, that has as one of its purposes the protection or promotion of human or animal health;

(b) to disclose, in accordance with the regulations, prescribed information contained in a traceability system;

(c) to disclose prescribed information in respect of an order made under this Act;

(c.1) to publish or disclose statistical information for economic, educational, scientific or research purposes in relation to fish or aquatic plants;

(d) to publish or disclose information if, in the opinion of the minister, it would be in the public interest to publish or disclose that information.

(2) For greater certainty, information that may be collected or disclosed under subsection (1) (a) to (c) and (d) includes personal information.]

On the amendment.

Hon. N. Letnick: This amendment is proposed to address the concern raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. At the commissioner’s request, we have narrowed the language in section 46 to clarify that authority for collection and disclosure of information is more focused on the purposes of Bill 21.

Amendment approved.

Section 46 as amended approved.

On section 47.

V. Huntington: This goes hand in hand, really, with section 44, where: “The minister may delegate, in writing, to a person or class of persons any of the minister’s powers or duties….” Do the minister and his ministry contemplate ever providing this delegation to a company?

Hon. N. Letnick: No, not to a company. Perhaps to other government agencies, but not to a company.

[1645]

Sections 47 and 48 approved.

On section 49.

V. Huntington: I’m curious about subsection 49(1), wherein a “copy of a document issued under this Act by an inspector or the minister, and certified by the inspector or minister as a true copy….” Would you not normally need the certification by somebody other than the individual? Or I guess not. I guess you could certify that it was a copy.

There was something that bothered me about this in the beginning, and I wondered why exactly the issue is described as necessarily being certified by the inspector. Is the minister suggesting that any document, then, can be used as evidence as long as it is certified?

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s not certified. It’s being certified as a true copy, and then, yes, it could be used in that purpose.

Sections 49 and 50 approved.

On section 51.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could explain 51(3)(c), where it’s agreeing in writing to paying a reduced administrative penalty. Why has the ministry chosen these options? If there’s an agreement in writing that they could pay a reduced administrative penalty, could the minister please describe the purpose of this section a little more fully?

Hon. N. Letnick: This would require that a person must pay an administrative penalty within a certain time frame unless they wish to dispute it, as permitted in a regulation that is yet to come. It also allows a person to pay a lesser penalty if they enter into an agreement to do other things that would bring them into compliance with the act.

Sections 51 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

G. Holman: Just for my education and probably no one else’s in the House. I’m assuming that 67(a) through (e), all of these pieces of legislation and the specific parts of them that are referred to here, are all now part of this particular bill. Essentially, all these pieces of legislation and bits of legislation, or at least the parts that government wants to be included, are included in this act now.

Hon. N. Letnick: Different things apply to different parts, so I’ll just read the detail as to what’s going on. For (a) and (b), the Fish and Seafood Act replaces the Fisheries Act and the Fish Inspection Act. In (c) section 27 of the Food Safety Act, if it had ever been enacted, would have repealed certain parts of the Fisheries Act in favour of conducting all licensing under the Food Safety Act. With the creation of the Fish and Seafood Act, this unused provision is redundant.

[1650]

For (d), section 26 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, enabled licence application to be made by e-mail. This section has never been acted upon and is now redundant. Then the last one, sections 11 and 12, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000, would, if they had ever been enacted, have created an aquaculture research and development trust fund. These sections should be repealed because they were never acted on, and the aquaculture is no longer a provincial responsibility.

Section 67 approved.

On section 68.
[ Page 7395 ]

G. Holman: A general question with respect to 68 and the subsequent sections. I really don’t have any questions. These are all additional amendments to other existing legislation. If the minister could just quickly describe kind of the general intent here. There are certainly a number of references to fish farming in here. If the minister could provide for these subsequent sections a kind of a general notion of why these amendments are being made.

Hon. N. Letnick: It’s not one-size-fish-fits-all in these, so I’ll just communicate the rationale quickly for each one of these for the member’s edification.

For 68, the consequential amendment, the purpose here is to amend the act so that it includes fish, thus allowing for future regulations governing labelling and grading. For 69, we are changing a reference from the Fisheries Act to Fish and Seafood Act, so it is just a minor piece.

For 70, this amendment enables existing protection from nuisance lawsuits and injunctions to be maintained for aquaculture. For 71, this amendment enables existing protection from nuisance lawsuits. Again, 72 — amendment to regulation-making authorities — this is consequential to the amendment in section 70 and 71.

I don’t know how far you want me to go. I’ll just keep going until you say: “Enough.” So 73 eliminates the reference to the Fish Inspection Act; 74 amends the consequential section 70 to revise the definition of “farming area”; 75 is commencement. That’s the end of the act.

G. Holman: Thanks to the minister for that. With respect to the so-called nuisance litigation around fish farming, are there additional provisions being enacted here other than already exist? My understanding was that, for example, salmon farms were already included under the farm practices act. At least, part of the intent was to ensure normal farm practices wouldn’t be subject to nuisance litigation.

Is there something else happening here? Or are there additional protections being enacted, for example, for the salmon-farming industry?

Hon. N. Letnick: There are no additional protections. We are maintaining the status quo — just in a different language.

Sections 68 to 75 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1655]

Hon. N. Letnick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. M. Polak: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

Bill 21, Fish and Seafood Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 19, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — CIVIL RESOLUTION
TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:59 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m joined by staff Bob Goldschmid and Richard Rogers from Justice and Doug Page from Housing.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm for the benefit of those who are paying attention that, in fact, we are amending an act that, in essence, has not been yet proclaimed, correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, the comment is mostly correct. There are sections proclaimed around the appointment of members, but the rest of the act is not yet proclaimed.

[1700]

L. Krog: Just to confirm also that the act we are amending was, in fact, passed with only 30 minutes for committee stage. At that time the then Minister of Justice assured the House that, in fact, it was to be up and running within 18 months. I think that it’s fair to say that none of that speaks well of this particular piece of legis-
[ Page 7396 ]
lation in terms of its usefulness to the people of British Columbia. Moreover, it was promised also that it was to be voluntary after a grace period, and then we might look potentially at making it mandatory.

As it presently stands, we are simply going to move with this bill into a position where, in fact, participation will be mandatory as opposed to voluntary. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Anton: The civil resolution tribunal will deal with two forms of dispute resolution, one of them relating to small claims and one of them relating to strata. The strata piece of it will be operational later this year. That is the plan. It is mandatory the minute it opens for strata corporations. The small claims piece will be voluntary when it begins, but both of them will become fully mandatory probably by next year.

L. Krog: I well appreciate the Attorney General’s confidence, but of course, the confidence was expressed back in 2012 that within 18 months the act would be up and running.

As I understand it from the Attorney General’s answers, the only thing we have basically done is hire the staff, so to speak. I’m just wondering how long they have actually been on the government payroll with respect to this process — the chair of the tribunal, etc. Perhaps the Attorney General could illuminate the House as to how much money has been spent so far, what work they have, in fact, been doing during that period of time and when they were appointed.

[1705]

Hon. S. Anton: In terms of personnel, we appointed a full-time chair last July. Prior to that we had an acting chair. We have the acting registrar, who is Mr. Rogers, and he was appointed in January of this year.

In terms of managing the project, there are a number of people in justice services who are working on it as part of their job. They do have other duties, but there are about six to eight people in justice services who are managing this, as I said, as part of their portfolio of tasks. We also have a software contractor.

L. Krog: I don’t know if I’m accurate in this, but I believe the gestation period for an elephant is about 18 months. It seems to me we’ve had an awfully long time getting this process up and running, which is supposed to be some reform to deal with issues in the justice system and the inability of people to obtain justice in a timely way, particularly around disputes.

Now, setting aside for a moment the issue of strata disputes, which is a long-standing mess which should have been solved some years ago by providing a fairly accessible and — I won’t say cheap — less expensive method of resolving strata disputes…. Setting that aside for a moment, do we indeed even face the issues in Provincial Court…?

Do the numbers bear it out that we face issues in Provincial Court, small claims division, that merit the continuance of this project? Regardless of whether we all think that a mediated approach is far better, does it, in fact, even make sense anymore? Do the numbers in small claims support this project?

[1710]

Hon. S. Anton: The wait for a small claim to be heard from beginning to end can be up to a year in British Columbia, and the goal of the civil resolution tribunal is that the dispute will be resolved in 60 days. That is the target.

Our overall philosophic goal is an access-to-justice goal, which is that anyone in British Columbia will be able to commence a dispute at any time of day simply by logging on and starting the process. So the overall philosophic basis for it is to have greater access to justice in terms of small claims in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Just out of curiosity, the acting chair of the tribunal was appointed prior to the permanent chair, we’ll call it, so to speak, who was appointed last July, if I recall the Attorney General’s remarks correctly. How long were they the acting chair, what was the acting chair paid, and what’s the present chair paid for chairing a tribunal that doesn’t yet exist in practice and doesn’t meet?

It has the ring of the resort town of Jumbo in my mind, where we have a municipality that doesn’t really exist and doesn’t have any citizens. Here we have a tribunal that has no workers essentially.

Hon. S. Anton: The chair of the tribunal…. Her salary is $160,000 a year.

The acting chair divided her time between two tribunals: the Property Assessment Appeal Board and the civil resolution tribunal. She was paid separately and differently between those two. I don’t have the breakdown or the numbers.

L. Krog: So what exactly does the chair do for the $160,000 per annum, which I believe is in excess of what a cabinet minister receives between the cabinet indemnity and their MLA indemnity?

[1715]

Hon. S. Anton: The tribunal, of course, is entirely new, so there is a great deal of groundwork that needs to be done.

In terms of the role of the chair, she has been involved in very extensive consultation with stakeholders. She is working with the design team in terms of designing the process. She is building rules around the processes. She’s involved in consideration of who the tribunal members should be.

As I said, it’s a new organization. It’s a new tribunal. It takes a great deal of groundwork to get it up and running.
[ Page 7397 ]

L. Krog: Well, I’m certainly glad to hear that for $160,000 per annum, with no one working for her, the chair is busily engaged in doing good things for the people of British Columbia.

To come back to a fairly practical question, we’re amending an act, as I say, that hasn’t been proclaimed yet — essentially it is not in force — and the small claims jurisdiction also provided for a mediation process under the existing act, where you’re shuttled off to a settlement conference with a judge or shuttled off to a mediator to see if the matter can be resolved.

Those folks who worked as mediators were fairly successful, as I understand it. Statistically, it indicated that in fact that was a very successful process in many cases and meant that matters didn’t proceed to trial, therefore taking up court clerk time, etc. — or the use of the courthouse, for that matter.

I’m curious to know how many claims were actually mediated, of all of the claims filed in British Columbia in any given year, statistically speaking, in the small claims registry. In other words, did half get mediated? Did a quarter get mediated? What percentage actually got mediated?

[1720]

Hon. S. Anton: The mediation currently available in small claims is available in five small claims registries in British Columbia, not all of them. Of course, the purpose of the civil resolution tribunal is to be a much more general application so that everybody who enters the civil resolution tribunal in terms of small claims will go through a facilitated process. Only if that is not successful will they move to adjudication.

L. Krog: I appreciate that, but my question is: if the mediation process, based on the reports I received from people who actually did the work, was working and was successful…. I haven’t heard the Attorney General tell me, for instance, in the five areas where it was available, what the statistics were that would indicate that it wasn’t working that required us or incented us to bring in the whole civil resolution tribunal process.

Wasn’t it working? Was it terribly expensive? Was it not successful in those registries? Presumably, I think it’s fair to say…. I don’t have the Small Claims Act in front of me, but I believe there is a jurisdictional issue in terms of where you’re going to file. In fact was that model successful, or does the Attorney General believe that model was unsuccessful?

I guess what I’m getting at in the bigger picture is: are we driving ahead with a reform that may, in fact, not be required whatsoever, setting aside the strata property issues, when appropriate expansion of the mediation process in small claims would get us to the same essential solution, which is to try and allow people to resolve their disputes fairly early on in a process as opposed to taking up to a year to potentially resolve it?

[1725]

Hon. S. Anton: Mediation has been a valid tool, and it has had some success. What the CRT, the civil resolution tribunal, is, is a cost-effective way to expand that facilitated settlement process to everyone with a small claim who fits within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, everyone who fits within that jurisdiction — to expand the mediation or the facilitated settlement to everyone.

L. Krog: I realize I ask windy questions, but if the Attorney General perhaps could give me a more fulsome answer to my windy questions once in a while. It seems to me all I’ve heard here is a statement of the philosophy behind it but nothing practical about how it’s going to be effective. I mean, surely the small claims registry could have been updated in terms of the filing of claims, that kind of approach in terms of simplicity.

The Attorney General has made much today of the concept that people in the middle of the night will be able to file these claims, which is, I suppose, a wonderful thing for those of us who want to work at two or three in the morning, when we’re not in the best frame of mind.

Apart from that reform, which could be easily accomplished in the existing small claims process, why is this necessary, as opposed to simply allowing for an expanded mediation process supported by government in the existing small claims in the Provincial Court structure, coupled also with the same approach to electronic filing?

Hon. S. Anton: What we aim to achieve through the civil resolution tribunal is a quicker process, as I said earlier, the goal being 60 days for resolution; and a low-cost process, with much lower cost to do it this way than to expand the mediation process through the courts. All parties in the civil resolution process will be asked to aim to achieve a facilitated settlement. It will be universally proposed to everyone engaging in the process.

L. Krog: Well, I’d like the Attorney General to be more specific around the issue of the savings that are involved here. Are the savings going to be to the individuals because there will be a lower or a nonexistent filing fee?

[1730]

Is it because it’s anticipated that in the vast majority of claims, which don’t involve lawyers now anyway, they’ll avoid the cost of having a lawyer because you can’t use a lawyer in this process? Are the cost savings going to be in the lack of paper or staffing at some juncture in this process of filing?

In other words, where are the cost-effective savings going to be seen? Is it a cost-effective savings for government or the individuals involved in the dispute process? Is it a combination of both? What’s anticipated?

I mean, we’ve had a chair of the tribunal, at $160,000 a year, and an acting chair before that working on this, so I
[ Page 7398 ]
assume we must have a pretty good idea now of what this process is going to look like in terms of cost. I’m curious to hear exactly what the Attorney General means when she talks about cost savings. Can she be very specific about that?

Hon. S. Anton: We do believe it will be less expensive for both government and for individuals, but the more general goal is access to justice. The general goal is that people around British Columbia have equal access to a tribunal which can help them resolve their small claims matters and can help them resolve their strata matters.

L. Krog: Well, far be it for me to defend the salaries of Provincial Court judges in a jurisdiction which, in my personal view — and I’ve said this many times in this chamber — doesn’t tax high-income earners enough.

At $160,000 a year, the chair of the tribunal is going to make something, I believe, in the range of $70,000 to $80,000 a year less than a Provincial Court judge. Presumably, those working under the chair of the tribunal are going to make considerably less.

Is, in fact, this really about giving us cheaper justice without the benefit of legally trained judges? Is that really what this is about — in other words, having people to chair and operate and provide the justice? Are we moving to what I will call more of a model along the residential tenancy branch but for small claims? It seems to me, in a practical way…. I can only try and relate it to my experience as the system exists now. Is that really what we’re doing here?

[1735]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. S. Anton: I certainly don’t agree with the question and the way it was framed. The goal here, as I’ve said several times already, is access to justice.

There will be two stages on a matter. The first stage will be facilitation. The second stage, if necessary, is adjudication. On the facilitation stage, the persons involved will have expertise in dispute resolution. On the adjudication stage, if necessary, the persons involved, the tribunal members, may be strata experts or lawyers and, it’s possible, other subject-matter experts.

L. Krog: Do I take it, then, from the Attorney General’s remarks, that those who will be dealing with the non-strata aspect of this — in other words, the more traditional things, which will be referred to in section 3.1, debt or damages, recovering personal property — who will actually adjudicate, may, in fact, not have any legal training?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a question in relation to the adjudication part of the process. If matters go to adjudication and it is a small claims matter rather than a strata matter, we expect that most of the adjudicators will be lawyers, but there may be some adjudicators who have subject-matter expertise. All of them will have adjudication skills and the appropriate training in order to take on this adjudication role.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could explain what she means by subject-matter expertise. In other words, if I’m bringing a claim for debt or damages, relief from opposing claims to personal property or specific performance of an agreement, what expertise are we talking about? How are we going to channel these claims?

The reason I raise this is that it is often difficult enough now for individuals to understand what’s the appropriate jurisdiction to resolve a dispute. Most people get it. If they’ve got a residential tenancy problem, they go to the residential tenancy branch.

[1740]

Whether or not small claims has it or they’re going to have to go to Supreme Court because it’s excluded from small claims jurisdiction — those kinds of approaches — I’m just curious to know: what sorts of subject matter experts are we talking about, and what sorts of people are we talking about?

If it’s a fight over specific performance of an agreement relating to personal property, does that mean somebody who’s been a salesman at Sears in the appliance department is going to be able to provide adjudication of a dispute between a small-town appliance seller and an unhappy purchaser? In other words, what does this actually look like?

The reason I’m asking is because we’re now three years down the road from when this act that we’re amending was initially passed. The promise is we’re going to get it implemented, or a section of it, by the end of the year. I’m not entirely satisfied, based on the answers I’ve heard so far from the Attorney General today, that this thing has been thought through.

I would expect and hope that if we’ve got literally a 50-section amending statute of a bill that’s been passed but not proclaimed as law, maybe we’re just not ready to do this. Maybe we’re trying to fix something that may never particularly work very well and achieve all of the things the Attorney General’s talked about today.

To come back to my very specific question: what sort of subject matter experts are we talking about? What’s the kind of person or dispute that it would make sense to have a so-called subject matter expert involved in?

Hon. S. Anton: Certainly to begin with, the adjudicators — again, we’re not talking about the facilitation stage; we’re talking about the adjudication stage — will be, in the main, lawyers.

It is possible, so I don’t want to close this door, that there will be others who are taken on for their expertise in areas such as, for example, insurance — whether it may be an insurance claim…. Another area where we may look for people with subject matter expertise is con-
[ Page 7399 ]
sumer protection. We expect that many of these claims will relate to consumer protection.

As I said, it is the expectation that to begin with, at least, the adjudicators will be lawyers, but there may be others who are not. The goal, though, is that they all be properly trained. Not the goal; they will be properly trained. They will understand the principles of adjudication. They will understand the principles of natural justice.

[1745]

L. Krog: I suppose the concern is that…. If I can just confirm for a moment, is it anticipated the strata side will be — the Attorney General can just nod and assist me in my question — hopefully up and running before the end of the year? That’s the prediction and hope. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Anton: That’s correct.

L. Krog: That being the case, then, presumably it’s going to take the others a while to be put in place. I don’t wish to jump ahead or all over the place, but we’re talking about what the jurisdiction of the tribunal is with respect to small claims. It’s clear that the act anticipates that it will eventually, literally, give the tribunal jurisdiction over all kinds of claims. That’s my interpretation of it. I wonder if the Attorney General can confirm that.

Right now in section 3.1 we’re talking about “Tribunal small claims,” and then we go on to talk about small claims debts. Then we talk about strata property claims. The presumption is, I gather, that there will be other claims that will be given in time — assuming it’s successful — to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Is that the intention?

Hon. S. Anton: Staying on the small claims side of the equation, the tribunal will begin by exercising the jurisdiction of the small claims court. It may be that the tribunal could…. At some point we could consider an expansion of its jurisdiction. That would require legislation. It’s a little speculative at the moment. At the moment, we’re starting simply within the realm of the current small claims court.

L. Krog: Just to confirm that subject to libel, slander and malicious prosecution; a claim against government or a class of claims prescribed by regulation as being excluded from the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the tribunal’s going to have exactly the same jurisdiction as the small claims court does today?

Hon. S. Anton: The jurisdiction, as I said a moment ago, of the small claims part of the civil resolution tribunal parallels the jurisdiction of the small claims court.

L. Krog: With respect to the strata disputes, just so I’m clear…. It will apply to all disputes involving strata property. That could be a dispute, for instance, between an owner and the strata council or an owner and a strata management corporation that has management responsibilities for the strata. In other words, who’s included in the strata dispute side of this? Quite specifically, please.

[1750]

Hon. S. Anton: There are a number of restrictions on the subject matter, and we will come to that in section 3 of the act.

In terms of who may file a claim, the owner or a tenant or a corporation can file a claim. There’s no restriction on who might respond, but the jurisdiction is only over the violation of the act or the bylaws, so only parties with obligations would typically be sued under the act or be taken into the civil resolution tribunal process.

L. Krog: Just so I understand, with respect to a breach of the bylaws or a breach of the act. So it could involve, in the strata corporation, a tenant or an owner.

Hon. S. Anton: The party bringing the claim may be an owner, may be a tenant or may be the strata corporation.

L. Krog: One of the great concerns that has been raised over and over again by both the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia and the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association is the prohibition against the ability — the right, if you will — to be represented by a lawyer during the course of this process.

I’m just wondering if the Attorney General can explain the philosophical basis for excluding the right to counsel, which is, without wishing to sound offhand, kind of a Magna Carta right for most people. It’s the concept that you will be able to hire a champion, if you will, because you either lack the skills, the confidence or the ability to deal with your opponent.

[1755]

Hon. S. Anton: Persons engaging the tribunal may indeed consult a lawyer, although the expectation is that either in the facilitated settlement part of the process or, if necessary, the adjudicative part of the process they will be representing themselves. Section 20 of the act does allow some exceptions to that — if, for example, the party is a child or a person with impaired capacity, if the rules permit the party to be represented or if the tribunal permits the party to be represented.

This is a process. Although Quebec doesn’t have the on-line tribunal that we have, they have had self-represented provisions for years, and these apparently work well.

L. Krog: Just so I’m clear about this, I’d like to hear the philosophical basis, from the Attorney General, for this change prohibiting people from being able to exercise their right to hire counsel to represent them at any kind of a hearing.
[ Page 7400 ]

[1800]

Hon. S. Anton: The process in the civil resolution tribunal is a new one. It is intended to be less formal, more collaborative. It is intended to be a plain-language forum for resolving disputes, and it is designed for self-represented litigants.

It is designed to not be adversarial in the traditional role, traditional way that courts are. Parties will be assisted by case managers through the process, through the facilitated settlement, if possible, and through the adjudicated process. It is a different culture, and it’s a culture aiming towards early resolution and, as I said, very accessible justice.

L. Krog: Just so we’re clear in terms of the people who are going to preside over this new culture, they will be appointed and hired through the board resourcing and development office. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: There are two sets of personnel that we’re talking about here. One is the case managers. They will be hired under a process under the Public Service Act. The tribunal members will be through a merit-based process through the board resourcing and development office.

L. Krog: Just so I am clear, that means they will all be hired through a process headed by Athana Mentzelopoulos, who reports to the Premier, correct?

[1805]

Hon. S. Anton: The process here is that the board resourcing and development office goes through a merit-based process. A panel is put together to interview the proposed tribunal members. Recommendations through that merit-based process are made to the minister, myself, and they are taken, on my recommendation, to cabinet.

The Chair: Minister.

L. Krog: Oh, not yet.

The Chair: Sorry. Member.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair — very flattering, especially for a Monday.

I think perhaps the Attorney General missed my question. The board resourcing and development office is headed by Ms. Athana Mentzelopoulos, who reports to the Premier. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, that board resourcing and development office does report up to a deputy minister, who is currently the person named by the member.

L. Krog: Given that this involves an adjudicative process at the second stage after the facilitation stage, isn’t the Attorney General concerned that in terms of how that process works, it should be through something other than the board resourcing and development office?

The reason I say that is this. We know that when we appoint judges in this province to the Provincial Court, it is the Attorney General and cabinet who will ultimately make that decision. Everybody gets that.

But there is a fairly extensive process of consultation with the bar and others to ensure that you are hiring people who are seen as leaders — who have, generally speaking, I think it fair to say, an unblemished reputation. As I often joke, they have a background, not a past. In these circumstances, when you’re placing people in an adjudicative role, which they will be, is the Attorney General not at all concerned that they will simply be seen as more patronage appointments?

After all, it is this board resourcing and development office through which all of the appointments to the college boards and all of those places where the general public believes and sees, indeed, good, solid Liberal supporters being ensconced in various positions…. They all pass through the same process.

Does the Attorney General have any concern in terms of how that appears to the public?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer to the member’s question is no, I am not concerned. I am very confident in the process.

We, the other day, dealt with the Administrative Tribunals Act and discussed — the member and myself in the House — the 20-plus tribunals that we have across government. Those positions are filled by members who are vetted through the same process. It’s a merit-based process. They go up through the minister in question to cabinet.

Those members of those tribunals are independent. They are expert in their areas, and they are extremely well-regarded by the stakeholder community, which they serve.

[1810]

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General’s confidence in the process. But it is not, she will agree, the same process by which we appoint judges. It is a process that involves a person who owes their very position to the Premier.

I understand at the end of the day that, of course, that’s ultimately who everyone owes their position to in our system. But it is seen, certainly, in a qualitative way as being a different process than appointing someone to cabinet because the pool is provided by the electorate and the party. It is seen as different than the process by which potentially even a university board selects the president of an educational institution.

One of the issues that has been raised by various groups
[ Page 7401 ]
has been the issue of the independence with respect to these appointments. Now, I know that the Canadian Bar Association has adjusted its position somewhat. But the second concern mentioned in their press release back on March 11 — and I’ll read it into the record — said:

“The second concern of the bar is that as the government moves funding and jurisdiction away from justice administered by independent courts, the public is being funnelled into a process that relies on appointees of the government who are fulfilling adjudicative roles in deciding general civil claims matters without actual judicial independence — security of tenure, a higher degree of administrative independence from government, etc. The amendments proposed in Bill 19 do not address this significant public interest concern, which CBABC has expressed on numerous occasions to the government.”

I think that is an extremely legitimate criticism, because these appointees are not given a lifetime appointment. They’re given a limited-term appointment. They are not like the independent officers of this House, who are picked through an all-party committee process that requires unanimity. We know that when there’s been difficulty in the past, that has stretched the process out for a very long time. But ultimately, that’s the way the process works, because the position is seen as important and unique.

Again, I come back to my point around the lack of independence of a process that is headed by the Premier’s good friend, acknowledged publicly, who is in charge of the board resourcing and development office. Again, I come back to it. The process may appear to be working, but is the Attorney General satisfied that it has the appearance of fairness and independence that exists when we talk about the other kinds of appointments I’ve mentioned in this House, which include the independent officers?

Hon. S. Anton: The fact that a person is a deputy minister at the moment is of very little relevance to a process which is put in place now and which is expected to last for many years. The fact is that the board resourcing and development office process is one that chooses independent tribunal members in over 20 tribunals around government. I think it’s highly offensive to suggest that they may be making decisions to satisfy some kind of political imperative.

I’ll give you just one example, the Human Rights Tribunal. I don’t know if the member opposite would like to accuse them or any other tribunal members of being politically required to go in a certain direction or not.

[1815]

It is obviously, I think, a suggestion that would offend the tribunal members. They are independent. They do a good job for the citizens of British Columbia, and I am very confident the tribunal members of the civil resolution tribunal will conduct themselves and perform in exactly the same way.

L. Krog: Far be it for me to offend anyone by any remarks I might make in this chamber, of course, but I come back to my point. It’s not even about the substance necessarily. My point was around the appearance. That, surely, is just as important as the substance — you know, like Caesar’s wife. You not only have to be above reproach. You have to be seen to be above reproach.

The fact is everyone who’s going to get a position on the tribunal is going to come through a process where the person who heads it presently…. Ten years down the road it may be the best friend of the then Premier. Who knows?

The very nature of the process in and of itself, I would suggest to the Attorney General, does not give the appearance of independence, particularly when you couple it with the inability to have the kinds of lengthy fixed terms that might give a person appointed the comfort, if you will, and security of tenure which we have associated with the judiciary and with the longer-term appointments of the independent officers of the Legislature.

That aside, I’m wondering if we can now deal with less general matters and deal with some of the more specific matters.

With respect to section 1, all of these definitions, I take it, are being proposed in order to shift this process from a voluntary to a mandatory process, or there’s some other specific reasons for the definition changes in section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: In reference to the editorial comments made by the member opposite, of course I do fundamentally disagree with them and, once again, repeat that our tribunal members across government are independent. They do their job properly and with the respect of the communities that they serve.

Going to section 1, the new definitions or the proposed amended definitions. The answer to the question is yes. These are…. A couple of things. They use more plain language, and they are to make the definitions consistent with the new mandatory model.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: Are the purposes…? Well, I should rephrase it. Is the reason we’re changing the definitions to simply take into account that we didn’t get this process implemented fast enough? Or since the initial passage in 2012 of this act, which we’re amending, has the government’s view changed?

The Chair: For the benefit of the Chair as well, Minister.

Hon. S. Anton: Sorry, Chair. Is this question on section 2?

The Chair: I believe we’ve just passed section 1. The committee has just passed section 1.
[ Page 7402 ]

Interjection.

The Chair: I’m sorry, Member. We’re actually now on section 2.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. Then I’ll ask the question in a general sense.

With respect to the act, the reason we have made these changes generally — in other words, the whole purpose of the bill, arguably…. Is it to take into account that the government’s view has changed about how the process is to work, or is it simply because we’re trying to get this implemented the way it was intended to work in the first place?

[1820]

Hon. S. Anton: As we have worked through the implementation of the tribunal, it has become apparent that it would be useful to make it voluntary to begin with so that we can evaluate the process and make sure that it’s working properly and as expected, but that a mandatory process is very much preferable — both through research on other jurisdictions and consultation with stakeholders and their belief that it’s generally better that this be mandatory.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General could advise: who were the stakeholders that were consulted that suggested this process be made mandatory?

Hon. S. Anton: The stakeholders are persons like strata owners associations. Also, we have had working groups as the civil resolution tribunal process worked through its own process. The preference amongst those organizations and people in the working groups has been that the process be mandatory.

L. Krog: I’m going to take it from the Attorney General’s answer that there may have been some consultation on the strata side of this, but no consultation, it would appear, on what I will call the small claims side of it. Is that correct?

[1825]

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, Chair. Perhaps I’ll give this answer, and then I will note the hour.

There has been consultation on the small claims side with the Canadian Bar Association for B.C., the Trial Lawyers and the Law Society. There has been a civil claims working group.

But at the end of the day, it is our own analysis that the mandatory provisions are far preferable — that there is a low takeup if you make it voluntary. To make this tribunal effective, we have concluded that it be mandatory. Hence, the proposed changes in this legislation.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $25,524,000 (continued).

K. Conroy: I had informed the minister’s office that due to time constraints, instead of asking questions on Columbia Power Corporation and the Columbia River treaty or Columbia Basin Trust, I was just going to stick to Columbia Power Corp in the hour that I have today. Maybe I might have a bit more than an hour but around an hour.

[1430]

I’ve already discussed this with Neil Muth, the CEO at Columbia Basin Trust. I feel that any issues…. I know that we meet quite often, so I’m fine with meeting with him on any of those back in the constituency.

I just wanted to let the minister know that most of the questions are just around updating on the consultation process that the trust has been involved in. They’ve been really good at letting me know what’s going on. Again,
[ Page 7403 ]
kudos to the staff at Columbia Basin Trust, and I’ll meet with them.

The Columbia River treaty. I’ve had discussions with staff. Again, Kathy Eichenberger has been great at letting me know what’s going on, and she has let me know that it is in a bit of a waiting situation, for lack of a better word. I think she had a better word. Both entities are involved in their own discussions. It seems that the U.S. entities are a little bit more involved in discussions right now, and people are waiting to go forward with that.

I just had one question that’s CRT-related. It’s a question that I think the minister would be able to answer. When I was going through the minister’s mandate letter, it said that the minister would be consulting on the Columbia River treaty with the minister of intergovernmental affairs, and there is no minister of intergovernmental affairs. It’s a secretariat in the Premier’s office.

I wondered who the minister was going to be working with, if there’s actually a person in the Premier’s office that’s involved with this.

Hon. B. Bennett: Given the amount of time that the member has to work with, I’ll be as concise as I can be. We have consulted regularly with the intergovernmental affairs secretariat that is located in the Premier’s office, but I’ve also been to cabinet over the past two years. I can’t count the number of times.

I could figure it out for the member if she really wanted to know, but it’s at least four times, I’m going to say, reporting out to cabinet on the status of the Columbia River treaty discussions with the U.S. There is, I think, broad knowledge within government, generally, of the status of the Columbia River treaty.

That’s probably the answer.

K. Conroy: I want to thank the minister for promising to be concise in his answers so we can get through lots. That’s great.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Okay. We can only hope.

I want to move into the Columbia Power Corp, which is an extremely successful Crown corporation. I’ve been watching it closely over its 20-year history, and I’m happy to see Frank Wszelaki here as the CEO of this corporation.

I’ve watched it grow since it was formed in the ’90s and watched the work it’s been doing. I think it’s a well-functioning team of employees there. Any project they have undertaken has been completed with a high level of excellence. There have been the three projects that have completed in partnership with the Columbia Basin Trust — and now the case of Waneta with Fortis as well.

There are also the boat launches that they have completed on the Arrow Lakes. It sounds like they’re all done now, and the communities are happy with them — a few little tweakings on a couple, but for the most part, they’re done and well received by the communities.

I just wondered: for the next phase of this corporation, is Elko actually a go?

Hon. B. Bennett: The decision on whether to have CPC do the Elko job has not been made by the two boards or Treasury Board/provincial government yet. Those decisions are expected in May-June, but please allow me some wiggle room in terms of whether it’s May-June or June-July.

The CPC and B.C. Hydro have been in discussions now for many, many months, and they’re currently on something called the definitions stage of negotiations. It certainly looks like CPC will do the Elko project, but it is just a question of process.

[1435]

Nobody has said no anywhere along the way. It’s just a question of getting through the legal process, getting something in front of the B.C. Hydro board, the CPC board and the province so that a final decision can be made.

K. Conroy: Can the minister, then, talk about which option the corporation is looking at carrying out?

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member’s benefit — she probably has the list of options — it’s option 4A, a 16 megawatt power plant, dam, spillway and, of course, a new powerhouse. That’s where they’re going with that.

K. Conroy: The projects that the Columbia Power Corp has been involved in over the last 20 years have been quite successful, as I’ve said. There have been a fair number of tradespersons working, actually, in the entire Kootenay region for the past 20 years, when you look at the hydro projects, as well as the corporation. When we look at B.C. Hydro’s upgraded Mica, Seven Mile and the Revelstoke dam, they’ve all had additional turbines put in. This has added 2,300 megawatts of additional power for the province.

Then we have the three projects that Columbia Power Corp has been involved in. There’s been the Arrow Lakes generating station, the expansion at Brilliant and now Waneta. Those three projects have totaled over 640 megawatts for the province. Then you’ll also have Revelstoke unit 6 coming on stream — another 500. So it’s almost 3,500 megawatts of power that have been created in the last 20 years just in the Columbia Basin alone.

This was all done using the Columbia hydro contractors’ Allied Hydro Council agreement. This provided a commitment to equity hiring, local hiring. There have been hundreds and hundreds of people that have gotten jobs locally in our region in the past 20 years. It has created successful apprenticeships. There has been quite a
[ Page 7404 ]
number of people who have started off their apprenticeships back in the Arrow Lakes project and have completed it over the last 20 years. A significant number of First Nations have been hired and trained.

There’s been site safety — incredible site safety — at these three major projects, as in Waneta’s case, the biggest capital project right now in the province. And there has been labour peace for the entire 20 years. That is something you can’t say very often in this province, but there has actually been labour peace for the entire 20 years — at the planning stages, as well as the construction of all three of these projects. Anyone could bid on the work, as long as they have followed the Allied Hydro agreement, which is an agreement that has been here in place in this region for 20 years.

If Elko is going to go — it sounds like there’s a high probability; I’m assuming that Elko is going to go — is this being done using the Allied Hydro agreement, as with the other three projects that have been done in our basin?

Hon. B. Bennett: No final decision, I’m advised, on the labour model for the project. I’m advised by CPC that the B.C. building trades will definitely be involved in this project, but it is up to boards and so forth to make final decisions like that. They haven’t actually decided formally to build the project yet, so it’s a little early for me to say exactly what model for labour they’re going to choose. I actually don’t know.

K. Conroy: Well, rumours are flying in the region, so I want to clarify for the record and get it on the record that there is actually no commitment to a project labour agreement with this project. That is a real concern to the people that work in the area, especially the people over in the East Kootenay, where people, as I’m sure the minister is well aware — it’s his own constituency — are hoping that there’s going to be a local-hire agreement, at least, if nothing else. They are looking at a lot of other agreements as well.

[1440]

I think when you look at the history of our province…. We’ve had project labour agreements in this province since 1963. W.A.C. Bennett brought them in originally. We’ve had successive Social Credit, NDP, Liberal Premiers all agree that these project labour agreements, especially under the Allied Hydro agreement, was the way that projects should be carried out in this province.

I just think we need to look at the recent history with Waneta and the success of Waneta and what’s happened on the Waneta project. At peak construction there were over 450 people that were working directly on this project. Over 1,400 people had a chance to work on this project, with an average of 70 percent of the people working on this project that were local. They were hired locally from within the basin and got to go to work every day and go home every day.

I remember growing up as a kid in the ’60s and ’70s in Castlegar and the number of dads — because it was dads in those days — who left our community to go work in other projects because they couldn’t work in the area. But with this local hire, I’ve seen so many people that have had the ability to stay home and work.

There is $220 million that has been invested in the region — over $40 million in wages, and those wages come back to our basin. They stay within our basin. It was a cost-effective project. It’s on time, on budget. In fact, it’s completed six weeks ahead of schedule, which is pretty much, I think, unheard of in this sector.

It’s kudos to the Columbia Power Corp., the Basin Trust and also to Fortis for the work that was done together and for the contractors who worked on this, and to the people working on the project — the fact that this was done.

There were approximately 60 apprenticeships hired just on this one project alone. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong on that, on my numbers. Carpenters alone — they had over 200 men and women working, with eight apprenticeships. They started with absolutely no knowledge of the trade and became qualified Red Seal journeypersons. Two of them were women, which is a pretty incredible statistic, I think.

The Ktunaxa Nation had four electrical and carpentry apprentices that gained considerable experience at Waneta. This is, again, all done with no labour issues, all done with labour peace, no work stoppages, and we have a history of this in the region.

I don’t understand why it wouldn’t just be assumed that a project like Elko would go ahead with a project labour agreement, which would include an agreement done through the Allied Hydro agreement, because it’s been successful in our province since the early ’60s.

I just can’t see why, if it’s good enough for our province for all those years, good enough for the people that work in our basin, it wouldn’t be just a fait accompli that the minister would say: “Of course we’re looking at this.” It was good enough for all those Premiers before the current Premier. Why wouldn’t it be the standard right now, especially when we look at how much money is paid in local hire? It’s good wages, good family-supporting wages, that go back into the community.

I’m asking the minister how he can think that Elko will be as successful as the other projects that have been in our region — if, in fact, Elko does go ahead — definitely as successful as Waneta, if they’re not going to be saying now that we are going to agree to a project labour agreement and we’re going to agree to working along the lines of the Allied Hydro construction.

Hon. B. Bennett: I wasn’t sure throughout that statement by the member whether she was talking about Site C or the Elko project, but at the very end she said Elko, so I know it was Elko. As I said earlier, no decision has been
[ Page 7405 ]
made by the boards of the two utilities nor by the province with respect to Elko. I have advocated for CPC to do the Elko project for longer than I have been minister, actually.

There is a process, as the member will appreciate, and it has to be followed. I do not, as minister, make the decision as to what type of labour model will be used on a given project. I have, to my knowledge, to my recollection, actually never discussed it with CPC. I’m getting advice today here during estimates from the man who heads up CPC, and I am told that no final decision has been made on the labour model.

[1445]

I would not make any assumptions if I were the member because we, too, on this side of the House recognize what a great job CPC has done.

In fact, for the member’s benefit and for her constituents’ benefit — I believe she is responsible for Castlegar — I realized some years ago that after the Waneta expansion project was completed, there was nothing left on the list, and therefore you had the construction/engineering side of CPC at risk in Castlegar — all of those jobs. I started to push for a project for CPC to do following the Waneta expansion so that CPC actually could continue to bring the value to the province — in particular, to our region in the Kootenays — that it has brought over the years.

I hope there’s no question about the commitment, certainly of me as minister, to making sure that Elko does get built by CPC. I can’t guarantee you that right now because the boards haven’t made their decision, but certainly that is what I’ve been pushing for, for a long time.

The indirect benefit, aside from the benefits in the East Kootenay, are actually to Castlegar because that’s where all those employees reside. If there are no projects on the books to do, a lot of those folks aren’t needed anymore. So both I and the critic are very strongly supportive of CPC getting the job of building the Elko project.

One other thing that I should squeeze in at the end here is that despite the fact that no labour model has been chosen for the Elko project, I can tell the member that CPC advises me — I did know this before today — that there will be local hire conditions on this project. Whatever the model is, whether it’s the same kind of agreement that has existed in the past in the Kootenays, whether it’s the kind of agreement or model that exists at the Ruskin project or the John Hart project, there will be local hire provisions contained.

K. Conroy: Since the minister raised it, I just want to equate some quotes made by the minister on the Elko project that he was making. I heard him in the media say that he thought that the project Site C, which the minister just raised, could be done cheaper without a project labour agreement. I’m worried about Elko — if the minister is actually considering the same, if he feels the same way about Elko — because as I said, the majority of the expenses that benefit the region are those wages.

The only way that it can be done cheaper is to bring in people that will work cheaper. When you look at the skill set we have in our region, the skill set of construction workers that we have in the Columbia Basin who know what they’re doing — that’s why the projects get done on time and have the success they have — I don’t understand why the minister wouldn’t agree to that.

From his comments in the media, the only thing I can think that he’s looking at is if you can bring in temporary foreign workers who would work cheaper than the Columbia Basin Trust construction….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: The minister is chuckling.

I’m really hoping that that’s not the case. The basin does actually include Golden. The basin includes the entire basin. We have people that have come from the East Kootenays that have come over and worked on the Waneta project as well as Brilliant and Arrow Lakes. So I’m hoping that that’s not what the minister had in mind.

Hon. B. Bennett: The way it works, for the benefit of the member, because she’s asked the question a couple of times now…. It seems like an assumption that the Minister of Energy decides what labour model is used on projects, and the Minister of Energy doesn’t actually decide that. The way it worked with that other project, which shall go without mention, is that that utility brings the plan to government, and the government has a look at it and says: “Well, we don’t like that” or “We do like that.”

[1450]

Same with the Elko project. CPC, when they are ready, will bring the final plan, once they know they have approval from their board and Hydro has decided, to the shareholder, and the shareholder will say: “That looks pretty good to us.”

It is CPC, not the minister. Nobody, actually, within government will tell CPC how they’re going to build this project. They have done very well, thank you, over the years doing things the way that they know how to do things.

CPC will come forward with an approach to labour that I feel pretty secure in saying will be the right one for this particular project under the circumstances. I don’t know what it’s going to be yet. I’m not going to give them a blanket approval ahead of time, because I haven’t seen the final plan. They’ll bring it forward, and we’ll comment on it. Quite likely it will be something that government can support. I don’t know what it looks like, though.

K. Conroy: Last time I checked, the minister was the head shareholder that he was referring to, so I would think he’d have something to say about it. Through the minister to the CEO of CPC, are they planning on implementing a project labour agreement with any projects
[ Page 7406 ]
that they’re going to undertake, especially Elko?

Hon. B. Bennett: I hope my critic could see that I was intently listening to the representative from CPC to learn in fact what the model for labour was going to be. As he has said and as I have said, the model hasn’t been chosen yet. But certainly there will be local-hire requirements. It will be union labour, which I would surmise is probably the member’s key interest.

The idea of moving from the Waneta project into the Elko project is to ensure, first of all, that we don’t lose the expertise that CPC has developed over the years that they’ve operated and, secondly, to see that we don’t lose people, jobs, from our region and so they move seamlessly to the next project. That means that a lot of the people who worked on Waneta — not, obviously, all of them, because Waneta is a much, much bigger project than Elko…. But it is, I think, fair to expect that most, if not all, of the labour that will work on Elko if it goes ahead (a) will be union labour and (b) will be people who worked on Waneta who live in the Columbia Basin.

K. Conroy: I’m thrilled to hear the minister say that, with his consultation with the Chair. I know that people are also hoping that they continue with the practice of ensuring that there are apprentices being hired and finishing their apprenticeships as well as equity hiring. I know that all three projects have been very successful with their equity hiring when it’s come to the First Nations agreements as well as women. I know a lot of women who’ve actually successfully completed their apprenticeships. I’m hoping that that will happen.

Can we assume, then, that the discussions — I’m beating a dead horse here — on the Elko project will then be carried out with representatives of the Allied Hydro agreement, as has been the practice with the other three projects in our region?

[1455]

Hon. B. Bennett: I’ll give the same answer I’ve given previously. I don’t know what the labour model will be. Whether it is a project labour agreement in the Allied Hydro constructors will be largely up to CPC, in what they think is best for this particular project. Same answer no matter how many times it’s asked. That’s all I can tell the member for now.

K. Conroy: The minister referred to projects that the CPC needs to be involved in. I know that there has been discussion in the region for a number of years, as the minister has indicated, on what’s next for this corporation. He’s quite right. We don’t want to see the corporation gone from the region — the entire region, because it has benefited the entire region.

Columbia Power Corp, in the 20 years that it’s been around, has been very…. It has been generous in its support to projects throughout the basin. Not just in the Castlegar area but throughout the entire basin, the power corp is well known for its generosity, when it can help out, to some of the projects it has helped out with.

I think one of the projects that has benefited the region and that everybody hears about — it hasn’t cost the power corp much money at all, and it has been incredibly beneficial — is the partnership with all the municipalities in the region.

The booth that the power corp has put together…. Every year it travels to all the different municipal meetings as well as to the UBCM and the federation and other meetings across the basin and in other parts of the province. It has been really well received throughout the region. I’m hoping that one, which is very beneficial, will carry on.

I know that Columbia Power Corp has been in discussion and has formed a joint development committee with B.C. Hydro. They have been meeting regularly to determine what projects are going to be next, in addition to…. I mean, Elko is obviously the biggest on the books, but there are other partnerships that are coming up for the power corp in the region.

I wanted to ask: what’s the status of this working group, this joint development committee, and what kinds of projects is the committee looking at?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are three parts to my answer here. I’d like to refer the member to the Columbia Power Corporation service plan. On page 10 she will see 2013 through 2018, “Community sponsorship.” I think we’ll get some comfort from the fact that the number actually goes up, generally — $85,000; $95,000 in ’14-15; $110,000 in ’15-16; $107,000 in ’16-17; and $107,000 in ’17-18. I think that looks very solid.

CPC advises me that they have really focused hard on the Elko project over the last year because it’s been on the top of everyone’s list since I was minister the last time. Actually, in 2010 it was there.

They are focusing on that, and although there had been some very, very high-level discussions — maybe less than discussions, but mentions — of other projects around the province, it’s Elko that all of the resources and time and attention are going into because that’s the bird in the hand. That’s the one that looks like it would be the best one to effect a smooth transition from the Waneta expansion project into something else, something next.

[1500]

What I can tell the member is that once the decision is made to go ahead with Elko and once things get up and running with that project, it would be my intention as minister, if I am still minister at the time, to encourage CPC and Hydro to look for the next project after that so that there is some guarantee, assurance, of continuity for CPC going forward.
[ Page 7407 ]

K. Conroy: Are they only projects in partnership with B.C. Hydro, so only retrofitting existing B.C. Hydro sites?

Hon. B. Bennett: The mandate right now is for CPC to continue to operate successfully those hydro facilities that they own in partnership with others.

Number 2 is that they complete the Waneta expansion project with their partners on time, on budget. It certainly looks like they’re going to be doing that, so congratulations to CPC on that.

Thirdly is to find opportunities with B.C. Hydro for subsequent projects. That’s where the Elko project comes in. I’m advised that there are other potential projects with B.C. Hydro out there. Actually, no one seems to think that there’s going to be a shortage of opportunities.

However, to the member’s specific question: does it have to be a project with B.C. Hydro? That’s the mandate right now, but if CPC came back to government and informed government that they had a different kind of opportunity — for example, a public-private partnership, a private sector partner — on some other sort of project, being a public utility, a Crown corporation, they would need to come back and take their idea to Treasury Board.

If it was a good project, a good opportunity, there’s no reason why government would be categorically or ideologically opposed to having CPC do something with a different partner other than B.C. Hydro.

K. Conroy: Also, in the service plan — it’s in the mandate letter too — it says that this joint committee has been providing regular updates to the ministry. Am I assuming that those regular updates to the ministry are always about Elko, or have there actually been some other discussions? The minister has insinuated that there are actually names of other projects that have been discussed in these meetings.

Hon. B. Bennett: It’s certainly fair for the member to assume that Elko was the focus of the reports — certainly over, I think, the last year, maybe longer. In the early reports, before Elko was chosen as the best next project, there were other projects that were on the list for consideration: Spillimacheen, Duncan, Shuswap.

[1505]

Once CPC, Hydro and government identified Elko as the next best project, I never received reports on those other ideas because they were basically shuffled off to the side. They’ll wait until a decision is made on Elko and until Elko gets started.

K. Conroy: Does the ministry have an estimate of how many megawatts of power the other potential projects could produce for the province — i.e., Spillimacheen, Duncan, like the ones the minister has mentioned as well as the ones that have been discussed at this joint committee meeting? How many other megawatts of power?

Now when we see that there’s been 3,500 megawatts of power created in the Columbia Basin alone, which doesn’t include Elko…. How many more megawatts could potentially be developed?

Hon. B. Bennett: Really, it is impossible to guesstimate. I guess you could do it within a broad, broad range of megawatts on these other projects. If the member looks at the range of megawatts for the Elko project…. That’s after a considerable amount of due diligence was done. You know, option 1, 12 megawatts. Option 2, 13.4 megawatts. Option 3, 26.6 megawatts. Option 4, 26.6 megawatts. Option 4a, 16 megawatts. Option 5, 41.7 megawatts. Option 6, no megawatts.

Just with that one project, there’s quite a range, between 12 megawatts and almost 42 megawatts. Not having done any due diligence on these other options, it’s just not possible for CPC to guess at the number of megawatts that these other projects might total up to. There’d be such an extreme range.

K. Conroy: With the need for power in this province, as the minister keeps telling us, why would the Elko project be looking at 16 megawatts as opposed to 26 or even 41, if there is that need? We have availability of construction workers ready to go. We got the…. It just seems to be there. I guess there’s a cost-benefit analysis being done. I just find it curious that we wouldn’t be looking at ensuring that we get the most megawatt bang for our buck if there is a need for power in this province.

Hon. B. Bennett: Again,I think the member is indirectly, in estimates, on Site C rather than the Elko project. What government has said over and over and over again is that, in fact, right now we don’t need any new electricity. The Elko project, if it’s approved, would be done in four years. We will be able to utilize those 16 megawatts in that region of the province.

The Site C project will be at least ten years before it’s ready to generate electricity. Based on the demand forecast and modelling done by B.C. Hydro, we will need the electricity at that time. It’s not a question of “let’s generate as many megawatts as we can because we need it right now.” We actually don’t need it right now. I’ve said that so many times that I’m actually surprised that the member hasn’t heard that.

In terms of why it’s 16 megawatts, it’s the economic modelling that led to that decision. I had nothing to do with it. In fact, government had nothing to do with it. It was economic modelling that…. Well, I shouldn’t say government had nothing to do with it. The CPC has worked closely with the Finance Ministry, and it is cost per megawatt hour that drives these kinds of decisions. It’s what drove the Site C decision. Certainly, as between the various options available, for the Elko project the cost per megawatt hour also was a very big component in the selection.

[1510]

You don’t necessarily get a lower price per megawatt hour by building a larger facility. What the experts determined in this case, I’m advised, is that building this 16-megawatt facility in the way that option 4a portrays is the best business case of all of the options. I hope that’s clear.

K. Conroy: It is clear. What I’m referring to is work to be done in the basin. I’m looking at jobs for people that are in our basin and even out of the basin. I know a number of people that have worked on Waneta have gone to John Hart, so they can carry on working with their excellent skills here on the Island.

I think it’s important that we look at small projects in our province and to see what kind of megawatt can be generated from a retrofit — from what CPC will be doing at Elko, if it is in fact approved. I think it’s important to look at those projects around the province and see what CPC can do in other parts of the province — within the basin but also in other parts of the province.

I’ve been told that Duncan is not of cost-effective potential. Spillimacheen — which I can never say, but the minister can, so he knows what I’m talking about — is a potential, I hear, and could generate some megawatts of power as well. If you bring those projects together, you can, over the next four, eight or ten years, get a fairly substantial amount of megawatts of power being generated at existing power plants, which are already there, and work being done by people in our region.

That’s why I keep raising it. It’s just curiosity, although I know that the CPC has also been lobbied to look at other projects in the region. I know that I’ve actually recommended a few, as I’m sure the member for Kootenay East has, as well as probably the members from the other Kootenays. Well, maybe I’m the only one that’s done it, because I’m more in tune with what’s happening with the CPC — other than the minister, I hope.

There’ve been a number of projects that have been taken to the Columbia Power Corp which are fairly interesting — good, green energy kinds of projects that could be developed in our basin in cooperation with a partnership like the Columbia Power Corp. I know that they have a list of those projects. I know that they’ve been looking at them and doing an analysis as to which ones could potentially work. I’m wanting to know where the corporation is at with that list of projects that have been proposed to the corporation.

Hon. B. Bennett: This question, plus another question earlier on, makes me want to ask the member if she could give me a list of all the things that are happening in her riding related to CPC. I’m beginning to wonder if I’m missing out over in East Kootenay.

The only projects, certainly, that I’m aware of and, I really believe, the only projects that CPC has considered are Elko and then those other projects that I listed off a few minutes ago. There are occasionally people, companies, that come to CPC and ask them if they’re interested in being involved in a project.

[1515]

I’m advised by CPC that the solar project around Kimberley apparently has apparently approached CPC. I think maybe the city of Cranbrook had an informal conversation with CPC about a non-hydroelectric dam project in their municipality that hasn’t and is not going to go anywhere, so it’s just those three or four other projects that were originally on the list.

The reason why CPC is not pushing to get more than the Elko project going at this point in time is that they are managing cash. They have some cash. They would be able to do Elko comfortably. If they were to take on more than Elko immediately — the member mentioned, I think, the next three or four years — they could put themselves in a position where they’re overextended.

As I said earlier, the plan as I understand it is to get Elko approved, start the work on Elko and make sure they do that on time, on budget. Once the project is moving ahead, the company, CPC, will plan ahead so that they have…. Their goal would be to have another project, a second project — potentially more than one, depending on the size — ahead of them, so that once Elko was done, the CPC’s expertise could then move to the next project.

That’s the business plan going forward for CPC that the board has brought forward to government. The government has not said to CPC: “This is what we want you to do.” The board actually came forward and said: “This is our mid- to long-term plan for keeping CPC busy over the next few decades.”

That’s why there aren’t a whole bunch of other projects being talked about publicly right now. There is a business plan in place, and there will be other projects but not until they get Elko on its way.

K. Conroy: I’ve got a couple of questions from that response.

It was my understanding that the VP for operations, Sue Dyer, has been going around and interviewing various people who have submitted potential projects to CPC. Some of those people have spoken to me — that they have actually had an interview with the CPC. Those are people that are saying that they’ve gone through this process. These are community people with community projects. Perhaps most of them are from the West Kootenays. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure some of them are from the East Kootenays too.

I know that we have recommended that people would go and try to partner with CPC. I didn’t understand that there was a financial issue here — that CPC can only afford to do one project at a time.

It brings me back to last year’s estimates, when we were talking about the $300 million that CPC had to give back to the government. Maybe if it hadn’t been such a large
[ Page 7409 ]
amount that was given back…. It was $280 million, plus the $20 million in interest. Maybe if they hadn’t had to give back such a large amount last year, they would have more flexibility within their budget to be able to do a few more projects than Elko, as they are very successful at doing projects. I think that they could do a few more projects at once.

There’s a number of staff there that are very qualified. It’s interesting to think that they can only do one project at a time, but they need to be working to ensure that there are other projects ready to go. I’m just curious as to what’s happened to that list of projects.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member should bear in mind, with all due respect, that CPC is a commercial Crown, which means that it can’t lose money. Yes, it has had, from time to time, suggestions made for involvement in projects in the region. I’m not aware of any in the East Kootenay, but as the member suggested, there probably have been. It doesn’t matter, really, where they come from.

There have been four or five, maybe a half a dozen suggestions that CPC has looked at and determined are not feasible from a business case analysis. I’m advised those proponents have all been responded to, so there shouldn’t be any loose ends out there in terms of people wondering about whether CPC is going to accept their invitation to joint-venture on something. I’m advised they’ve all been responded to.

[1520]

In terms of Elko and one project at a time, I’ll clarify what I have said. What I have said is that we need to make a decision on Elko. CPC needs to get started on Elko.

This is a departure, for B.C. Hydro and CPC to work together. It’s important that it goes well, because I’m hoping, and I know the member hopes, that it will be the first of many projects that CPC and Hydro will partner on.

You know, if CPC wants to take enough time to make sure that that relationship is solid, that it has all of the legal documentation required to define each party’s obligations and responsibilities and expectations, then I think that, as minister, I should let CPC take that time and let Hydro take that time.

However, once a decision is made, assuming it is, that Elko should go ahead, it isn’t like you’ll wait until Elko is built before you start to scan the next project. I’m advised that there will be multiple projects in the pipeline staged out so that you’ll start looking at a second project, I’m guessing, soon after the Elko project starts.

After a few years…. I’m just guessing two years, one year, three years. I’m not sure. After a short period of time, they would look at a third project, and they would have projects in the pipeline so that they end up never being in a position where they don’t have a project ahead of them.

This doesn’t preclude them doing more than one project at a time, but that really is up to CPC and how they want to do things.

K. Conroy: I thank the minister for his response, because I think that’s what people would like to hear. I know people were concerned that there didn’t seem to be a project to move to right away as Waneta is wrapping up. Well, it’s wrapped up, for all intents and purposes, at six weeks ahead of schedule. The official opening hasn’t happened yet, but I understand it’s producing power. I think it’s a real success story, and now people are ready to work on something else.

As I said, some have moved on to John Hart and some of the other projects. I know people are hoping to get going a little quicker than what’s…. I’m hoping that the minister is correct and that the power corp will be working on another project to move on to fairly quickly, even once Elko gets started — that they’ll be looking at something else in the pipeline.

I just wanted to know…. We canvassed this last year, and I’m just canvassing it again. The $2 million dividend from Columbia Power Corp. I know it’s done in consultation with the ministry and the Ministry of Finance. I’m wondering if that amount is going to stay the same, or will it change at all?

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, before I get into the dividend question, CPC advises that they will be the owner’s rep on warranty issues for the next three years. Although the project certainly looks like it’s finished, CPC’s obligations are not.

[1525]

I am advised that it’s about a $20 million budget over the next three years. There will be a need for CPC people and contractors to remain involved with Waneta to work out all the bugs and make sure that the owner is satisfied.

With respect to dividend, it is $2 million. It was $2 million last year, and it’s $2 million this year. I’ve only got an estimate. If Elko goes ahead, it’s likely to be around $11½ million for the next two years after that.

The dividend is based on the utility maintaining a sufficiently robust working capital. It’s really what the utility can afford in the context of the things that it has going on. Let’s assume that Elko is going on. They’ll need a certain amount of working capital. They can afford an $11½ million dividend starting in 2016-17 and including 2017-18. That’s the story on dividends — so $2 million, $11½ million and $11½ million — assuming that Elko goes ahead.

K. Conroy: I’m not sure if the minister or staff have this information — if not, I understand — and if they want to provide it. They might have it. Because the projects that the CPC has been a partner in with CBT and now Fortis have been incredibly successful, I was just curious. I looked at the financial statements, and I couldn’t read it there. I wanted to know how much funds have actually come from both the Brilliant projects and the Arrow Lakes — and potentially Waneta; I understand some has come from Waneta — to the gov-
[ Page 7410 ]
ernment coffers.

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that it’s not possible to segregate where the money came from in terms of the individual projects, but I can tell the member, and I think this is what she’s mainly interested in, how much money has been paid on an annual basis by CPC to the Crown.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

It is the $2 million dividend, up to this point. It includes this year, 2015-16. It’ll change, as I said in my last answer, next year. Plus, last year there was the $280 million dividend, so the repayment of the original $250 million plus $30 million — because, essentially, they could afford it.

So what has CPC paid? Well, a dividend of $2 million a year plus the $280 million last year. Again, I just don’t have…. I think it would be quite an exercise to try to determine from which of the projects that money actually came. But it came from CPC, and they have all of the projects. They aggregate the money and pay the dividend to the Crown.

K. Conroy: This is a question, then, to correct me if I’m wrong. Does each power project that’s operating not generate money for the Crown? A percentage of the power generated actually goes to the Crown.

[1530]

Hon. B. Bennett: If the member is asking whether dividends or any source of payments flow directly from the power projects to the Crown, the answer is no. Money flows from the power projects to the owners, so that would be CPC and CBT. The owners, then, in the case of CPC, which is what we’re talking about here, pay a dividend of $2 million a year currently to the Crown. That’s the only money that goes to the Crown from CPC and, therefore, from the power projects.

K. Conroy: Just so I can clarify, the question I should be asking, then, is how much funds are generated for CPC and CBT from the power projects. Is that what’s written up here in these financial statements? That’s the money I’m asking about.

Hon. B. Bennett: It would vary. I mean, the amount that would be paid by the power projects to CPC and CBT have the potential to vary year by year because it depends on water levels and how much power you need and whether they run or don’t run and so forth. CPC has provided an average annual estimate for each of the three power projects — the Brilliant dam and the expansion; secondly, Arrow Lakes generating station; and thirdly, the Waneta expansion.

I don’t know if the member wants to write this down. From the Brilliant dam and the expansion to CPC there’s $22½ million paid. Same thing to Columbia Basin Trust. From the Arrow Lakes generating station, there’s $16 million paid to each of CPC and CBT. From the Waneta expansion, it’s expected that it will be $22 million to Columbia Power, $11 million to Columbia Basin Trust and $35 million to Fortis Inc.

Of course, the different payouts are based on the different amounts of equity that the three partners hold in the various projects. For the two projects — the Brilliant dam and expansion and the Arrow Lakes project — there is a 50-50 partnership between CPC and CBT but a different equity arrangement on the Waneta expansion project.

K. Conroy: To the minister, I understand quite well the arrangement made with Waneta, which is 51 percent to Fortis, 32.5 to CPC and 16.5 to CBT. I just want to put it on the record that I think a lot of people in the region are concerned about the fact, when we see both CPC and CBT having money to invest in our region, that the money wasn’t invested into the Waneta power project.

Now we see $35 million going to Fortis, as opposed to coming back to our basin, which is fairly significant dollars in the long run. We know that the Columbia Power Corp and Columbia Basin Trust were all about the long-term benefits that were going to be generated in our region.

[1535]

I want to put on record that I think people are still concerned, although I will say that Fortis has been a good partner with the two, with CPC and with CBT, on the Waneta project. But I think that people in the region are concerned when they hear numbers like that.

There’s a 12-year power agreement referenced in the Arrow Lakes Power Corporation annual agreement. When does the agreement end, and at what rate is the power being sold?

Hon. B. Bennett: I undertake to get the member the information that she has requested. We don’t have it at our fingertips here.

I would say in response to her comments about the Fortis involvement with the Waneta expansion — I know she agrees with this, because she’s said so herself — it’s an on-time, on-budget project. They have done a fabulous job.

I guess you could always suggest that it could have been done the same way with a different kind of corporate structure, a different kind of ownership. What I can tell the member is that I had intimate involvement with the original conception for this project, and I can tell the member it would not have happened — period — without the involvement of Fortis.

I can tell the member that CBT was very concerned about the exposure. It’s why they have less equity in this project than others. The only way to make this project happen was to have Fortis involved the way it is. That’s
[ Page 7411 ]
not just from government’s perspective; that’s also from the perspective of CBT.

K. Conroy: I think the minister knows full well that we’ll agree to disagree on that discussion. I’m not going to take us there. I mean, obviously Brilliant and Arrow were both projects done just as well. It was a partnership between Columbia Power Corp and Columbia Basin Trust and done incredibly well, with all the benefits that Waneta has accrued as well. I think it’s been proven that it can be done.

I wanted to get…. I’ll get it in writing. I’m asking, as I did last year, for a list of the employees’ wages and benefits for both CPC and CBT. I believe we got those last year, and I’d like to get those again if that’s possible.

I also wanted to talk a bit about the board and wondered if there were going to be any changes to the board this year for the CPC.

Hon. B. Bennett: Unlike the CBT situation with their board, this is a different kind of entity. It’s a Canadian business corporation, so board members are essentially appointed by resolution once a year. Technically, the answer would be that every year the board members have to be appointed by resolution.

[1540]

Practically speaking, this year I’m aware of one person, Kim Deane, who the member will know, who I think has indicated that he wants to come off, wants to retire, and so he will be replaced. There is a process right now that the board resourcing office has in place to find a replacement for Mr. Deane. There are the two CBT reps on the board.

I can only speak for what I know. Right now it looks like Mr. Deane would be the only rep leaving, but I can’t guarantee that that won’t change tomorrow. That’s up to the board members themselves.

K. Conroy: Just out of curiosity, how long has Lee Doney been on the board of Columbia Power Corp?

Hon. B. Bennett: Mr. Doney has been in that position for, we think, about ten years, give or take. It could be nine, but it’s either nine or ten.

K. Conroy: I’m assuming that there were never any limits to how long a person could stay on the board in the legislation anywhere when it was developed.

Hon. B. Bennett: There’s no limitation in the Business Corporations Act for that. Government has policy on that that the board resourcing office follows. Typically, six years is usually the maximum that people stay on provincial agencies, boards and commissions, but I know over the years of many, many exceptions to that. I know that Garry Merkel stayed as chair of the Columbia Basin Trust for ten years, for example. I know that Greg Deck’s been on the trust longer than six years.

You know, as government, whoever the minister is responsible for the Crown agency, you’ve got to do what’s best for the agency at any given time in its history. When there are challenging issues that the agency is involved in, sometimes…. I know in my own experience I’ve said: “Well, they’ve been there six years, but it’s important that they stay longer.”

I remember with Garry Merkel…. I had the Columbia Basin Trust. I think this is the third time I’ve had it in my career here, in my 14 years. There were some very challenging issues that the trust was dealing with back then. Garry and the trust board asked that he remain as chair, and so he stayed as chair, as I say, for at least ten years; it might have been 11 years.

The policy at board resourcing…. You can look it up. It’s on the Internet. Under the provincial government’s website, go look for board resourcing. Typically it’s six years, but there are lots of extenuating circumstances that justify longer.

K. Conroy: If I remember correctly, yes, it was when the board was trying to decide if they should sell all the assets of the Columbia Basin Trust and put that money into the stock market. And if I remember correctly, the basin rose up in arms, so to speak, against that idea, and there was some considerable discussion around that.

How many board members does the minister himself appoint — actually, for both CPC and CBT?

[1545]

Hon. B. Bennett: I was around back then. That was a rumor that was swirling around in the West Kootenay at the time.

A Voice: The East Kootenay.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, probably in the East Kootenay too. There wasn’t any truth to it, but it certainly made for a lot of fun conversations.

I sign all of the documentation that formally places people on the boards of Columbia Basin Trust and Columbia Power Corporation. In the case of Columbia Basin Trust, the distinction between it and CPC is that the legislation requires government to ask local government for six of the 12 appointees, and government does, based on the legislation, have the authority to decide whether to accept those recommendations by local government or not.

The practice since the legislation was changed a number of years ago has been to accept the recommendations by local government. But technically, the Minister of Energy and Mines in British Columbia signs the documentation that puts the folks on the CBT board and the CPC board.
[ Page 7412 ]

K. Conroy: Just to remind the minister, it was more than conversation and rumors. There was an extensive number of consultation processes across the entire basin in just about every community, I think. Even in communities where there was no consultation provided, the CBT quickly made sure that consultation was done in those communities, as there were considerable concerns expressed by people throughout the region. Just to update the minister on that.

I’d also like to get a list of the compensation provided to the board members. I’m hoping that we don’t have to wait until it comes out in the financial statements, because we didn’t get those…. Those didn’t come out till May, and we didn’t, in fact, get copies of that until July of last year, so if we could get that information sooner. I’m not sure if it can be done, but I would appreciate that, if that can be done.

Just a question around the budget. Is there money…? Again, the budgets are interesting in their information. Is there actual money set aside in this year’s budget for the Elko project?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes.

K. Conroy: Is that the only project that has money set aside? Or as the minister had said, that’s the only project that the Columbia Power Corp was planning on? I just wondered if there was any other money in the budget for anything else besides the Elko project.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that there are sufficient resources available to CPC to go through this initial process with B.C. Hydro on the Elko project and get to a point where a decision can be made. I’m advised that there are resources available to CPC to proceed with Elko, and I am advised that there are resources available to CPC that would be sufficient to scope out other projects when that time comes.

K. Conroy: Is there also money in B.C. Hydro’s budget to complete the Elko project? You’ve got lots of money. Is that what the minister is saying? Or is it earmarked for the Elko project and B.C. Hydro?

[1550]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think the question — the member will correct me if I don’t get it right — was: does each utility have money in their budgets for the Elko project? The CPC does. I am not aware whether B.C. Hydro would specifically have a line item in their budget for the Elko project. Not wanting to pre-empt the two boards in making their decisions, I think there is a lot of confidence at B.C. Hydro that it will be CPC building Elko and not B.C. Hydro.

K. Conroy: I thank the minister for that answer.

That is my hour. I just want to thank the minister and his staff.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Do I have five minutes? That’s okay. I’ll give five minutes to my colleagues.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Always. Always something on the table.

A Voice: Those Kootenay people.

K. Conroy: We like working in cooperation and collaboration with people. That’s why we give a little.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Yes, we’re on time, on budget and with an apprenticeship.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: No, not when you consider the two organizations.

I want to thank the staff from Columbia Power Corp who continued to be available for me throughout the year at home in Castlegar, where their office is located, as the minister has noted. Actually, they are available throughout the region, which is great for the people of the region — as well as the Columbia Basin Trust. Both organizations are exemplary in the work they do within our region, and I want to thank them for that. And I want to thank the lessoned staff for all their help throughout the year too.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don’t want to use up a bunch of time, but I do want to say that I’ve had Columbia Basin Trust, as I said earlier, I think three different times, and two of those three times I’ve gone to the Premier and asked for it to be transferred to me. I have, I think to a much greater extent than the member is aware, watched over Columbia Basin Trust over the years.

I have said this on numerous occasions, and I’m not going to say it. I’m not going to embellish it. But the whole invention of CPC and CBT has worked extremely well for our region of the province. I must say that it’s a pleasure to actually have a critic who lives there and who knows all about the CPC and CBT and the history and whose husband was one of the pioneers — pioneer politicians, I guess — who was involved in the creation of it. Hopefully, we’ll be back again here next year being nice to each other once again.

A. Dix: Perhaps the minister would like five minutes for a new team to come, if we take a five-minute recess and then get reorganized over there.
[ Page 7413 ]

The Chair: We will take a short recess here.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[M. Morris in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: The critic suggested I introduce everybody. Thank you for that. My assistant deputy minister on the Energy side of the ministry is Les MacLaren. Les is on my left. On my right is Jessica McDonald, the CEO and president of B.C. Hydro.

[1600]

Susan Yurkovich, starting at this end, is responsible for the Site C project. Chris O’Riley is the associate CEO for B.C. Hydro — new to that position but not new to B.C. Hydro in terms of, especially, the generation side of the utility. Greg Reimer is next. Greg is responsible for the transmission and distribution side of Hydro and more recently, I believe, customer service and IT for B.C. Hydro. Beside Greg is Cheryl Yaremko, who is the financial wizard for the utility. Then my deputy minister is Dave Nikolejsin.

A. Dix: Good afternoon, everybody.

Just to give a sense of where we’re going, we’re going to start and do mostly today, I suspect, capital projects, which will include Mr. O’Riley’s section and a little bit on Site C as well. We wouldn’t want to ignore it — come all this way. Then tomorrow we’ll be on a little bit more to do with customer service and those other issues. We’ll probably end, in the last portion, which is in the afternoon tomorrow, on issues such as smart meters and the like.

I want to start by asking about the Interior to Lower Mainland transmission project. I’ll maybe just start by asking: how late is it, and is it still within the $725 million in the budget?

Hon. B. Bennett: The ILM project is about a year late. It was scheduled to come in, in the fall of 2014. It’s currently scheduled to be completed late fall 2015. It is, as far as B.C. Hydro is aware, on budget.

The member will, I’m sure, be aware that there are some disputes between the contractor and the utility. Currently at least some of those disputes, if not all of them, are involved in an arbitration process. As I have said publicly, whenever I’m asked about this, those kinds of disputes always have the potential to change the situation.

At the current time there would be no reason for me to say that the project is anything but on budget. That’s what I know today.

A. Dix: Okay. Last year in estimates the minister said: “This particular contract is a design-build contract. It’s a fixed-price contract. The contractor, Flatiron-Graham, has all of the risk for ensuring that the project is built on time and on budget.” I guess that’s true or not true, given that…. The fact is that it has impact on Revelstoke 5, on Mica, on Burrard Thermal and so on. The practical risk is shared, I guess.

Is it the case, as I understand, that the contract bid by Flatiron-Graham is for $384 million and that, in the view of B.C. Hydro, they’re going to get $384 million?

[1605]

Hon. B. Bennett: The amount the member quoted is the global budget for the project. The member, I’m sure, is aware that the so-called Spuzzum portion of this transmission line was removed. Therefore, the scope of the work that the contractor was doing has changed. B.C. Hydro is delivering the Spuzzum portion of the transmission line.

I’m advised by the utility that, as I said a minute ago, the overall global budget appears to be the same. But in terms of who delivers what portion of it, that has changed. Certainly, the most significant way would be the fact that Hydro is building the Spuzzum portion of the line.

A. Dix: And the Spuzzum portion of the line, just to be clear…. The decision was taken by B.C. Hydro in the spring of 2014, according to the update, for B.C. Hydro to take on that portion of the line. According to B.C. Hydro, it is…. They describe it as “the most exciting and challenging” portion — I’m not sure if that’s really what was intended by those words in the English language — “of the entire ILM project, as it involves five major crossings: two railways, a river, the Trans-Canada Highway and an existing transmission line.” Presumably, there’s a budget for that portion of the line. What is it?

Hon. B. Bennett: Two parts to the answer. The first one: I’m advised that the B.C. Hydro folks and contractors who are working on the Spuzzum section actually are excited about the opportunity to build that portion. I think it is, by the sounds of it, very challenging, and they’re proud that they’re able to accomplish what they’re accomplishing there.

The second part of the answer. The member asked for a specific number or budget for the Spuzzum section. There are various puts and takes at play in this situation. The member will understand that. I don’t have a number, first of all, to give to the member.

In fairness to B.C. Hydro, they’re in the midst of an arbitration between themselves and the contractor, Flatiron-Graham. Flatiron-Graham hasn’t put a number on the Spuzzum section. Neither has B.C. Hydro. It would be, I think, a mistake to throw numbers around in any sort of approximate way. I don’t have any sort of a number to give the member.

I think there’s a good reason for not trying to apply a number to that right now. I think the parties have some work to do over the next year to sort out who is responsible for what and to ensure that the ratepayers get the
[ Page 7414 ]
absolute best deal possible here.

A. Dix: So when the decision was made to take on this portion of the line…. Presumably, a number exists. But it’s the minister’s position for these commercial reasons that he can’t share that number with the Legislature and with the people of B.C. right now, because they’re in arbitration.

Surely when you’re putting together a project of 19.8 kilometres under these conditions, there would be a budget for that. And that budget, just to contrast it…. That’s, I think, in-house work for B.C. Hydro, right? The collective agreement, in some respects, provides a project labour agreement for that.

[1610]

Is it the case that B.C. Hydro is doing it directly here — that there is a budget number, and that it’s the position of B.C. Hydro that what they’re going to pay Flatiron is $384 million minus the amount of the Spuzzum section?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct, as I understand it, to characterize this as a situation where, once the dust settles, B.C. Hydro will pay Flatiron-Graham not necessarily the costs but the agreed-upon amount, less what B.C. Hydro invested in the Spuzzum section of the line.

I’m advised that the contract between the two parties allows Hydro to actually take over the Spuzzum section when there is a lack of performance by the contractor, which they did. I’m advised that the contract also authorizes B.C. Hydro to deduct the ultimate amount, which is unknown at this time, from the global budget amount.

A. Dix: During the construction of the ILM project, has there been a point when the contractor stopped work to put pressure on B.C. Hydro with respect to the project?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that there was no cessation of work on the project by the contractor.

A. Dix: I had a question with respect to the use of temporary foreign workers on the project. Does Hydro have information as to whether Flatiron has used a significant number of temporary foreign workers to construct this project?

[1615]

Hon. B. Bennett: B.C. Hydro is unaware that any temporary foreign workers have been involved in the project — not to say that there haven’t, but there’s no awareness that there have been any.

A. Dix: On this particular project the project oversight by B.C. Hydro wouldn’t include that kind of oversight?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m not sure the first part of my answer is necessarily relevant to the question, but I think the member will be interested in knowing it.

I’m advised that there is a large contractor — Rokstad is the name of the contractor — who has a project labour agreement with the IBEW on this project. Aside from that, Hydro has, in fact, looked at whether there are temporary foreign workers working on this project. As I answered a minute ago, to the best of their knowledge, there are none. That’s, as I say, to the best of their knowledge, and my advice is that there are none.

A. Dix: Would the minister be prepared to inquire and forward that information to me?

Hon. B. Bennett: What I’ll do is I’ll ask Hydro to go back and review the review that they did on this topic, because they did look to see whether there were any temporary foreign workers on this project.

I’ll ask them to assess their level of comfort with the due diligence that they did in making that assessment, and we’ll get back to the member with whether we have confidence in this number of zero or not. But I think, to the member’s central question, the answer is yes. B.C. Hydro did actually have a look to determine if there were temporary foreign workers on the project.

A. Dix: The minister has been critical, at least he was in estimates last year, of the contractor in this case. The contractor in this case has, shall we say, less experience on this kind of project, although lots of experience on other projects.

[1620]

What did the minister say last year? He referred to the contractor’s failures to perform as to the reason why a major and significant project by B.C. Hydro is more than a year late.

Is it the case that there were issues with the steel procured for this project and that a new source of steel had to be provided, that there were significant problems with bending and twisting and collapsing in the initial phase of the contract and this is one of the reasons why the contract was delayed?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that the contractor decided to source the towers. The member used the word “steel.” The biggest amount of steel involved would be the towers. I’m advised that the contractor tried to source these towers, or did source these towers, from India and that five different tower types were tested. None of those five different types of towers measured up to the specifications required by B.C. Hydro.

Therefore, the contractor and its supplier in India had to go back to the drawing board, essentially, and design and build a tower that would meet the specifications of B.C. Hydro, which ultimately occurred. But there was a delay because of the time that it took for the contractor and its supplier to produce a tower that B.C. Hydro was
[ Page 7415 ]
satisfied with.

A. Dix: Does the minister not think — as maybe appears obvious, given that it’s a year late and the minister is blaming the contractor and there are these problems — that this reflected a problem in the tendering process of this major project?

Hon. B. Bennett: No, actually, I wouldn’t agree with that. The contract was a design-build contract. The contractor was responsible to secure towers that met the specifications that were included in the tender. The contractor knew what kind of towers and what the specs were. The contractor decided to source the towers in India and went through the process, as I described a minute ago, of coming up with five different tower types, none of which measured up to the specs that the contractor had from the original tendered documents. I don’t see why that would call into question the model that Hydro used to tender the job.

A. Dix: I guess you could say that when Hydro takes over the 20 most difficult kilometres of the line because it doesn’t trust the contractor, presumably — uses those provisions of the contract to allow them to take over those portions of the line…. The contract is a year late, and there are these other issues. The minister is saying that it’s due to the contractor’s failure to perform. I think a reasonable person might argue that the tendering process in this case — and presumably there are other contractors with more experience in this type of contract — wasn’t especially successful. Perhaps this is what the minister thinks was a successful tendering process.

In any event, the minister referred to an arbitration. When did that arbitration begin on this project?

[1625]

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that the arbitrator has the responsibility and authority to determine whether there is an issue that should be and needs to arbitrated. The arbitrator decided that in January of 2015. There have been ongoing discussions between the contractor and B.C. Hydro from the time that significant delay was a concern, but the actual decision to enable an arbitration process, as I’m advised, was made in January 2015 by the arbitrator.

A. Dix: On January 1, 2015, on this project, according to the budget documents, $574 million had been spent of the $725 million budgeted. Are there any up-to-date numbers? Is there an up-to-date number as of March 31, 2015?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that as of March 31, 2015, $602½ million have been spent.

A. Dix: Just a couple more questions on this very important project. The first is…. We’ll have a discussion of Burrard in a little while and the decision by the government. There is, I think, some difference of opinion on the financial logic of that. But the effect of the failure, which the minister has, both in the media and in the House, blamed on the contractor…. There was an impact on Burrard that was a cost impact. Presumably, that’s in addition to any costs of the project.

Has there also been any impact on the Columbia projects? In terms of: have they been in any way stranded by the inability to upgrade the line?

[1630]

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that none of the assets on the Columbia system will be stranded as a result of the ILM contract.

[M. Hunt in the chair.]

My advice is that Mica 1 is done and is generating electricity and that it is currently being transmitted by existing transmission lines. No problem there. My advice is that Mica 2 should be completed sometime late in 2015, around the same time that the ILM project completes.

In the meantime, Burrard Thermal has not been decommissioned to the extent that it’s unavailable. It is available. It will remain available, according to B.C. Hydro’s plan, for the next couple of years. It will remain available probably, almost certainly, through the winter of 2016. So there shouldn’t be any issues around reliability in the Lower Mainland. Burrard won’t be decommissioned prior to the ILM completion and Mica 2 completion.

A. Dix: Just to conclude this discussion. The ILM project is budgeted at $725 million, and it’s the minister’s view and B.C. Hydro’s view that it will be completed within that budget?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d just like to clarify. The member asked me whether it was B.C. Hydro’s view and my view, as minister, that the project will be completed by the end of 2015. I’m not sure if he said on budget, but if he didn’t, he probably meant to.

[1635]

It’s not my view that counts, really, on this. All I can do is ask the experts at B.C. Hydro for their advice. And so, as I have been doing thus far in these estimates with this member, who’s asking very good questions, I will say once again that it’s my advice from B.C. Hydro that the project will be completed before the end, or by the end, of 2015, based on everything that Hydro knows today.

But I will couch that response in the context — the realistic context — that we have a situation where B.C. Hydro is working with a contractor that has done some
[ Page 7416 ]
slowdowns from time to time to make a point. Not stoppage. I said there was no cessation, and there hasn’t been a stoppage, but they’ve certainly slowed down.

They are currently going into arbitration. I think, to be fair to B.C. Hydro, they will manage this as best they can, given the situation where you have a contractor that is not…. Well, I’m not going to accuse the contractor of anything specific. It’s just that you have a dynamic where the utility and the contractor are not seeing eye to eye on this particular contract. It’s in arbitration.

It’s very difficult — I think, impossible — to predict when the project would be completed. But Hydro obviously will do everything it can within its power in this situation to make sure that it is completed by the end of 2015 and that it’s completed on budget.

A. Dix: What was the nature of the slowdowns?

The minister said that he was very comfortable with the tendering process here, right? Hydro has taken over a portion of the line. There are significant failures on the line. They’re not sure if they’re on budget. They’re a year overtime. It’s affecting other projects. And he has just said that….

I don’t know whether it’s unprofessional or not to engage contractors who receive $384-million contracts, having received also the contract on the Port Mann Bridge and the contract, I believe, on the Sea to Sky — certainly on the Port Mann Bridge. There is an answer to what all those projects have in common.

I guess the question, then, is…. Given the fact that it appears that the contractor doesn’t believe they can complete the work in under the contract number, it appears that the contractor, who didn’t have a lot of experience in this area, bought the work with a low bid. That strikes me as a failure of the tendering process as well, for which Hydro has to take some responsibility — not for the contractor, as the minister suggests, slowing down or behaving badly on the contract.

I didn’t actually ask about the timing. I asked about the budget. Is it Hydro’s view that the budget will be completed within the $725 million? Do they have…? I think they have a 10 percent leeway with the Utilities Commission in this case. I’m not sure. Does that mean that they think it will be done under $798 million? What is Hydro’s view on the cost of this contract? Will it come in on budget as stated in the three-year fiscal plan that we’re debating today?

[1640]

Hon. B. Bennett: B.C. Hydro advises me, as minister — and this certainly is, I can tell the members, consistent with the advice I’ve gotten on this project several times up to this point in time — that they are doing everything they possibly can to ensure that the project comes in on budget without the additional 10 percent that the member referenced that the BCUC has authorized.

But again, it is not a simple matter to predict the future of a commercial relationship when you have one of the parties involved in that commercial relationship at odds with the proponent, with the owner. It is a situation that…. Right now we see commercial arbitration being affected. There’s already a one-year delay.

The member has suggested that publicly I have blamed the contractor for this. I probably have left that impression. I don’t know that “blame” is the right word to use for it. But I’ve been advised by the utility that there are issues with respect to the performance of the contractor. Obviously, the contractor and its lawyers will disagree with the utility and its lawyers. That’s the nature of a commercial enterprise. I’m not taking this lightly, although there are many, many, many other capital projects where B.C. Hydro doesn’t have this particular circumstance. It does stand out.

In any case, B.C. Hydro will do everything it possibly can to ensure that the project comes in on budget, but because of the contentious issues between the owner and the contractor, it’s not something that they can guarantee.

A. Dix: The minister felt maybe I was being unfair in using the word “blame,” but he said last year that the vast majority of the reasons why the project is currently a year behind relate to the contractor’s failure to perform. It sounds like blame to me, but the minister may not say so.

I’ll move on, perhaps, to the next overdue transmission project by the corporation. What the minister has said, as I understand it, is whether or not…. Ordinarily, if you are saying that the line will be ready by December 2015 on a project of this magnitude and you’re sitting in April 2015 and you’ve spent $602½ million on a $725 million project, you would kind of know where you were and be able to answer that question. What the minister, I think, is saying is that whether the project comes in on budget or not on budget depends on the results of the arbitration. I guess that’s obvious but worth noting.

I want to ask briefly about another transmission project. It’s sometimes called the DCAT project, the Dawson Creek–Chetwynd area transmission project. When is that coming in? It’s another project of this kind — another transmission project not done comprehensively under a project labour agreement — that is, oddly enough, significantly behind time.

[1645]

I wanted to ask…. That’s a clue to the minister that there’s a theme perhaps developing. But I wanted to know, I guess, with respect to this project, when the minister expects it to be completed and, again, whether this project has come in on budget or not. If this project, different from the ILM project…. It’s not the fault of the contractors in this case — but the fault, I don’t know, perhaps in the stars — that this transmission project is significantly overdue.

Hon. B. Bennett: I don’t think that anyone is blaming the stars for anything here. There have apparently been some issues with the two types of towers that are neces-
[ Page 7417 ]
sary for this line. There is the type of tower that looks a lot like this microphone, which has one method of support and then goes out like a tree when it gets up higher. Then there’s the lattice-type tower that we’re all familiar with.

I’m advised that this being a different procurement model than the one we just discussed with the ILM project, Hydro is directly acquiring or procuring these towers. When they arrived, at least this type of tower, like the microphone tower — and the proper name for that is monopole; who would ever have guessed that? — they were defective and had to be improved, I guess, or repaired by the manufacturer. The lattice towers were late getting there. That is the reason for the delay.

The project was supposed to complete October 2015. It is scheduled to complete in March of 2016. The cost is budgeted at $296 million. Hydro expects this to be built on budget at $296 million. It is authorized up to, I guess, $300 million, but the project budget is $296 million.

If there are additional costs associated either with the defective monopole towers that were delivered or with the lattice towers that were late, Hydro will seek to recover those costs directly from those manufacturers.

A. Dix: Is it the case that in 2011, B.C. Hydro said that the project would be ready by fall 2013 — that October 2015 was a revision of that, and now we’re into 2016?

[1650]

As the minister will know, the fault in this case, I guess, appears not in the stars but in either the contractor or in B.C. Hydro. In any case, there you are talking Shakespeare when it should be Fawlty Towers. In any event, the fact of the matter is that the project, as I understand it from Hydro’s material, was supposed to be ready by the fall of 2013. Is that not the case? Or is that another overdue project?

Hon. B. Bennett: At early stages of the conception of this project, before Hydro went to the B.C. Utilities Commission and applied for a CPCN, it appeared, I’m advised, that the project could be completed by the fall of 2013. The assumption implicit in that belief was that the B.C. Utilities Commission would get through the process of granting the CPCN faster than what, ultimately, it did.

The CPCN from the B.C. Utilities Commission didn’t come until spring of 2013, so there was no possible way that the project could be done by the fall of 2013, which is when Hydro established the due date for fall of 2015. The reason, in fairness to the BCUC and to Hydro, why it took longer for the CPCN to be granted and it took longer for Hydro to do its due diligence leading up to that point, is that the B.C. Utilities Commission wanted additional consultation done with First Nations. B.C. Hydro did that. It took time.

Also, the B.C. Utilities Commission decided it needed to hold a hearing to determine if in fact it was appropriate for ratepayers to pay for this transmission line or if industry should pay for it. That took additional time as well.

[1655]

Once the certificate of public convenience was granted by the BCUC in the spring of 2013, Hydro got busy and started on the project. The estimate, once the certificate was granted, was that it would be completed by the fall of 2015. That seems like a reasonable approach for the utility to take. Until it has its certificate and its permission from the BCUC to proceed with the project, they really wouldn’t be able to accurately forecast when they’d be done.

A. Dix: What customers does B.C. Hydro have for the line? How many customers does it have? The purpose of this line, as I understand it — again, quoting B.C. Hydro — was “to support new, unconventional natural gas production loads.” Will the cost of the line be justified if LNG projects don’t proceed in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are some natural gas companies — Shell, Encana, ARC Resources — which have indicated serious interest in this transmission line in the form of deposits that actually have been placed. I don’t have the details or the breakdown of the deposits, but in total, it’s $175 million.

I am told that these companies…. Well, they’ve told me directly, so I know this to be fact. They really do not want to utilize natural gas any longer in the fields in extraction. They want to get their electricity off the grid, and there are obvious reasons for that — good reasons. It is my advice, and my own personal experience, talking to these companies, that this line is not dependent on LNG.

To the extent that anyone can predict what’s going to happen…. When you think about what has happened over the last ten years, but even over the last five years, with respect to how possible it now is to extract natural gas in places like Pennsylvania and New York, if they’d let them, Quebec, if they’d let them, and other places across the United States and southern Canada….

A Voice: Don’t forget Scotland.

Hon. B. Bennett: “And don’t forget Scotland,” one of the members says.

[1700]

It is very difficult to predict the future, obviously. But these companies remain very interested in having this transmission line built. In fact, Shell will be tapping into the transmission line probably this summer, hopefully in July. The line will be lit up in part by then. They actually want the electricity this summer.

I think it’s fair to say that LNG, while it would play a role in the business case that these companies would have developed around the need for the line, is not the only, or even the predominant, reason for the line.
[ Page 7418 ]

A. Dix: Difficult to predict, which is why it might have been premature to put “Debt-free B.C.” on the side of the bus.

In any event, we’ll move on to the third transmission line project. The northwest transmission line, which was barely over budget a few days before the election — the minister will remember; it was a very exciting time for him — a few days after the election was massively over budget. It went from a projected $395 million to $746 million at that time — which is, just to be clear, more than $395 million. Now it says on Hydro’s website that it’s $716 million.

Can the minister give us an update as to the cost of NTL?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member, I’m sure, will very excited to learn that the project is actually going to come in $30 million less than the budget announced in June of 2013. I know that you’ll be excited about that.

In fairness, this side of the House thinks that that project was and is an important project for the future of the province, not just for that one-quarter of the land mass that exists in the northwest that didn’t have access to the grid but for all of us who will benefit from the activities that have already started to take place in northwestern B.C. The northwestern transmission line is not, as the Leader of the Opposition has referred to it, a power line to nowhere. It is a power line to several First Nations. One of those First Nations is the Tahltan First Nation, hon. Speaker — hon. Chair.

I’m sorry. I thought I was in the big House in question period for a moment there. I do apologize.

This past weekend I got a call from the president of the Tahltan Central Council, a young Tahltan man by the name of Chad Day, who I’m a big fan of. He’s in his 20s and providing leadership to his nation that is well beyond his years. He informed me that they had had their public consultations in the three communities — in Iskut and Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek — and also scattered, because the Tahltan people are all over the place in Canada. So all over place they’ve had consultations.

They had a vote as to whether or not they were going to support the agreement that the Tahltan Central Council had negotiated with Imperial Metals over the Red Chris mine, and 87 percent of the Tahltan people support the Red Chris mine.

It’s important when projects go over budget. It’s important that B.C. Hydro learns from it. It’s important that government learns from it. We need to make sure that we do things on time and on budget. I absolutely agree with the opposition and with this critic on that.

But when you stand back and you look at what this project means to the province of British Columbia and to the Tahltan people…. Red Chris is going to last for 100 years. They’re going to be mining copper and gold from that mine 40 years from now and 80 years from now. When Chad Day’s great-grandchildren are working age, they will have an opportunity to work at that mine. That mine would not be in existence if it weren’t for the northwest transmission line.

[1705]

It’s also true that the Forrest Kerr project — 180 megawatts, I believe, give or take, of clean energy going into the grid from the Forrest Kerr project — would not have happened but for the northwest transmission line.

I think it’s important that the fact that the project was over budget, as the member has said…. We can argue about whether it was really over budget as much as he says it was, but it was over budget. I think the main point for the people of British Columbia, frankly, is what this project means to the province over the next 100 years.

A. Dix: It depends what lessons B.C. Hydro learns from the project. There was a significant overrun on the B.C. Place roof. It is true that we have some great professional sports teams that play in B.C. Place. It wasn’t spent for nothing, but the overrun cost massive amounts that could have been spent on something else, equally.

In this case, the government exempted itself from regulatory review and then went massively over budget. By the way, they’re not my numbers. I didn’t create $395 million. That was the government. I didn’t spend $716 million. That was this project.

The minister has gone massively over budget here, and it’s a problem. The problem is…. You see this in other projects, and we’ll be discussing other projects as we go along here. But when the government decides on key issues, on IT issues, to break up projects so that they fall under the $20 million threshold….

B.C. Hydro, as a matter, seemingly, of policy…. When they exempt themselves from BCUC review and then massively go over budget and don’t tell people about it, even though a reasonable person would conclude that they didn’t have an epiphany in June, 2013, before the election, that’s a problem.

I think, really, the issue in this case is not economic development. As the minister will know, the Red Chris project is a very valuable project to the people of B.C., and we’re very positive about it. The issue is that they didn’t deliver, in this case, as they should have done. That’s, I think, unfortunately something that people in B.C. will pay for — for a very long time, as well, I suspect.

I wanted to move on to the next round, because the minister may feel that I’m being unfair in focusing on three transmission projects, all of which, sadly — in some cases, really sadly — had tower issues, all of which were late and had significant problems in terms of their budgets, at least in the case of two of the projects.

I wanted to move on to the area of IT capital. The minister will know that when the government announced its five-year plan for information technology capital…. I think they started it in 2008. They announced it in 2009. They were spending about $40 million a year on IT capital. That amount of money was increased over the term
[ Page 7419 ]
of the plan to $80 million a year on average. At least, going forward, that was the intent. That’s what the corporation stated in various documents — its RRA in ’09-10, RRA 2011, RRA 2012-14 and now RRA 2015-16.

Does the minister feel that the people of B.C. have got value for money for what has been an enormous increase in IT capital — specifically with respect to statements made in the 2011-2012 RRA? Does the minister…? What was promised here was a reduction in — I just want to get the specific reference here — operating costs. The idea was that they would double capital costs and reduce operating costs by 30 percent. That was Hydro’s testimony in those processes, or submission in those processes. Has that occurred?

[1710]

Hon. B. Bennett: I find that in estimates there are always two categories of questions that need to be answered. The first category is usually the context leading up to the question. Let me just say that the member is doing his job as critic, and I don’t have any issue with that at all. But he has left the impression that B.C. Hydro’s capital program is in bad shape and over budget in a general sort of way.

So let me tell the member and get this on record. Over the five years from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2014, B.C. Hydro put 661 transmission and generation projects into service. Of those 661 projects, B.C. Hydro was under budget by 4.75 percent on a budget of $3.33 billion. That’s 4.75 percent under on a budget of $31/3 billion, which is the total of the project budgets at the start of full implementation and doesn’t include project reserves. Even with the impact of the northwest transmission line that the member talked about a minute ago, the five-year rolling average for fiscal 2015 is expected to be around 2 to 3 percent under budget on $3.9 billion, totally.

Overall, Hydro is under budget on its capital program. That’s a pretty darn good record. It is not acceptable to have any project go over budget. I agree with the member. I think there are important lessons to be learned, by both Hydro and by government, from any situation where you do go over budget. The ratepayer can, I think, have some comfort from the fact that, overall, B.C. Hydro’s capital budget is still within what was estimated. In fact, it’s actually, with the northwest transmission line, 2 to 3 percent under budget.

Now, the member asked me a question about the IT budget and whether the expenditures related to IT had been successful in reducing operating costs. I’m just going to take a minute and get some advice on that.

The member, I think, once again will be very excited to learn that operating costs at B.C. Hydro have been reduced by $391 million over a three-year period. He’s probably heard me say that in speeches, if he’s been at any of my speeches. I’m proud of the fact that, yes, we raised rates, but we also worked with B.C. Hydro and got their operating costs reduced. So $391 million less, over three years, than they were spending before.

We’ve also put Hydro on a fairly strict regime in terms of operating increases. Annually they are limited to one-half the rate of inflation. I don’t know that there’s another utility in Canada that has that kind of restriction on their operating budget, so I think Hydro deserves some credit for tightening the belt and trying to keep costs down.

In terms of capital costs, the member mentioned that capital costs have increased, and yes, they have. Capital costs right now are coming in around $2.4 billion a year, and 50 percent of that is going to sustaining the assets — many of which are very, very old — 30 percent is going to Site C, and 20 percent is going to new growth. I hope that comes close to answering the member’s question.

[1715]

A. Dix: Well, it’s not in the same stadium as my question, which was about IT capital expenditures. I guess one is left, since none of that answer really dealt with that, only to ask the question again in hopes that maybe the minister will answer it this time.

In the years leading into the five-year IT plan, B.C. Hydro was spending $40 million a year on IT. The idea of the plan, as stated in RRA hearings multiple times, was to double the spend on IT capital in order to reduce IT operating costs. That has not happened.

In fact, the most recent information, the 2015-16, based on that shows IT operating going up as IT capital doubled — a daily double from the minister. What I’m asking the minister is: given the fact that the commitments made by B.C. Hydro in rate review hearings with respect to the spend on IT capital have not yielded the results, is he satisfied with that level of performance?

Hon. B. Bennett: With the agreement of the member, I would offer this. Hydro would like to go back and review some of the historic documents that the member has referenced before we give the member an answer on this. They are not sure that the member is correct. I can tell you that IT expenditures are up in ’15-16. The member is correct about that. We’re not certain about some of the other things that the member has referenced. Obviously, he’s read this in some materials, but Hydro would like to go back and have a look, and we’ll put together a much better answer for the member for tomorrow.

A. Dix: I’ll assist the minister with what I’m talking about. With respect to the past years, the $40 million average, I’m referring to information found in the 2009 RRA, which shows 2007 actuals of $40 million; in 2008 a forecast of $37.9 million and actuals of $42.3 million; in 2009 a forecast of $46.8 million and 2009 actuals, which come in the 2011 RRA, of $50.3 million.

Then we go up to $77.6 million forecast in 2010. There’s a little bit of a blank in the rate review process. Then we go to actuals of $75.3 million, a forecast of $80.5 million,
[ Page 7420 ]
which they couldn’t spend in 2012; a forecast of $79.2 million, which they couldn’t spend in 2013; a forecast in 2014 of $78.4 million and actuals of $76.4 million.

That’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about it because the promise was made in 2011 and in various other places that they would reduce, as a share of business costs, by 30 percent. In fact, what’s happened is IT operating costs as a percentage of total business group operating costs have gone up in this period in spite of this massive increase in the spend.

[1720]

The reason this is drawn to my attention — as, of course, B.C. Hydro will know and the minister will know — is that they’ve made very significant changes in the leadership in the IT part of B.C. Hydro very recently, when they announced their reorganization. They essentially let go of the author of this plan, and the result of that seems to indicate that B.C. Hydro shares my view that the plan has not met its goals.

Maybe what I’ll do just to finish this, so we can get the comprehensive answer that I know the minister loves to give, is to talk about four specific IT projects, and perhaps the minister would like to respond on the specifics now. We’re not talking about gathering the data here.

The first is the enterprise financials upgrade project. For people who watched the NWT project, this is at a different level but more significant in terms of increases in cost. It’s estimated in the RRA in 2009 at $7.2 million, estimated in the 2011 RRA at $14.1 million, estimated in the 2012-14 RRA at $16.3 million. That’s all going up. Then in one of the responses, in that, it goes up to $18.7 million approved in the business case, so what you have is more than double.

In addition, one of the responses — I’m referring to response IR2.139.1 — shows that there was an additional $9.2 million in other SAP-related costs.

What I’d like to know, in addition to that, is: all of those SAP projects, which are only partially finished in this massive spend, what were their costs as well? I don’t know if you’re in a position to respond on that particular project now.

Hon. B. Bennett: A completely valid question. I wish I had the comprehensive answer that the member asked for. We don’t have the materials available to us to go back to 2009, and nobody wants to just rely on a recollection of this particular project. Again, I undertake to the member that we’ll provide the details that he’s asked for by tomorrow.

A. Dix: Why don’t I list off the four projects I’m most interested in? Perhaps that will assist us. They’re very significant projects, all of them. The first is the enterprise financials upgrade project. The second is the project and portfolio management project, otherwise known as PPM, which kind of makes sense. The plan and schedule work project and the integrated web portal project — those ones. The minister and Hydro will know that we’ve also made a freedom-of-information request for business cases, which we haven’t received a response to. I think that Hydro is asking us to narrow the response.

Those are the four projects that we’ll maybe engage in between 11 and 12 tomorrow, if that works, or in the afternoon, if that works better. We can talk about that in the morning.

Seeing the time and knowing that we want to do Site C today, just for travel reasons, if nothing else…. It’s just a little bit I can do for B.C. Hydro.

I guess what I wanted to start with on this was to ask about the minister’s decision, in light of what we’ve heard. If you think of the major construction projects that Hydro has been involved in, most of the dam projects have been done with project labour agreements. Most of the transmission projects have not. There are some within them, but generally, they have not been.

As we’ve gone through, I think a fair person would say — and I could have asked questions about the Mica project — that the project labour agreement projects have come in on time and on budget, as a group, and the transmission projects have done less well, at least in recent years. I think that’s a fair conclusion to make.

The significant difference between the two projects, of course, is that one has generally operated under project labour agreements, and the other hasn’t. The minister had some occasion to talk about that with my colleague in the CPC system earlier.

[1725]

In March B.C. Hydro decided not to “allow organizing” connected to the Site C project. Now, I presume that decision was made without reading some of the recent court decisions with respect to labour rights. I don’t know. But it was overturned.

I wanted to ask the minister whether he, as minister, approved that decision and how that decision came about at B.C. Hydro.

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, there are two parts to the answer. I don’t know if I’m bursting the bubble of the critic on this or not. I mentioned a minute ago that there were 661 transmission and generation projects that had gone into service over a five-year period leading up to fiscal 2014, and of the 661 projects, Hydro was under budget by 4.75 percent on a total budget of $3.33 billion.

[1730]

Of all of those 661 projects, only one of them had a project labour agreement. So to the member’s conjecture that if you don’t have a project labour agreement, you’re likely to be over budget is demonstrably untrue. It isn’t borne out by the evidence.

With respect to the second part of the question, the way that the common terms became public was that they were put out in draft form to contractors that were interested in bidding on parts of the job. I’m not privy to all of the discussions that I suppose took place at the B.C.
[ Page 7421 ]
Building Trades, but they, too, became aware of them.

Despite the fact that the B.C. Building Trades had actually negotiated that term themselves on other contracts, they decided to go to court without discussing it with B.C. Hydro and giving B.C. Hydro a chance to talk about it. Fair enough. They made their point. Government made a decision to remove the term, and on we go.

The final part of the member’s question is: did the minister approve that term? I don’t really approve those kinds of terms around the Site C project or any other project. I rely on the utility to have the expertise to know how to plan, design, manage and build these projects.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

A large project like Site C obviously comes to government, and government had many discussions about the project. But in terms of that particular provision, there was nothing that was even remotely similar to me approving it or signing off on it.

A. Dix: I gather that the Premier overturned it, so I guess politicians are involved. And it was the minister last week who categorically rejected going to a project labour agreement model similar to the successful model used for 50 years in British Columbia.

Before I start on that discussion, though, I just have a very specific question to put it in context. The utility — B.C. Hydro — and the Premier and the minister are arguing for abandoning this B.C. tradition of construction, really on a cost question. So I guess I have a very specific question, the kind of question that I’m sure there’s a specific answer for in the minister’s binder.

What portion of the $4.065 billion budget is for labour costs, and what percentage of the workforce is projected to be temporary foreign workers? What was the average wage rate used for forecasting purposes? There had to be an average wage rate used for forecasting purposes. What was it?

[1735]

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, I’m advised by B.C. Hydro that part of my answer that I gave to the member a second ago — about the B.C. building trades not having had the discussion with Hydro about the organizing term — was incorrect. There were discussions, and it’s important to the relationship that I correct my mistake. There were discussions that were happening.

Hydro did not know that the B.C. building trades were going to go to court. It might have been an idea for them to have had a further discussion with Hydro, but it’s obviously their right to go to court. So we know what happened there.

I think the member is…. Well, I know the member is incorrect to suggest that suddenly Hydro is abandoning the PLA model. I just read out, I think, 661 transmission and generation projects that, overall, are considerably under budget, and only one of them was a PLA project. So this is not something that Hydro is doing suddenly. It’s something that has been led by contractors, led by change in our economy and in our society, and it’s been working.

The member asked for the rough number on the cost of labour as budgeted. It is approximately $1 billion or 25 percent of the direct project costs.

The member asked whether Hydro…. I’m not sure of the context for the question but something about temporary foreign workers and whether Hydro would know how many, if any, had been hired. Contractors are, in fact, required by B.C. Hydro to report on how many temporary foreign workers, if any, are working on their portion of the job.

[1740]

Obviously, before any contractor can bring a temporary foreign worker into this country, they have to show that they cannot hire somebody from Canada first to do that job. That process will remain in place. Recently the federal government has tightened up some of their rules.

It’s worth the member knowing that when this project was approved by the B.C. Hydro board, the objectives that were to essentially be the foundation for this project included an objective of finding local, regional, provincial — in that order — employees to work on the project. So one of Hydro’s central objectives is, in fact, to make sure that local people up there in the northeast have the opportunity and then regional folks in the north, let’s say from Prince George north, and then provincial. Only after that are they interested in the contractors bringing employees from elsewhere.

The member also asked — it was quite a multi-pronged sort of question — for the average wage rate. I have to tell the member that that is something that is commercially sensitive and is not something that we’re able to divulge at this point, if we even know what it is.

A. Dix: The government has released estimates of the cost of the project, so it’s reasonable to ask what assumptions those are based on. What I guess the minister is saying is that the assumptions behind the project are commercially sensitive. Not an answer I necessarily agree with, but that’s his answer.

With respect to project labour agreements, abandoning the Allied Hydro Council model, as the minister will know…. We’ve just had a discussion on a project that worked very successfully on that basis. We can go through the list of them over time. They’ve worked very successfully on that basis.

If you want local hire, you have an AHC agreement. If you want equity hire, you have an AHC agreement. If you want an apprenticeship, you have an AHC agreement. If you want to come in on time and on budget, you have that agreement. That’s why there’s such an agreement with SNC-Lavalin at John Hart. That’s why there’s such
[ Page 7422 ]
an agreement at Waneta. And that’s why W.A.C. Bennett through to — I dare not say his name — Gordon Campbell have put forward those things before the people of B.C.

If the minister is committed to local hire, on what basis other than advertising is he doing it? You have an agreement that assures it and that has consistently assured it over time — on local hire and equity hire and apprenticeships and local benefits. These agreements have worked over time, and the minister is abandoning them for cost reasons that he isn’t able to explain for commercial reasons.

I’m just curious to know why the minister would abandon, on these projects, a tried-and-true form of construction and labour agreement that has worked in the past, that benefits the people of B.C. first and that the people of B.C. support.

[1745]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, aside from the fact that the member seems to be arguing that the way we did it before is always going to be the best way to do it…. I don’t agree with that. I think we should be open to improvement, regardless of whether we’re talking about labour models or whatever the topic is. I think, probably, more useful to both the critic and myself is to maybe clarify a couple of things.

John Hart. Actually, the member mentioned the John Hart project. The contractor in that case chose to use a PLA. Contractors who get work at the Site C project may well choose to use a PLA. In fact, my prediction would be that some will, but we’re going to have to wait and see. I don’t know. I think he mentioned Ruskin. There was no choice at Ruskin.

I already mentioned that there is a PLA or a labour agreement between Rokstad and the IBEW on the ILM project. It’s another example of how the market is driving the choices in these cases. Certainly, there could be, as I said, PLAs on the Site C project. I guess I shouldn’t speculate whether there will be, but there certainly could be.

Bottom line for B.C. Hydro and for government is that we need to get this project built for the least amount possible. I met with Tom Sigurdson and those four workers — or retired workers, who worked on the legacy dam projects — last week. I know what they think, I respect what they think, and I respect Tom Sigurdson. I think he’s an excellent representative for the B.C. Building Trades.

However, it’s our view on this side that Site C can be built for a lower cost if we, in fact, make work available to not just the B.C. Building Trades, but also to, yes, non-unionized workers, and also the other labour groups, like CLAC, that want a shot at contracts. That’s our view. We think we are representing the interests of ratepayers in this.

I understand the close association between the opposition and the B.C. Building Trades and that the opposition wishes to take their side in this and do it in a public way, and I get that. I totally understand that. I know that there’s a long relationship of mutual interests and even support when it comes time for elections.

I think it’s my job as minister and it’s B.C. Hydro’s job to make sure that we have this project built in the most affordable way possible. We think that having the approach to labour we’ve taken is the way to do that.

A. Dix: I wouldn’t want the minister to accidentally confuse some of these questions. The minister will know that it’s open to all contractors to bid under these agreements. It is. This is a fact: that non-union contractors under such an agreement are not subject to organizing, and on and on. He knows all this. He knows that it’s been a successful model.

I guess what I what I want to hear from the minister is some evidence, because we know what we’re losing here. The minister talks about making things better. How does it make things better to give up local hire? How does it make things better to give up guaranteed First Nations employment? How does it make things better to give up equity employment?

[1750]

How does it make things better to give up camp and community stability? How does it make things better to give up guarantees around qualifications? How does it make things better to give up guarantees around apprenticeship? How does it make things better to give up a proven track record on productivity? How does it make things better to do something that has repeatedly, including to the present, worked well for the people of B.C.?

That’s the argument the minister can make. The minister can say: “We think we can somehow cut wages on the project and, as a result, lower the cost of the project.” That’s not what the evidence shows, in my view, on this size of a project, and in the view of many who have been involved in those projects for a very long time. I think all of the builders who came to Victoria last week know a lot more about these projects than either myself or the minister, and they’re certainly strongly of that view.

I guess if the minister can explain how abandoning all those things makes this Site C project more successful, then perhaps I can give him the opportunity to explain what he means.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m going to start my answer by just again reminding the member that there were 661 projects that came in under budget over a five-year period between 2010 to fiscal 2014. Only one of them had a project labour agreement. That, I would suggest to the member, ought to be pretty clear evidence that you don’t have to have a PLA to come in under budget.

I would also remind the member — and I’ve said this already, but I’m going to say it again — that there may well be PLAs at Site C. Hydro is not going to impose a project labour agreement, but there may well be individual pieces of that job that will lend themselves to a PLA.
[ Page 7423 ]

I think, in a general way, all of the things that the member mentioned — trying to find people locally to work on this or people from the region or people from the province of British Columbia, the equity issue, the fairness issue — and all of the values that the member mentions in association with a PLA, we share and B.C. Hydro shares.

[1755]

What we’re saying is that things have changed since the 1950s and 1960s. We think that we can achieve those goals and embrace those values by using a different approach.

The member, I’m sure, must be aware that today 20 percent of the workforce is unionized in British Columbia. When W.A.C. Bennett was convinced to use PLAs — and the member is right — they did work well, and they’ve worked more recently than that.

Back in the day the percentage of the workforce that was unionized in B.C. was at least 50 percent, probably closer to 60 or 70 percent. Again, it’s 20 percent today. Today is just not the same. The marketplace is just not the same as it was then.

The member mentioned First Nations workers. Well, what about First Nations contractors? First Nations contractors are going to get work. They’re going to get some very good contracts from this project. I understand some will be direct-awarded; some won’t be. There may well be some First Nations contractors that are unionized. I’m not aware of any. Typically, they’re not.

What does that mean for them, if there has been a PLA imposed on Site C? It may well mean that their folks, their workers, would be unionized. So we’re going to force them. Don’t give them a choice. We’re just going to tell them that that’s the way it’s going to be. That’s another reason why I think the member is wrong to suggest that the PLA is the only way to go here.

Bottom line, it’s like the comment I made earlier about the ratepayer being the ultimate bottom line for all of this. We need to make sure that what we do brings this project in for the least amount of cost possible. One of the ways you do that is you make sure that there is access to the largest pool of workers available in the province.

That is not to limit that pool by saying: “Thou shalt only use people in this particular component over here. This group over here is all you can use.” What Hydro has suggested, and what I agree with and the government agrees with, is that we allow access to the complete 360-degree pool of workers that should be available to this project in the province.

A. Dix: Some detailed questions on Site C now for the minister. First of all, I want to ask him whether KPMG, which did some of the major work and justification work for the government in proceeding with this, will be able to bid on Site C–related work during the construction phase, should Site C proceed.

Hon. B. Bennett: What’s delayed my springing to my feet and saying yes or no is that we’re trying to imagine under what circumstances an audit firm would be bidding on any other work relating to the Site C project. No one here can foresee that they would have any role to play, but I’m hesitant to say categorically no, in the event that at some point over the next ten years there is a role for an audit firm.

A. Dix: So the answer is yes, I’m guessing, to that question.

I want to ask who the members are of the independent panel of contractors, and will they be able to bid on the Site C work?

[1800]

Hon. B. Bennett: I will undertake to get the names of those contractors. I can remember some of them. I actually have them in my House binder. If the member had asked me this in question period, I could have named the contractors on that committee. In addition to getting the names, though, I will also be able to give the member an answer as to whether or not they would be allowed to bid on work.

I get what the member is asking. I know that in one case there was a retired executive. He long ago retired from a major construction company but was affiliated with that construction company at one time in his career. I believe that that construction company would be able to bid on work. But I want to get an accurate answer for the member on this tomorrow.

A. Dix: I’m just referring to a document presented by Mr. MacLaren. There are many documents presented by many of the people here, but it summarizes the project quite well. It refers to five consultants’ reviews: the full cost update; the KPMG review, of course; the independent panel of contractors; Marsh Risk Consulting; and one other here whose name I’ll get to. I believe it’s the Mark Gilbert load forecast.

This may be my mistake, but are these publicly available? Will the minister table them in the Legislature?

[1805]

Hon. B. Bennett: Back to the previous question with respect to KPMG, I’ve been advised that they’re listed as a restricted party and therefore cannot bid on any portion of the work. We tried to write down the names of the agencies and individuals that the member mentioned. I have the independent contractors panel. I have Marsh; KPMG; Mark Gilbert, individual; and Synapse.

I’m advised that all of those reports can be made public, and we can do that. We’ll apply the provisions of the freedom-of-information legislation. I’m advised that there may be some commercially sensitive information within those reports, but I think we can provide that to the member in due course.
[ Page 7424 ]

Mark Gilbert, just to be clear, was hired because he is an expert on forecasting demand. He obviously would have provided a report to Hydro, and that can be included along with the rest of it.

A. Dix: I wanted to know if there are any or have been any agreements signed with Treaty 8 First Nations as of March 31, 2015? Which ones, and what is their total value with respect to this project? Have there been any agreements signed with local governments as of March 31, 2015? Which ones, and what is their total value?

Hon. B. Bennett: No First Nations agreements signed yet. In terms of agreements with communities, with municipalities and regional districts, there are agreements signed with Chetwynd, Taylor and the Peace River regional district. There are agreements on terms with other local governments, but the actual agreements are not signed yet.

A. Dix: It was the one thing I’d asked the minister as well. There’s a financial model that B.C. Hydro has produced for Site C. They referred to it in an announcement and so on. It was given to KPMG for its review. Why hasn’t it been given to anyone else, and would the minister be prepared to table that document?

Hon. B. Bennett: Just a clarification from the member. Are you referring to the financial analysis leading to the budget or to the unit energy cost?

A. Dix: To the budget that was then referred to KPMG for analysis.

[1810]

Hon. B. Bennett: I remember the day that we announced the Site C project and what a great day it was, hon. Chair. I know that you were excited about it, based on where you live up in Dawson Creek, and certainly, any polling that’s been done would indicate that the vast majority of British Columbians support the project, which may explain why the opposition has been quiet in question period about the project.

I recall a question from the media that day asking: “How much money does B.C. Hydro have set aside for the accommodation of First Nations?” And I had to answer: “That is information that would be contrary to the interests of the ratepayer and trying to bring this project in on time, on budget.” You just can’t share that kind of information, and the same principle is true of, basically, showing what Hydro expects to spend on the various components of this project before you actually put the tenders out and accept bids from contractors. It is just commercially foolish to do that.

I have committed to getting the various reports done by those other five agencies, and I suppose there may be a point in time when all the contracts have been let that it might be possible to share more of the financial analysis that was done both by Hydro and by government on this, but at the present time it’s not possible.

A. Dix: Of course, significant amounts are…. I mean, the government brought down the cost of Site C most significantly by changing its own calculations. It had nothing to do with Site C’s costs — the cost to build it, the cost of the power. Short of that, they simply gave B.C. Hydro and Site C a better deal with respect to the taxpayer.

I just wanted to, because I think we’re approaching that moment — the member for Peace River South is nodding his head, which indicates agreement, I think — where we have to end today’s session….

Interjection.

A. Dix: I’m not sure. I heard him nodding his head when we were talking about local hire in the Peace.

N. Simons: I heard you nod your head.

A. Dix: I heard him nodding his head.

With respect to tomorrow, just some detail things before we close. We’re going to, obviously, continue on. The first is with respect to property sales.

[1815]

One of the areas was the sale of properties — that the minister, when they announced the ten-year plan…. They were going to try and reduce, I guess, the massive rate increase that people are having to pay in B.C. since the election. I just wanted to get a detail.

According to the Q and A produced by B.C. Hydro, the amount was approximately $50 million in property sales. I’m referring to a 24-page document. They refer to $50 million in property sales. I’d just like…. The minister may be able to share a list with us of those property sales, maybe even — who knows? — appraisals of those properties as well, if he would generously be inclined to do that.

We’ll have some other detailed questions on Site C, but the detail ones I might just forward to the minister and have him answer. We’ll have a few more. There are going to be a few more people wanting to ask questions on Site C tomorrow. I apologize to Ms. Yurkovich that we haven’t finished today.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada