Hansard — Thursday, March 13, 2008 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		10531

Petitions		10531
	Hon. M. Coell

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10531
	Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)
	Hon. K. Falcon

Motions on Notice		10531
	Electoral boundaries for B.C. (Motion 39)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. P. Bell
	L. Krog
	D. MacKay
	J. Rustad
	Hon. S. Bond

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		10539
	C. Wyse

Motions on Notice		10539
	Electoral boundaries for B.C. (Motion 39) (continued)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House		10540
	Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12)
	S. Fraser
	Hon. M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10543
	Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services (continued)
	Hon. O. Ilich
	K. Conroy
	B. Ralston

D. Cubberley: Today is World Kidney Day. Here at the Legislature, members of the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation of Canada are holding a clinic between ten and two o'clock in the reception hall. They'll be raising awareness of chronic kidney disease, taking blood pressure readings of members of the Legislature — who can drop in at any time and have this done, as can staff — and raising awareness of threats to the kidney in our food environment.

It's my honour to serve as host for the event in the Legislature and to participate in creating an opportunity for all of us to learn more about the kidneys, which perform invaluable work on our behalf. I do urge cabinet ministers to have their blood pressure read well in advance of question period.

With us today are Lorraine Gerard, who is the executive director of the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, and Ken Merkley, who is the president of the B.C. branch. They're joined by two nursing assistants, Sarah Peterson and Angela Robertson. Will the members in the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: As you know, my riding is Saanich North and the Islands. The southern Gulf Islands are part of that riding. I have a petition from members of Saltspring Island requesting a moratorium on ferry fares.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm introducing Bill 14, the Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008. This bill provides for the establishment of the Transportation Investment Corporation, a Crown corporation which will deliver the Port Mann/ Highway 1 project, a key component of the province's Gateway program.

The corporation will be a distinct commercial, self-sustaining entity that will enter into a concession agreement with a private sector partner for designing, constructing, financing and operating the project, including the collection of tolls on the Port Mann Bridge. Delivering the project through the corporation will result in additional due diligence and transparency, as the corporation will be a commercial, self-sustaining entity.

The bill also allows for high-occupancy vehicles, buses, persons with disabilities and taxis, for example, to be charged lower tolls or to be exempt from tolls.

The amendments contained in Bill 14 are necessary to provide the legal framework required to implement the concession structure for the project. Bill 14 provides all members of this House an opportunity to very publicly express their support for the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, a key part of the Gateway transportation program.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Transportation Investment (Port Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. In this chamber I call Motion 39.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do call Motion 39, which I believe stands on the order paper in my name. I'd like to read the provisions of Motion 39 into the record if I could.

In moving Motion 39, I think it is incumbent upon me, and I would like to, first of all, pass along the thanks of all hon. members to the commissioners who have toiled as the Electoral Boundaries Commission. That includes the hon. Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen, Stewart Ladyman and Harry Neufeld who in addition to being a commissioner, of course, serves as Chief Electoral Officer for the province of British Columbia.

This can at times be a thankless job, and they have gone about their duties with diligence, professionalism and care. They produced a final report that was submitted via you to the chamber on February 14, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure all members of the House will join me in thanking them for their deliberations and their thoughtful report, both interim and final report.

The report derives from a statutory requirement. The Electoral Boundaries Act requires that a new commission be established after every second provincial election, to propose changes to the electoral boundaries based on the most recent population changes.

With that in mind, this commission was required to be called following the 2005 general election and prior to the 2009 election. This Boundaries Commission had an even more challenging task insofar as their mandate was not simply the standard task of examining and making recommendations around electoral boundary alignment but also to propose changes to the electoral boundaries that would be necessary in the event that a referendum around the single transferable vote was successful. They have performed that task, and I'll speak briefly about that component of their report later in my remarks.

This chronology begins shortly after the 2005 general election. In 2006 the Premier made a statement in this chamber confirming that the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer was going to be taken and that the referendum around the STV proposal would take place coincidental to the general election scheduled for May 2009. That, as I say, has prompted the recommendations relating to that component of the commission's work.

In September of 2006 the commission announced that they would be embarking upon public consultations in 26 B.C. communities from September through to early November '06. They would seek input on the number, on the boundaries, on the names of B.C. electoral districts. They would speak with people, groups, interested parties — MLAs, in many cases — and prepare an initial report. That initial report was presented via yourself and your office, Mr. Speaker, to the Legislative Assembly on August 15, 2007.

After members had had an opportunity to examine the preliminary recommendations contained in that report, members will recall — and you certainly will — that on September 12 the Premier wrote to the Speaker, advising you of the government's intention to introduce legislative amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act in what would then have been the upcoming fall 2007 session.

That was followed up with a news release where the Premier's intentions and the government's intentions were expanded upon to introduce legislation that would give the commission the legal tools required to protect rural representation.

Members will recall that in the initial interim report of August 2007, the commission indicated that notwithstanding the concerns it had heard and in many ways shared around the issue of preserving reasonable levels of rural representation, it did not feel that it had the necessary tools to give effect to many of the wishes and concerns it had heard during the course of its deliberations.

The commission, I think, quite fairly and quite properly pointed out and acted upon the constitutional requirements to preserve a sense of parity within the electoral system — to be cognizant of what the courts, the common law, said about the need to ensure a measure of equity existed with respect to our democratic institutions and our electoral system. It prepared its interim report with that very much in mind and reflecting those constraints, if that is the correct word.

In October of last year Bill 39, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, was introduced. I don't propose to relive the drama associated with that bill, but suffice to say, it was clear there was not a measure of bipartisan support that one would seek on matters of this sort.

Bill 39 did not pass. It did not become law and did not, therefore, amend the Boundaries Commission's mandate nor provide it with the tools that it seemed they were seeking by virtue of their preliminary report.

The Boundaries Commission shortly thereafter, in early December of 2007, issued a press release outlining what they were going to do next, which was continue with a measure of public hearings, a more limited schedule of public hearings, and that they would be submitting their final recommendations to you and to the Legislature by the required date of February 15, 2008.

That in fact took place on February 14 of this year, just a month ago. All members and the public had the benefit of receiving their report, Amendments to the Preliminary Report, as it's entitled, dated February 14, 2008. Members have reviewed the report and are aware of the recommendations contained therein.

The Boundaries Commission, in its final report, made proposals that would have seen 83 electoral districts for the province. That body of recommendations, their formal recommendations, would have reduced the number of districts in the north and Cariboo-Thompson regions by one each. The north would have changed from eight to seven districts, and the Cariboo-Thompson from five to four.

They did something else, and members are aware of this. They included in their report an appendix — a number of appendices, but appendix P. In appendix P they describe that as the product of work they had done in response to Bill 39 of last fall, and I suppose their expectation that Bill 39, which was introduced in October '07, would have passed…. It did not, of course.

They had created alternative scenarios for those two regions, the north and the Cariboo-Thompson, that would have maintained the number of seats, the number of districts, in those two regions. It included that alternate approach in their final report of February 14 of this year. In fact, at page 211 of their report, that section is actually titled "Our scenarios in response to Bill 39."

In the penultimate paragraph — and I'll read it into the record — the commissioners in their report say:

The government, in making this recommendation to the Legislature, continues to believe that preserving fair, reasonable and functional representation for all regions of the province is of fundamental importance, of paramount importance, and believes that the Boundaries Commission, in addressing this matter and presenting the option contained in appendix P, has produced a means, and a reasonable means, for doing just that.

We thank the commission for conducting their work. Admittedly, they began it, I think, in anticipation of having been provided with the formal tools that Bill 39 would have provided them. In any event, they have contained the product of that work in their final report, and it represents an opportunity for this House to take advantage of that. Motion 39 encourages the House to take advantage of that opportunity.

I should say this, because with respect to appendix P…. The appendix P proposals do not change the overall size of the north region. So there's no issue of any sort there. The commission simply fits eight districts into an area that, in its original recommendations, contains only seven.

However, appendix P does enlarge the size of the Cariboo-Thompson region with the creation of the Fraser-Nicola electoral district. This district includes a portion of the Boundary-Similkameen electoral district in the Okanagan region. So appendix P also contains an alternative for Boundary-Similkameen, which will be smaller than under the commission's main body of recommendations in the main portion of the report.

Functionally and practically speaking, I think the biggest impact there is that under the appendix P scenario, the town of Princeton, which is the principal population centre, would shift from Boundary-Similkameen to Fraser-Nicola. So under the appendix P scenario, the town of Princeton would be within the Fraser-Nicola electoral district.

I should say, as well, that the report — and I haven't spent any time at all on this — also contains proposals for electoral districts under the single transferable vote, and they are contained within the recommendations.

The motion that is before the House speaks to the establishment of 85 electoral districts. The motion is silent with respect to the STV electoral map. It's silent on that because at this point, that remains a hypothetical. People will be voting on that option in the referendum that is due to take place contemporaneous to the general election in May 2009.

It will remain for a future Legislature to bring a motion with respect to boundaries for an STV electoral map in the event that the referendum is successful or the referendum question passes the required thresholds when that vote takes place.

So this motion and the recommendation contained therein relate to that portion of the commission's report dealing with the establishment of electoral districts under our existing electoral system.

There is never a perfect solution, and for each person there is a different idea of what the perfect electoral map should look like. Those of us who have the privilege of sitting in this chamber have both a unique vantage point and also, some would argue, a vested interest in the outcome of these deliberations.

I think that what we have in the manner of the main report — combined with the alternative or option contained in schedule P — provides us with a balanced, practical, reasonable approach that, in the words of the motion, balances the need for reasonable and effective representation with the constitutional and legal requirements for voter parity.

I hope that members of the chamber share my and the government's view in that regard, and that Motion 39 will enjoy their support. With that, I do move Motion 39.

M. Farnworth: In taking my place in this debate on the motion, I want to take the opportunity to put on the record some of our views on this important matter.

The boundaries process has been a long and tortuous one. It has been bungled and mishandled, in our opinion, right from the very beginning on an issue that is important to how our democratic process functions and how elections are handled in British Columbia.

The public wants to know that at the end of the day, boundaries are achieved fairly, that they're not gerrymandered, that they're drawn independently, and that they have confidence that the electoral system we have in place reflects those views and attitudes.

We will be supporting this motion, but we're also going to be raising some concerns. We're going to be raising some questions that we hope the government takes into account in presenting the final legislation or the final bill to this House so that the public will know

that every base has been covered, that the ducks are in a row and that this whole exercise will not have been a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

As I said, when the announcement was made around the establishment of the commission, it got off to a slow start. There were questions raised about the membership of the commission. It took a long time for that to get resolved.

Then the commission was able to go out and do its work. It toured the province of British Columbia to meet with citizens — the public, people interested in the electoral process right across the province. I think one of the real problems in this process is that the government didn't communicate with the commission, failed to communicate with the commission, on some of the key issues around electoral distribution.

Our members on this side of the House were at those hearings advocating for rural British Columbia, for the north, for the Kootenays on the importance of rural representation, on the importance of northern representation, on the importance of representation in the Kootenays. That was very much a central theme of presentations to the commission.

We got back the preliminary report, and it increased the number of seats to 81. But it removed seats from the Kootenays, it removed seats from the north, and it removed seats from the interior. People were not happy and had a number of concerns about that. Some people are still unhappy about that. But what's important is that members on this side of the House were out strongly supporting representation in those areas of the province.

So when the report came down, we were concerned by what we saw. We said that we and the committee in its subsequent hearings need to address those issues.

The government's response was somewhat more ham-fisted. It was: "If those seats aren't put back in, it will not pass." An absolute.

M. Farnworth: It was followed by a letter from the Premier's office, which confused matters even more. We waited and waited and waited. The commission was unable to proceed. It was in a state of limbo.

Then we had Bill 39. Bill 39 again was dictating to the commission. "You shall have this number of seats." Well, that is what starts to interfere with independence. That starts to interfere with the independence of the commission. That raises concerns. We spoke out against that, because what's crucial is that the boundaries must be drawn independently. They must be drawn by a commission, and they must be completely free of any interference.

So we watched. We saw the commission go and do its work, but we also saw a government that continued to mishandle and bungle this file.

We had a legislative session, both spring and fall last year, and a bill that was as important as boundaries came in at the end. It didn't pass. Again, the commission is left wondering what's going on, what's taking place. This government put an inordinate amount of pressure, and from our perspective, it was interference.

The commission came back with its final report. It had, in its main recommendation, 83 seats, and it had the appendix P, the additional boundaries, added to it. Appendix P was based on, had Bill 39 passed, how they would have addressed some seats in the Cariboo and in the north.

Members on this side of the House are concerned and have been concerned about that issue of rural representation, of northern representation — ensuring that their vote and those ridings matter. We want to see a boundaries report that ensures that rural ridings are in place, that the ridings in the Kootenays are in place, that ridings in the interior are in place and that we're not seeing a reduction in representation.

But we're also mindful — and this is where some of the key questions are — that the commission, in its recommendations and in pointing to appendix P, points out the issues of population variation.

We want to ensure and put on the record that the government has thought about the issues of a possible court challenge and a constitutional challenge; that they have legal opinions in place to address those issues; that when the bill comes forward, they're mindful in that they know those issues need to be considered in the bill and need to be thought of in terms of the drafting of the bill; and that they have all their legal ducks in a row on the bill when it's brought to this House. As I said earlier, we want to ensure that the process does not come undone.

As I've said, we're supporting the motion. We're supporting the appendix on the boundaries. I'm glad that the Government House Leader has clarified the issue around the regions and the 83 and the 85 in regards to the Nicola and the Boundary. We think it's important that that's on the record.

We want the government to know that the opposition will study the bill very carefully. We will be watching to make sure that the boundaries are as they are in the appendix. We are watching to see that the boundaries are as they are in this bill.

Call me skeptical, but if you go back and look at the history of this file, the mistakes, the bunglings…. The mismanagement of this file is one that I think is embarrassing to the government.

So we want to make sure that the final product, the final piece of legislation, fully reflects what is in this report. And if that's the case, then it will be a bill that will have the support of this side of the House, because it will achieve the key goals which we on this side of the House believe are important.

First is that it is completely independent. The boundaries are totally independent. It reflects the issues that we have fought for around representation in rural British Columbia, northern British Columbia, the interior of British Columbia, and also reflects the growth that's taken place, for example, in the lower mainland. My own area comes to mind.

Equally as important, as I've mentioned, is that we've got our ducks in a row — that the government has its ducks in a row on the legal issues that will face a boundaries bill report when it's adopted. The government must realize that this is watched not just here but outside this chamber as well. Those issues are well known not only in this province but in other provinces. I cannot emphasize enough that caveat to the government.

Finally, I have to comment somewhat on the irony. We are going from 79 seats, with the passage of this motion, to a bill that will increase it to 85 seats. When the Premier was running to become leader of the B.C. Liberal Party — in fact, when he was leader of the B.C. Liberal Party — one of his key promises was: "We will reduce the size of the Legislature to somewhere between 50 and 60 seats." That was something he campaigned on.

That wouldn't have done much for rural representation. It sure wouldn't have meant three seats in Prince George. So I have to say that it's somewhat ironic that we're now going to 85 seats.

But that having been said, with boundaries that are independent, that reflect rural interest, that reflect the Kootenays, that reflect the interests and the needs in the interior of British Columbia, arrived at independently — with those caveats in place — we will support this motion.

Hon. P. Bell: I had intended to keep my remarks fairly short, and I will do my best. Given the nature of the comments I just heard, I feel compelled to perhaps add a little.

I find it richly ironic that the member opposite stands up and suggests that Bill 39, which was tabled in the last fall session, would have been gerrymandering and that it would have been playing with the electoral boundaries as articulated by the commission. He's supporting the recommendation that has been brought forward, including the appendix. Yet the appendix says very clearly, at the beginning of the appendix, that the Electoral Boundaries Commission understood that there was a bill tabled.

In the knowledge of that piece of information that there was in fact a bill tabled in the House, which would require an outcome that balanced rural representation with representation by population, they prepared an option that could be utilized, which we are today debating and the opposition has just confirmed that they will be in support of.

The Opposition House Leader is arguing that today he is supporting a proposal that would have been tabled and approved in the fall. Yet the opposition refused to allow it to be voted upon in the fall, which would have achieved the exact same outcome that we are at today.

You can't have it both ways. You can't, on one hand, say that this is a terrible government and that we're gerrymandering and messing with the Electoral Boundaries Commission and then, on the other hand, say that even though the outcome is the one that would have been achieved as a result of that process, we're now supporting that. You just don't get to have it both ways.

I know this opposition has truly taken to heart the spirit of their title — opposition or oppose. I have not actually seen them come forward with credible arguments or with reasonable, plausible options. They talk about protecting rural representation on one hand, and yet they refuse to allow an appropriate debate to take place and a vote to take place that would have achieved that.

I want to leave that aside because I did not want to go into great depth on this topic. I did feel compelled, though, to speak about it because it is so important to my constituents in northern British Columbia.

This was a topic that galvanized everyone in northern British Columbia, regardless of political stripe. It was completely irrelevant. My colleague the Minister of Education, who is the member for Prince George–Mount Robson, and my colleague from Prince George–Omineca, who I believe are both going to speak to this, attended a meeting of the Electoral Boundaries Commission in Prince George.

There were people there of all political stripes, and they were unanimous in their view that we needed to protect the number of seats in northern British Columbia in order to have adequate representation. The original electoral boundaries map that was prepared was completely unreasonable. It would have had one individual represent communities that were 400 or 500 miles apart and still represent populations similar to ridings like Vancouver-Burrard that you can walk around in a couple of hours. You can walk around the boundaries of that particular riding.

In order for rural British Columbians to have adequate representation, it was absolutely critical that the government took action and mandated the Electoral Boundaries Commission to find a way to maintain the notion of that rural representation and still balance off the needs of representation by population.

This was an issue that galvanized rural B.C. I'm afraid that the opposition couldn't find a way of being productive around this issue. It would have been far more appropriate had they really said what the Opposition House Leader has kind of said here today — that we do need to protect those seats. I do think that this outcome is an acceptable one.

I think the maintenance of the independence of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is absolutely critical. Let's be clear. That's exactly what Bill 39 would have done had it been passed. The Electoral Boundaries Commission would have had complete and total authority over the shape of the boundaries, simply mandating the need to protect the number of seats in rural British Columbia. I think that is appropriate. So the notion of the independence is extremely important.

There will be people in my community of Prince George who will say that it is not appropriate to lose the third seat in the community, for the community to go from three to two. There will be those that will agree with this. But the fact that it is being proposed by an independent commission, that they in their best judgment have assessed this model to be the appropriate one, I

Even though I know it will be somewhat divisive in the community, that we will need to work through that, it does balance out the notion of rural representation and maintaining the number of seats in northern British Columbia, the Kootenays and the Kamloops, Thompson and Cariboo regions. It also allows for appropriate representation by population.

I think this is the compromise that makes sense. It is independent. There has been no fettering of this process by any political figures, and certainly, I am very supportive of this proposal going forward.

L. Krog: Well, when the Minister of Agriculture began his remarks, he said that he was more or less inspired by the remarks of the Opposition House Leader. His muse, if you will. I just want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that he's my muse this morning, and I'm inspired to say a few words in light of his remarks in this chamber.

To stand up here and suggest that somehow directing the commission to come to certain conclusions isn't some form of gerrymandering or direction beggars the imagination, frankly. The fact is that last year's bill failed because everyone recognized that's precisely what it was.

An independent commission, by its very nature, subject to what legislation says, has to come to its conclusions independently. It conducts hearings. It listens to people. It considers past history. It considers legal precedent. But it has to come to its own conclusions strictly.

The opposition has called for the protection of rural seats throughout this process. The opposition's position was never, ever anything other than to protect and ensure reasonable rural representation. British Columbians, historically, have always understood, given the vast geography of this province and the difficulty in representing rural constituents, that we had to ensure that the balance between the need to have one person, one vote and a reasonable correlation between the numbers of constituents that a member represented had to be balanced against the need for rural British Columbians to have effective representation.

What is before the House today recognizes the need to protect rural seats. But for the Minister of Agriculture to stand here and defend what every intelligent commentator, what every political pundit, what every political scientist and what every member of the opposition understood was clearly an attempt to subvert the independence of the commission, for him to defend that here today is just absolutely unreasonable.

We have now stumbled along this path for a very long time so that now the Chief Electoral Officer, who is going to have to implement whatever bill the government brings forward, is going to face significant problems and difficulties as a result of the repeated failures of this government to do the right thing when it came to ensuring fair boundaries for British Columbia's citizens and, in particular, fair boundaries for those rural ridings.

As the Opposition House Leader has indicated, the opposition's going to support this motion, but the government cannot, by introduction of this motion, escape the fact of its past record in the mishandling of this matter from start to finish. It is a disappointment to the people of British Columbia. It's a disappointment to the members of the opposition, and it's sad that we've now put the Chief Electoral Officer in a very difficult position as a result of this.

We will move forward as best we can to ensure that representation to rural British Columbia is guaranteed, but the Minister of Agriculture can't stand here today and succeed in convincing any members of the voting public or the opposition that what happened was anything other than a huge botch by this government.

D. MacKay: I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of the motion that is before this floor today. I think we've already heard the House Leaders from both sides speak to the pros and cons, and the Minister of Agriculture and the member for Nanaimo have talked on why we're here today. What I want to do this morning is, first of all, thank the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the difficult job that they had to do. I think they have done a very commendable job, and I want to say thank you for that.

The part that I found somewhat unsettling was in their final report where they said: "We continue to propose a reduction of one electoral district in each of the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions." As a government we have let it be known that we will not support the reduction or the elimination of any northern rural ridings. That brings us to the motion on the floor before the House today.

As I said, while I appreciate the work the Electoral Boundaries Commission did during their travels throughout the province, I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed in the fact that the only community they visited in the northwest part of our province…. If people understand the geography of our province of British Columbia, there is an awful lot of province north of the Highway 16 corridor. The only community that they visited during their travels was the community of Burns Lake.

While people from Smithers and Telkwa and Houston travelled to Burns Lake to do presentations, the rest of the people in the northwest part of our province did not get an opportunity to make oral representations to the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I can say that of the 15 people who appeared before the commission at Burns Lake, most of those people were elected officials from those communities.

They spoke passionately about their desire not to see any loss of rural representation. They spoke about not changing boundaries just for the sake of changing boundaries. They talked about the relationship between the regional hospital districts, the communities, the regional districts themselves, school districts, aboriginal communities. They were all mentioned, and they were spoken to very passionately about those people

because they're all tied together now under the riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and they did not want to see change for the sake of change.

But the most important message they all delivered to the Electoral Boundaries Commission during those oral hearings at Burns Lake was that they did not want to see the loss of any rural representation.

Under this new motion that is before the floor today to correct a problem that was identified with the loss of two rural seats, Bulkley Valley–Stikine, as we know it today, will disappear. Bulkley Valley–Stikine is the largest riding in the province. Today, with the 79-seat scenario that we have, Bulkley Valley–Stikine is going to disappear.

Today there are 17 ridings throughout the province that have a deviation from the provincial quotient of greater than the plus or minus 25 percent that we are working toward. Bulkley Valley–Stikine currently has a deviation of minus 41.1 percent, made of communities along the Highway 16 corridor from Burns Lake: South Side, which is located near Burns Lake; Granisle; Topley; Houston; Telkwa; Smithers; Moricetown; Kitseguecla; Bell II; Iskut; Telegraph Creek; Dease Lake; Good Hope Lake; Lower Post; Atlin; Fraser; and Pleasant Camp.

There are many, many small communities located within those I've just mentioned that I have not mentioned.

As the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, I deal with seven mayors. I have two regional districts, four school districts and some communities that don't have any governance at all. So it is a challenge. It is a challenge, but it was not insurmountable.

As I said, with the motion on the floor today, we're going to see Bulkley Valley–Stikine disappear, and a new riding called Stikine will suddenly appear, which will include Telkwa and Smithers and communities west along the Highway 16 corridor as far west as Cedarvale and then going north again along the Highway 37 north corridor, which will include Stewart and Kitwanga and the communities that were previously contained within the large riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

The total population of the Stikine riding will be 20,500 people. That's a pretty small population. But there's an interesting scenario that comes to play here. When we talk about the plus or minus 25 percent, with the new riding of Stikine coming into being, we will see the deviation increase to minus 57.4 percent of the norm of the quotient today.

Minus 57 percent — that is the highest in the province. So we're going from the largest riding in the province, called Bulkley Valley–Stikine, to a smaller riding called Stikine, which is going to have the largest deviation from the plus or minus 25 percent that we are trying to achieve. I don't think this new boundary change is what the locally elected people wanted, but I do understand the challenges that the Electoral Boundaries Commission had as they embarked upon their task.

The positive outcome of this motion is that the government was and is committed to no loss of rural representation. The increase in seats to 85 will see rural representation further diluted in this chamber. But we will retain the rural representation as we committed to the rural residents of British Columbia, and for that, I am grateful.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm very pleased to welcome a constituent of mine. It's not often that I get to introduce people that are down here from Vernon, but Wilf Mulder is in the gallery at the moment. He's visiting Victoria and Vancouver Island on business.

Wilf is a fellow who is a very valuable community member, having been instrumental in the resurrection of the junior chamber of commerce in Vernon. He is currently the past president of the Jaycees for the whole of Canada. So he's certainly a young man that's making a significant contribution on the local level, the provincial level and the national level, and I would ask that all members please make him very welcome.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to stand to speak to this motion this morning. I have to say that when this whole electoral boundary process started, there was a commitment by both sides of this party, which supported it to go up to 85 seats. In the discussion in this House, there was a commitment of desire that we wanted to see the seats in rural B.C. maintained, particularly those in northern B.C.

What is being proposed by this motion does do that. It achieves those goals that were originally laid out. It's unfortunate, some of the process and the haggling that has gone on around that. But I needed to stand today to talk a little bit about how this process unfolded.

Once the initial report came out, I had the fortune of attending five of the Electoral Boundary Commission's meetings: one in Burns Lake, one in Prince George, one in Quesnel, one in New Westminster and one here in Victoria. Throughout that process, the literally 100 people or so that gave oral presentations — as well as many, many more that gave written presentations — all gave very similar presentations — those that were in favour of maintaining the rural representation.

They recognized the challenge of distances, the challenge of geography and the need to be able to maintain that rural voice. A great amount of the wealth and the activity that is created in this province comes from rural B.C., from those rural communities, and it's important to let that voice be heard loud and clear within this chamber.

I'm pleased to say that through my three years that I've had the honour of representing the people in Prince George–Omineca, I've heard that voice clearly in our caucus debates and in our House debates throughout this process, the issues that are to be heard from rural B.C. — from my colleagues from Prince George–Mount Robson, Prince George North, up in the Peace and Bulkley Valley–Stikine as well as the colleague from down in the Kootenays.

From those people that represent those rural areas, not to forget about my colleagues from Kamloops, it's been very clear that that voice has come forward, and that voice is reflected in a lot of things that our government has done.

When I read the final report with regards to the option of 83 seats, I found that that did not maintain the spirit of what the original intent was with the Boundaries Commission. This motion uses that appendix P, the option to increase it to 85. Now, there are some people in my riding that are going to be quite concerned about this, about the option of going to 85, because it's going to reduce one seat in Prince George.

I can tell you that I would not stand here and support a motion that called for that loss of representation if I didn't also have to take into consideration the greater picture. There are areas of this province that are growing dramatically. They also need and have the right to effective representation. To not support this motion would be saying to those other areas in the province that their right to effective representation is not equal to the right of effective representation for rural B.C.

Even though I represent rural B.C., and I want to make sure that that voice is loud and clear, I also have to recognize the importance of this Legislature and the importance of that effective voice. Throughout my riding, in the communities of Vanderhoof and Fraser Lake, Fort Fraser and Endako and Fort St. James, as well as many of the smaller points in between and around, they said very clearly to me that all of their economic, social and communication ties were linked to Prince George.

Similarly, the communities of Houston, Burns Lake, Granisle and those areas are linked to Smithers, so when the original report came out in August combining those areas, it created a challenge for those communities. It created a challenge because they would lose that link. When it's 85, that challenge still exists, but this creation of 85 also creates an enormous opportunity.

The new riding of Nechako Lakes will also create what is probably the only true rural riding in the entire province. There's no community over 5,000. It's a relatively small riding by population. It's a relatively large geographic area, but all those communities have one thing in common. They are all rural, small communities, and they all have the same needs and interests that rural B.C. represents.

Although there is resistance to change, as there always is, I think this creation of those boundaries will create that very unique opportunity for a very concise voice to be able to bring forward those rural concerns. For me personally, there are some issues around the loss of Prince George–Omineca, but the Legislature is much greater than any one individual. The Legislature is about doing what's right for the entire province. It's about bringing forward policies that respect all corners of the province and all voices in this province.

As we go down this path — obviously, because of the potential impact that 85 has — I'll need to be making some pretty significant decisions. I look forward to having those discussions with my wife, going forward. But I can tell you that after my discussions with my wife, if the decision is to seek another nomination and to seek to represent another riding in this province, it would be a tremendous honour to have the opportunity to represent a truly rural riding in this province and to be that voice for northern and rural B.C.

With that, I'd just like to say that I believe the commission did the best work they could do, given the tools they were given. I have a huge amount of respect for what they have done. A great number of concerns were brought forward around this province, and they did their best to be able to address that. They did their best to be able to provide the options that were required.

I think, when people look back at this, that they will go down in history with the work they have done on behalf of the province as being exemplary. I just want to say thanks for their efforts, for the challenges that they went through but also for the integrity of the report that they brought forward with these options.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to be able to have the opportunity to add my voice today as we speak to the motion that's on the floor considering an issue that is of utmost importance to not just British Columbians but to people around the world. That's the opportunity for people to have effective representation in the Legislature or whatever form of government represents them.

I can tell you that as we've worked our way through this process, as has been referenced by my colleague who represents Prince George North, we have had countless conversations and phone calls with people across British Columbia, not simply in northern British Columbia but in rural and urban British Columbia, about the importance of effective representation.

I want to just read a quote from a letter recently received — in fact, today — from the office of the mayor in the city of Prince George. One of the things we've been grappling with is: how do we ensure that northern British Columbians, in our case, have effective representation? There's a great paragraph in here that talks about that from our municipality. I want to quote:

People want to know that their views and their values and their concerns are reflected and heard in the seat of government. One of the things that I'm very proud of in northern British Columbia is that when the debate began about whether or not we should reduce representation in northern B.C., one of the strongest messages that I heard as a representative of that part of the province was that we don't want to not reflect the growth that's been seen in the other parts of British Columbia.

It's as important when we have areas of growth that there is effective representation for those residents as well. So one of the things that we grappled with from the beginning of this process is: how do you reflect growth but also preserve the important voices that are necessary in northern and rural parts of British Columbia?

Despite all that's been said in this House today, I can assure you that one thing that we have been clear and unequivocal about on this side of the House, led by the Premier of British Columbia, is the fact that we would not support a report, a recommendation or legislation that reduced rural or northern representation. That has been clear and unequivocal, and at each step of the way we've said we're not supporting it if it reduces representation for northern and rural British Columbia.

I know that several members, including the House Leader, have very clearly underlined the process that we've undergone to reach this point today, and I want to add my thanks to the commission as well. They certainly were given a challenging task with the tools that they had, and despite our best efforts as a government to actually increase and give a more effective set of tools to the commission, that did not proceed through this Legislature.

The task that they were given was within a particular framework. In fact, they were unable, under the current circumstances, to grapple with one of the most fundamental concerns expressed by British Columbians across this province, and that was fair and effective representation.

But they did give us an alternative. They gave us an option, and in their final report they made it clear that, if Bill 39 had been successful, there were boundaries that would have been created that would have reflected not only the views and values of British Columbians but certainly the intent of the government of British Columbia, led by the Premier.

Today the motion that comes to the floor respects the importance of reflecting growth. It takes the balance and the main parts of the report that are presented, but it does take appendix P, which in fact brings to life and to fruition the commitment that this government has had from the beginning of this process, and that is that we will not see a reduction in representation.

We should reflect the fact that boundaries will change and relationships within ridings will change, and that is not always comfortable. You've actually heard members of this House stand today who are impacted by those boundary changes. But the boundaries have been created by an independent panel. They, in fact, provide effective and fair representation in areas of growth and in rural British Columbia.

I am very proud today to stand on this side of the House to support the motion, which actually brings to completion a promise made by the government of British Columbia that we will not see a reduction in rural or northern representation. I will certainly be enthusiastically supporting the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, here we are. We stand on the threshold of taking one more torturous step along the path that is boundary realignment in British Columbia. I am gratified to learn of the support that appears to be present within the House that will allow this motion to move forward with what I think will be a strong measure of bipartisan support. That is helpful and, I think, will also be gratifying for the Boundaries Commission, whose work has provided us with the tools we now require to move forward on the strength of this motion and draft the requisite legislation.

That is the process, for the information of members. I think most know that following the passage of this motion, the government will set to work drafting a formal legal instrument that will create the boundaries, the maps and the legal descriptions required to be in place for the election in May of 2009. That will all happen on the strength of the motion that has been debated and will soon be voted on in this chamber.

I feel compelled to make these observances. The appendix P that it sounds to me like the House is drawn towards adopting as a reasonable mechanism by which to ensure the representation in the two regions discussed — the north and the Cariboo-Thompson — was drawn up in a very purposeful way by the Boundaries Commission.

In fact, the section of the report that it is included in begins with the heading "Our scenarios in response to Bill 39." So it's unfortunate that some attempt has been made to characterize the legislative initiative that was introduced last fall in the way that it has been characterized here today, where the genuine intent was to provide the commission with the tools that it indicated it required to accomplish the purpose that is being met here today.

I note that had there been a genuinely nefarious intention, that debate would not have ended the way it did. We spent more time last fall on that bill than on any other. We spent ten sittings through seven sitting days.

It was my hope and the government's hope that the government and the opposition could come to an agreement around the rationale for creating those tools. We did not. That's unfortunate, and therefore, the bill didn't pass.

It didn't pass because the government thought it important that a measure of this sort should not be the product of an imposition by the majority. I understand that there will be an attempt by some to characterize those events in a certain way. I would suggest that the events speak for themselves. Far from being any attempt to direct — or improperly influence is probably the better phrase — exactly opposite was the case. It was an attempt to create the tools.

As it turns out, it sounds like everyone in this House believes the commission required…. It sounds like virtually everyone in the House is going to applaud and adopt the recommendations that flow from the final report that include a very significant piece that represents the commission's response to a piece of legislation, a bill. A piece of legislation that they anticipated would become law did not, and as a result, it appears as appendix P and forms a portion of the motion that is before the House today.

That is the history, and it is history. We will move forward. I appreciated the remarks of all who spoke in this chamber. We will set to work now on the strength of the vote that will happen in a moment to draft the necessary piece of legislation, bring it before the chamber.

The opposition will have an opportunity to scrutinize and ensure that the maps are as they should be and the descriptions are as they should be. Then we will have empowered the Chief Electoral Officer to do the work that he needs to do in advance of the May 2009 vote that is drawing ever closer. British Columbians will be able to go to the polls secure in the knowledge that a process has completed itself, and electoral boundaries that find an adequate balance between proper, fair, effective representation and relative voter parity once again exist in the province of British Columbia.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; K. Whittred in the chair.

S. Fraser: Just a couple of questions — certainly, a bit of clarification.

On section 2, I'll go over section 2(a)(iii), (v) and (vi). They're all talking about this "mortgage of the lease registered against the title to Block B in the land title office in favour of The Bank of British Columbia…." It goes on to say: "the mortgage of the lease registered in the land title office in favour of Hongkong Bank of Canada…." I'm just doing the first parts of these.

I'll start with those two. Could I just get some clarification from the minister as to what that is referring to?

Hon. M. de Jong: Those are charges that relate to the present lessee, and therefore, follow the transaction.

S. Fraser: Now, the golf course is a significant part of this bill. Can the minister…. This bill is separate from the treaty process. I'm getting a nod, so I'll continue with that.

How will this affect, or will it affect, presumably, the future treaty negotiations as far as land goes?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I should do is introduce to the House on my right John Pyper and on my left Tom Nykyforuk, who are joining us today to work through the legislation and, as in the case of this question, reference to the agreement from which this legislation flows.

The best way I can answer the member's question is to refer to the agreement, section 6.01. I'll read it; it's not that lengthy. Under the heading "Reconciliation":

So it becomes a factor, and as the agreement points out, it constitutes a contribution towards that final settlement.

Just further, so that I can understand this. Since there was direct reference, through this land acquisition, to treaty that this would…. Even though it's outside of the treaty process, it's directly referred to as having an effect on the treaty process.

My understanding is that the Musqueam are on stage 4, I think. Will this expedite that treaty process? Will this bill actually form a basis to move the treaty process further ahead? It's still formally outside of the treaty process.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good question. I don't know that I have a precise answer. I do know this — that the ability to move forward with complex negotiations

depends very much on the nature of the relationship that exists between the parties who are at the table. I have no doubt that the conclusion of this agreement enhances that relationship greatly, and we heard that from Chief Campbell directly.

My hope is that as we take these steps along the path that is reconciliation — as we establish bona fides, good faith and an ability to work closely together — that will reflect itself positively in the work that is taking place and will continue to take place at other tables, including the treaty table.

S. Fraser: Then further to that, has the treaty table been active during this process since the court challenge happened? Did that have any effect on the treaty process for the Musqueam?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's fair to say that in the last number of months, the majority of the negotiating effort has been directed towards this agreement. That is, I think, logical and also a reflection of the capacity that both sides possess, but also reflective of the desire to achieve something tangible. So the efforts have been very much directed at this agreement.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. It would be expected for the last couple of months, certainly. I was thinking more the last couple of years.

Has the treaty table been active with this court decision being decided on and then a ruling made to go back for consultation? Did all that consultation take place, or a majority of it, through this bill — I don't want to say at the expense of the treaty process — or was the treaty process active parallel to this?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's fair to say that in the aftermath of some of the judgments that have been instrumental in terms of a relationship with the Crown, the effort has been largely focused around attempting to resolve that. That evolved into a larger discussion of the sort that we see reflected here. The treaty table has not been particularly active in the last two years.

The Auditor General, as the minister knows, was somewhat critical in his last report — I don't like to say side deals — of deals outside of the treaty process. I think in a lot of cases he was referring more to forest and range agreements, FRAs and FROs, and that sort of thing, as causing some confusion around where the treaty process starts and where it ends. Side deals may actually impede the progress of the treaty process.

Was that ever discussed? I understand this was mandated by the courts. What I'm thinking of is other first nations. They've seen this sort of litigation process lead to a bill that led to some form of reconciliation outside of the treaty process and instead of the treaty process from a first nation that was actively involved in the treaty process and fairly far along in that stage 4.

I'm just wondering: has that been discussed or thought about — how that will affect the treaty process not just for the Musqueam but for others that are involved in the process? Does this sort of muddy the waters of the treaty process further? Again, I'm using the basis of what the Auditor General referred to in his last report.

Hon. M. de Jong: I also recall the passage in the Auditor General's report, and I can tell the member, first of all, that much thought has gone into the notion generally.

I think I know what the Auditor General was trying to communicate and, in fact, think that they may have said something subsequent to that. But as it appeared in the report, candidly, I disagreed with the statement. I think done recklessly, that could be the effect. Done properly, incremental or interim agreements can actually facilitate moving forward to larger agreements.

It really, in many ways, is a case of building trust. Treaties, final agreements, are hugely complex, complicated documents. I think we'd all like to say: "Let's take that step all at one time." For some communities we've been able to do that. Six communities have signed off on treaties in the last number of months. But even there, there have been agreements along the way — forest and range agreements or other things — that have helped develop the relationship.

So the member is wise in raising the issue. Ultimately, it will always depend on the specific circumstances, but I think there are times when an interim or incremental agreement is precisely what's needed to help the parties get to first base, as it were. If we're going to stand at the plate and wait for the home run, we may be waiting a long, long time.

I think that one does need to be careful about not disincenting the move towards a treaty. At the same time, though, one needs to recognize that at times — and the member correctly points out there was another imperative at play here, and that related to some outstanding litigation — there will be other circumstances in which it makes eminent sense to take a couple of smaller steps rather than just wait for the one large step.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister. I do not disagree, certainly, with his last statements. However, his comments about the Auditor General's report and his disagreeing with that, I suggest….

I mean, the Auditor General is quite clear on the forest and range agreements — FRAs, FROs. They were not particularly helpful in the treaty process as was, actually, The New Relationship as it stands still today — a non-formal document, unsigned, not legislated, causing nothing but confusion throughout the process of the new relationship, if you will, and the treaty process.

That's been reaffirmed by recent solicitations from the leadership council to try to get that new relationship formalized. I think the Auditor General's statements have proven true. Also, the recent aboriginal forest commission's work has certainly affirmed that the FRAs and FROs haven't, in general, helped first nations

at all and yet have still caused some problems as far as clarification goes with the treaty process.

I'll move on. Towards the end, subsection (vi): "the undersurface rights and other reservations and exceptions registered in the land title office under number BW194454." The subsurface rights. Were there existing subsurface rights with the previous owner, with the University of British Columbia? And if not, does this represent a significant change?

Hon. M. de Jong: The reservation of what I am advised are Crown subsurface rights does not change under these provisions.

S. Fraser: Just on a broader question about section 2. Obviously, the removal or the redistribution of these lands in the name of reconciliation I support as the critic, and the minister knows that. But it has been controversial, no doubt. Everyone here is aware of that.

I think the public deserves a bit of clarification on that. So that's sort of the context I'm asking the question in. I know there was concern that the bill — or certainly the announcements that were coming up to this bill — does not state that the course will be continued for public golf course purposes until 2008, only for golf course purposes.

There is concern from the public about access. Is there anything in the bill that affirms that public access, or is that at the discretion of the Musqueam?

Hon. M. de Jong: The agreement from which this legislation derives in schedule F refers to the golf course use restrictive covenant and sets out, in detail, the requirement that the lands be maintained for use as a golf course until the period ending December 31, 2082. It also further says that the transferor hereby covenants, promises and agrees that during the term, the lands will not be used except as a golf course and compatible ancillary uses.

There are two things that flow from that. There is presently a lease in place which, obviously, directs the manner in which the golf course is operated and managed. I believe that lease is in place until 2015. Decisions will be made at that time about how the golf course is operated. Those will be business decisions, and like any business, there will be an interest in attracting the widest possible use and in generating revenues from that. It will be a process that will continue during the life of the restrictive covenant until at least December 31, 2082.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. So post-2015 and the use as a golf course…. I look at it like a municipal zoning sort of thing. Uses are already set and established for the next 60 years or whatever, but there's no stipulation of public use. So it could be operated — I mean, it's discretional — as a private club. Is that possible?

Hon. M. de Jong: At the expiration of the existing lease, the operator — whoever that is…. It may be a renewal of the existing lease, or it may be offered to some other operator. There will be a decision made — based, presumably, on business considerations — about the manner in which it is operated as a golf course. The member is correct; there's a range of options available there.

S. Fraser: So that could include a sale of the leasehold to a private operator. That's an option that could be contemplated? That's within the realm of management decisions?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer to that is yes. There's no guarantee that the present lessee will continue to operate. I'm not an expert on what the present lease is or if there's a renewal provision, but theoretically, yes. The lessee could change during the course of the next 60 or 70 years.

Can the minister lay out how he proceeded to come to this settlement? I mean, the public didn't seem to be involved. I may have missed something there; I didn't have any meetings involved with this. I know this was ordered by the courts, but I think the public would like to know the process that did lead to some controversy — just a thumbnail sketch. Did this involve the larger public?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've heard other questions along similar lines, and what I generally do is remind people that the negotiation with respect to the golf course lands derived from a very public exercise, which is a matter being befornd a very public order or ruling from the courting some things< We don't, as a general rule, negotiate settlements around litigation in a public domain, and I am the first to admit and acknowledge that. This agreement had some additional provisions contained in it, but the original genesis for this part of the discussion derived from that public declaration from the courts that an attempt was being made to transfer, which the court found did not qualify and did not meet the test for consultation and accommodation.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that, and I agree with the court decision. Obviously, proper accommodations and consultation did not occur. This is the aftermath of that, and I understand that. I understand, certainly, the trend towards dealing with these court decisions. They're not necessarily in public. The fallout of that is not necessarily a public process.

This had a very public fallout. There was definitely a direct effect on the public. So I just wanted to clarify that the process was maybe by necessity a private one through the courts, but this was done largely secretly. I think it raised a lot of speculation.

Looking at this in hindsight, there might have been a better way to do this to ensure that the public were more inclusive and more supportive of this bill.

S. Fraser: This is another controversial section as far as some elements of the public go, largely because it is around parkland. Of course, there will be a ceasing of regional park status under this section.

I guess a similar question…. Maybe I'll get the same answer. Again, public outrage in some cases was raised over this. I guess there's fear from the public, because they weren't involved in this. They just don't know.

Is this a precedent? It isn't part of the treaty process — we've already established that — although it's linked to the treaty process potentially. Parkland acquisition for settlement of treaty is certainly a discussion that the public, I think, wants to have. Was the public involved in these discussions?

Hon. M. de Jong: In many ways — the member is correct to this extent — people cherish the parks we have in a very urban part of the province. These are incredibly valuable assets that exist for the broader public good.

Ironically, the public component of this dates back long before the hon. member and I were sitting in this chamber — back as far as 1989, when the regional park was first created. This is something that I think many people choose not to remember or genuinely don't remember.

When the park was proposed in the transfer by the government of the day, the Musqueam, as I think the member knows, stood up and said: "Whoa, whoa, whoa." This was at a different time, when tests around consultation and accommodation…. Those concepts weren't known. In fact, the Canadian constitution had not yet been repatriated, and notions of existing aboriginal rights were foreign to the discourse that took place.

Yet even in those days, there was a recognition that something was as yet unresolved. The attempt to transfer actually became the subject, again, of public litigation at that time and was only permitted to proceed on the strength of a specific affidavit being obtained, recognizing that the creation of the park and transfer of the land was taking place subject to the rights of the Musqueam and without prejudice to their rights to pursue the claims they had in that traditional territory.

People in many cases weren't around and choose not to remember that, but that was a very important decision that actually facilitated the creation of the park in the first place, when it was transferred for the sum of $1.

So in many ways what's taking place here today is a further chapter in that saga, where we are beginning the process of resolving that issue and the transfer and the removal of a portion of the land from the park.

Also, the other point I do make to people is that in the case of one of the blocks, which I think is block K, which is closest to the golf course, the land that is being removed from Pacific Spirit Park does not really — most of it — resemble much in the way of park. Ironically, the land that is being redesignated park, from the golf course, is actually the land that is used very much as a park — has trails, has park-like amenities. The objective there was not to see any overall diminishment in the park areas.

This is, again, an evolution of the attempt to resolve that unresolved issue from 1989 and do it in a way that takes into account the interest and passion people have for access to parkland, but also accommodate the interest that the Musqueam have to develop some solutions to their housing challenges.

It's all about trying to find that balance. I obviously believe, and I think the member does, that we have settled upon a solution here that does achieve that balance. That doesn't mean there won't be lots of commentary and there hasn't been lots of commentary from those who, quite justifiably, point out their passion for the maintenance and creation of additional park space.

S. Fraser: The committee rises, reports progress and seeks leave to sit again after lunch.

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. O. Ilich: This morning the staff I have with me in attendance include Lori Wanamaker, the deputy minister; John Bethel, the ADM of the ASD secretariat; Tara Faganello, the executive financial officer; Jim Weir, director of budgets and performance; and Sharon Plater, director of the IM/IT privacy and legislation part of our ministry.

We'll be adding more staff, depending on what kind of topics you want to be talking about. We might need to bring other people in. For instance, there are some real estate people and others sitting upstairs, waiting in my office. I guess Dave Nikolejsin is upstairs. As people come in, we'll introduce them to you.

K. Conroy: Yesterday before we ended, we were talking about freedom-of-information issues, and I just want to continue on with that. The minister had stated yesterday that the freedom of information and protection and privacy are actually located within her ministry, but other ministries are responsible for individual freedom-of-information issues.

I just would like to ask: who, which ministry, is responsible for granting cabinet secrecy to the climate change committee?

Hon. O. Ilich: The act, in division 2, actually says, section 12: "Cabinet and local public body confidences." Section (6) of that says: "A committee may be designated under subsection (5)…." What we've done is…. There's a regulation made to the act that designates any cabinet committee under the act. We can provide that to you, if you'd like.

K. Conroy: What I was actually asking of the minister is: who would make that determination, then? Is it done at the cabinet level, or is it done through the ministry? Or was it actually within the climate change committee itself that that decision was made?

K. Conroy: Would the same provision apply to B.C. Ferries being removed from the scope of the act?

Hon. O. Ilich: That was a decision of the Legislature as part of the B.C. ferries act.

Hon. O. Ilich: VANOC actually doesn't fall under the FOIPPA Act for inclusion, because it includes federal bodies.

K. Conroy: So is it my assumption that it would have been the federal body that excluded it, then, from freedom of information? As it is, there are a lot of provincial issues that are dealt with within the body of VANOC.

Hon. O. Ilich: There is a set criteria that sets out what will be included in the act and what is not included in the act. We do cover more than 2,000 public bodies in British Columbia, but we don't cover VANOC because of the inclusion of the federal component. We will get you that piece of the legislation as soon as we can find it.

K. Conroy: In 2004 the Legislative Assembly had a Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Quite a detailed report was released. As I referred to yesterday, I understand that in 2005 another review was done, and there was no report released. But I understand that there were a number of submissions made by various public bodies.

I'm wondering if it's possible to have the minister agree to share the submissions made to the committee in 2005 with the opposition.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think what the member is referring to is a contractor that was hired by the ministry in 2005 to take a look at some of the 300 recommendations that we have had come in over the past time from various numbers of groups.

There has been a freedom-of-information request to review those submissions, and that's currently before the commissioner. As soon as he's finished with them, that information will be released.

K. Conroy: The minister might agree that there is some irony in the fact that submissions made to a committee to look at freedom of information are being withheld. I'm not quite sure…. I understand that there might be some concern about some of the submissions, but I think it's important that we can clear the air on recommendations around how we can properly deal with freedom of information in this province.

I find it ironic that those types of submissions would have to be…. In order to get access to those submissions, we would have to do a freedom-of-information request to actually look at them. I'm sure the minister can find some irony in that. The actual submissions are secret when it comes to freedom of information. Hopefully, we can access those through freedom of information sooner rather than later.

Yesterday I referred to a case of the University of Victoria environmental law clinic, which filed a complaint against the three ministries. The ministries now are the ministries of Forests, Agriculture and Environment. As I said yesterday, this investigation pointed to the systemic problems with the way that the Ministry of the Environment, especially, had responded to the freedom-of-information requests from various environmental committees.

I want to quote, for the record, Gwen Barlee, the Wilderness Committee policy director. "Internally, we've known for years that environmental groups have had a

harder time getting government information, were more likely to be charged fees and have had to wait longer than other requesters. It's a relief to finally have these problems acknowledged by an independent third party. We hope this represents a shift in the Ministry of Environment's culture of denial."

Just to summarize from yesterday, the minister had said that her ministry will be working closely with the Ministry of Environment to ensure that this — I'll quote Miss Barlee again — culture of denial and these problems don't continue within this ministry.

I wanted to talk about another example, and that is the severing of information when it comes to freedom-of-information reports. I think it was documented most clearly with the freedom-of-information request that went in from Times Colonist journalist Lindsay Kines.

He put in a freedom-of-information request on the sexual abuse intervention program. When he received the report, he coincidentally received an uncensored report at the same time. What was uncovered was the highly arbitrary nature of censorship in the freedom-of-information request.

I'm wondering: is the ministry also working with the Ministry of Children and Families to ensure that this type of severing doesn't continue in the future?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think we're aware of the case with the Ministry of Children and Families. That is where section 13 of the act has been used to sever some information in the report. That is currently before the commissioner to look at.

I will say that section 13 is one of the portions of the act that we are providing a lot of training on. We've had twelve training sessions, and about 30 people have come per session. What we're concerned about as the administrators of the act is to make sure that the act is used appropriately by the various ministries and the other departments that it covers.

That particular issue from the Ministry of Children and Families is before the commissioner right now, and they should have a ruling on that soon.

K. Conroy: We understand that it's before the commissioner. I think it's important to acknowledge some of the things that were severed. It was obvious that the agencies that were working with sexually abused children were unanimous in their view that the program funding is insufficient and that this was a critical element for mental health services for children.

It was a pervasive view among providers that the program has been neglected by government decision-makers over the past several years. What the severing did…. All criticisms of the government were taken out. It was whitewashed. The positive comments were left in, and the negative ones were removed.

To quote Les Leyne from the Times Colonist: "The editing is obviously designed to produce a watered-down report that has some rather mushy observations about how a few details could perhaps be better handled." But I think what shows when Mr. Kines got the uncensored version — in fact, Les Leyne says it was like the lights were turned on from trying to read in the dark — is how the potentially damaging information was bled from the report, just taken right out.

I'm hoping that in the training that is going on, the Ministry of Children and Family Development staff that are involved in the FOI are actually involved, because it's obvious that section 13 from the act was improperly utilized.

From the minister's perspective, it's difficult when her ministry is responsible for the freedom of information, and yet it's the Ministry of Children and Families that is directly severing the information. So I can be assured from the minister's comments, then, that the Ministry for Children and Families is also definitely involved in this training?

Hon. O. Ilich: The commissioner on that particular case has not ruled yet, but I can tell you that we are committed to addressing the questions around the interpretation of section 13, and we are going to continue to hold training sessions with staff within the government and also outside in other cities so that other public bodies can understand how section 13 has to be applied.

Section 13 is very specific as to what needs to be released and what can be withheld. This was a subject of a court case. It did go all the way to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal ruled. What we're trying to make sure is that there is not too broad an interpretation of section 13, so that information can be released where it should be appropriately done.

K. Conroy: It's my understanding…. Yesterday the minister said that even though her ministry and she as minister are responsible for freedom of information, it's the other ministries themselves that are responsible. So I'm taking by that conclusion that the other ministers are responsible for freedom of information within their own ministries.

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, that would be correct. Each ministry is responsible — the head of every public body is responsible — for their own administration of the act.

K. Conroy: I think it's important, then, that perhaps the minister or the ministry might want to have some training with the actual ministers. I refer to the Minister of Children and Families. He said he has no involvement at all in any in the releasing or vetting of documents under the freedom of information, but he's ultimately responsible for it. So I think that it's important that the ministers are involved in this.

Is there anything the ministry will do to ensure that the ministers can…? In this specific case he said that he had absolutely…. He denied any knowledge of it, but it's his ministry that's responsible for this. It's him as minister that's ultimately responsible for the release of this information. I would ask if the minister has any plans for the other ministers involved in the government.

Hon. O. Ilich: The head of the public body in the case of the provincial government is delegated to the deputy. That's done, actually, so that there is no political interference from the minister. It's civil servants and professional civil service that look at the act, interpret the act and look at what information goes out through freedom of information. They're the ones that the training sessions are being held with.

Ministers deliberately don't get told, really, about freedom-of-information requests or have anything, really, to do with them.

K. Conroy: Another issue happened around this topic with the Ministry of Forests. A freedom-of-information request was sent in, in response to the removal of Western Forest Products private lands.

Just to give the minister a time line, the initial request was made last May — May 3, 2007. It took almost a month for a fee estimate. It took another couple of months for a fee-waiver request to be granted — almost two months later. There were considerable phone calls to the freedom of information in the ministry to try to find out what had happened with this request.

Definitely, the 30-day time line was not kept. It wasn't until September that they were told that a sign-off process was now in place. It seems to be utilized by freedom-of-information managers within the office — where a sign-off period is put into place. This is something that is not a formal part of the freedom-of-information procedure. They're becoming very common.

This was put into place. In fact, this actual request…. Now we're into March, and it still hasn't been resolved. Some of the information was sent. It's not within the 30-day time frame or even the additional 30-day time frame.

The sign-off period is being used more and more often in freedom-of-information requests. The minister has stated that there's no political involvement, but from the opposition's perspective, we've been led to believe that sign-off period delays…. They seem to be coming more from higher up within the ministries, from more political levels, as opposed to within the actual staff that do the freedom-of-information requests.

Could the minister comment on this new sign-off period that has been imposed on requests and the response to our research staff that, in fact, the sign-off period seems to be moving…? There seems to be more political interference with this, as opposed to the freedom-of-information managers dealing with this.

Hon. O. Ilich: What I can tell the member is that there's section 7 of the act, which talks about time limits for responding. Every single ministry would do things slightly differently, but there are time limits, and those are regulated. I think if the Ministry of Forests is not doing things in accordance with the act, then the recourse, really, is to the commissioner.

The fees and schedules are set out in the act. As I said to the member yesterday, we don't monitor or act as policemen in the ministries to make sure that people are doing that. That's really why the commissioner is there, because he has the ability to tell people to release information or to make sure that they're doing it in a timely manner.

K. Conroy: I think the minister could, potentially, understand some of the frustration, then, when freedom of information is used to access documents that are needed within a timely fashion and you don't get the information until a year later. It becomes somewhat untimely and sometimes useless information, but that has had to be paid for to get.

Another ministry that seems to be having problems meeting the deadlines…. When the minister uses the term "slightly different ways of meeting the schedule…." I think if a schedule is set out, it would not mean that all ministries should use the same type of schedule. It seems that, maybe, some ministries interpret the schedule differently and to their own end.

I think the Ministry of Transportation has had quite significant issues lately, with absolutely no explanation on why they haven't provided their documents with adequate notice. There have been numerous delays, and this ministry seems to not provide any explanation as to what for.

So when the minister says that there are slightly different explanations from the different ministries, how is that explained within the act?

Hon. O. Ilich: Each ministry does things slightly differently, as I said. They're each responsible for the administration of the act within their ministries. So in some cases, if a request comes in and there are a lot of records involved, or they have to do consultation with others, they can ask for extensions — and they do. The time lines, though, are set out in the act. I would suggest to the member that if there's an issue with them, the appropriate place, obviously, is the commissioner.

K. Conroy: One of the other…. It seems to almost be a bottleneck within the freedom of information — is the Ministry of Finance. Quite often the requests are sent out to various ministries, and they seem to be delayed at the Ministry of Finance level.

I understand what the minister is saying about the need for other ministries to be responsible. But I think, as it's within the purview of this ministry, that it seems that there can be some direction as to working with the various ministries, but more significantly with the Ministry of Finance, to determine why there is such a bottleneck in that ministry for the requests to be followed through on.

Hon. O. Ilich: Well, we continue to train the ministry staff and to make sure that they do understand what should be released and what can be withheld. We continue to be committed to the act and to making sure that the act is working. So that has been the response of the ministry.

We have an act, and the act sets out time lines and fees. Each public body, as I said before, is responsible

for the administration of the act within their ministry or organization, and the commissioner is the appropriate place to go if the act is not being adhered to. But we do remain committed to making sure that the act is working, and we continue to consult on a regular basis with the commissioner as to how to improve it.

We introduced legislation last year, and we continue to look at ways that we can make sure that ministries are adhering to the act through training and information sessions. We've also got a tool on the website for ministries and for other public bodies so that they know what they have to do. As I said, we remain committed to the act.

K. Conroy: I appreciate and respect the minister's respect of the act, and I just hope that in the training, that carries on to the other ministries. I think the minister has stated that the political lens is not the issue. They're looking at it through a ministerial issue. But I think, even more so than the Minister of Finance, that the Premier's office seems to be a huge bottleneck for freedom of information requests.

I'm not sure if within the Premier's office it's an issue of staffing. It seems to be very well staffed. But it seems that requests are being politically vetted through the Premier's office. From the minister's comments, I'm understanding that that's not how the requests are vetted.

It's a concern that, in fact, people are seeing that requests are going to the Premier's office. I'm thinking from the minister's responses that these are perhaps issues we should raise with the Minister of Finance and the Premier's estimates.

Hon. O. Ilich: The member opposite would be correct. It's something that should be raised with each individual ministry — how they are responding to the act.

K. Conroy: I want to just talk a bit about section 13. The minister has already acknowledged that there are problems with that section. Even with the legislation that was introduced last year, it didn't seem to alleviate those problems when actually talking to the commissioner and various groups that are stakeholders within the freedom of information purview.

To quote the commissioner, he feels that section 13 "unnecessarily and inappropriately empowers more information to be hidden from the public than before. As the government increasingly removes itself from the business of providing services, focusing instead on setting policy directions, the diminishment of the public's right to access policy advice renders the government increasingly unaccountable."

I think that this minister has an opportunity to actually show leadership in ensuring that section 13 is brought up to speed so that it can't be utilized by other ministries to, in fact, cover up information or sever information that is rightfully information that should be out there in the public domain.

I understand that there's been considerable consulting done on section 13. I understand that there was a number….

The Chair: Member, can I remind you that legislation is not proper subject for Committee of Supply? Only the administration action of a department is open to debate.

K. Conroy: Right. So I'm getting to the action of the department in wondering where the minister is actually going with ensuring that the recommendations and advice that she has referred to here today in estimates — how that is going to be utilized so that section 13 will be able to be used properly.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm just going to talk a little bit about section 13 because it is one that comes up from time to time.

Section 13 was addressed in an order of the commissioner concerning the College of Physicians and Surgeons' response to a request for investigation about a complaint of a physician's conduct. So the order was judicially reviewed by the British Columbia Supreme Court and then the Court of Appeal.

During a review that focused on other aspects of the order, the Court of Appeal turned to section 13 and interpreted it more broadly than the commissioner, finding that the exception — and I'm quoting from that order — "recognizes that some degree of deliberative secrecy fosters the decision-making process."

It was then taken by the commissioner for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied the…. So the decision has stood since 2002.

Having said that, section 13 actually says: "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister." So it turns on advice and recommendations.

So there are a lot of things in here, under the act, that say the head of a public body must not refuse to disclose. What we're trying to do is make sure that people understand how that act is to be interpreted, and we're training people on that. We've had training sessions throughout the province, and we're committed to continuing those training sessions. Most of it does, in fact, centre on section 13.

The Chair: May I remind all members that the debate is about legislation and about the estimates for year 2008-09.

K. Conroy: I think what happens is that it's the interpretation that sometimes gets lost in the enthusiasm of freedom-of-information managers or ministries that are dealing with requests. I'm hoping that the training will go well and that we will see that the interpretation is streamlined so that it doesn't become an issue.

I just want to wrap this portion of our estimates with a quote. It's a quote through Darrell Evans, who is the head of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. He represents one of 14 bodies that are all part of a group called Campaign for Open Government. He says: "The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people, not to the government." Mr. Evans is actually quoting the Premier, who wrote this when he was in opposition in 1998. He goes on to say: "This means, among other things, that all citizens must have timely, effective and affordable access to the documents which governments make and keep."

I think this is the crux of the issue with the various stakeholders — with the groups of various people, including the opposition — who ask for and who request freedom-of-information requests throughout the year. I think that it's good to hear the minister say that there's training going on, but I think that there are issues that need to be addressed. We will be taking the questions to other ministries to find out why other ministries have the bottleneck issues that I've addressed.

Hopefully, we will see that there are, potentially, increases in staff to assist with it and that there's change in direction resulting from the training that this ministry is giving and is going to give to other ministries in this department.

With that, I'm going to turn the chair over to my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, who is going to take it from here.

B. Ralston: I propose to return to the alternate service delivery secretariat, so I don't know if the minister needs a moment to get the necessary staff. If we might briefly adjourn just for that to take….

I understand the minister is assisted by Mr. Bethel, who is the assistant deputy minister, alternate delivery secretariat. In a description in the Canadian Management Centre, a brief description of his faculty…. As a faculty member for a course on learning how to derive value from complex outsourcing relationships and become an accredited outsourcing practitioner, Mr. Bethel was described as the assistant deputy minister for the alternate service delivery secretariat. He oversees the delivery of the province's key outsourcing program, totalling almost $2 billion. He specializes in transaction structuring.

I appreciate that sometimes these summary descriptions of one's duties are not accurate. Can the minister confirm that that is, indeed, a general description of Mr. Bethel's duties? Is the figure totalling almost $2 billion accurate?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, I can confirm that is, in fact, his title and a description of his duties, and that is the amount of the contract under his administration.

B. Ralston: In the secretariat, there's also employed someone named Eulala Mills-Diment who is described as the chief alliance executive.

On February 19, 2008, she made a presentation to the 2008 Outsourcing World Summit, an event that took place at Disney's Contemporary Resort in Orlando, Florida, from February 18 to 20. There's a description in the program on page 17 of her talk, "Effective Transitions and How to Make Them," and I'm just going to read briefly from the program.

Could the minister undertake to provide me and the public with a copy of the presentation that this public servant apparently made to the 2008 Outsourcing World Summit?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think if we were making a presentation to the public, we could certainly provide that to you.

I would say, though, that our ASD contracts are expected to provide $550 million worth of savings and financial benefits to the taxpayers of British Columbia. The ASD model allows us to focus on our core business and to improve service delivery. We save money, and we avoid large capital expenditures. It reduces risk, and it allows us to leverage private sector creativity. It also is one way that we can handle the fact that we have an aging demographic.

It's something that we're very proud that John is doing. We will provide you with anything like that that you need.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that. I'd ask that that be provided within 15 calendar days from today's date just so that it's possible to examine it in a timely fashion — that's the full presentation and all supporting documents made to the Outsourcing World Summit in Orlando, Florida just last month.

The minister states that there's $550 million in savings. What documents, contracts and management analysis is the minister prepared to produce to justify that very blanket statement?

Hon. O. Ilich: The ASD secretariat actually has a transparency policy for ASD projects, which ensures that the citizens of British Columbia are provided with a clear, up-to-date picture of the value provided by the ASD deals. Project summaries that describe the project scope, the key objectives, the business case, the procurement process, the contract terms and value, the projected savings, as well as the service levels for each agreement, can be found at the following website. Do you want me to give you the website now, or would you like me to get it to you later?

B. Ralston: I'd like to receive it now and see if that coincides with what I've already got myself. I have done my own research. Of course, I have nowhere near the staff resources that the minister has available to her. Nonetheless, I want to see if what she's prepared to provide at this moment coincides with what I already have.

Hon. O. Ilich: The website — and you might want to take this down — is: http://www.saip.gov.bc.ca/ ASD_Projects.htm.

B. Ralston: The minister said in one of her answers yesterday, "We host four of the deals that are ASD" — alternate service delivery. Can she set out which of those four deals are hosted by the ministry that she's the minister of?

Hon. O. Ilich: One is the human resource management system, which was formerly the payroll operations and information management system. One is workplace technology services, which was formerly the workplace support services. One is NetWork B.C., and the other is Service B.C.

B. Ralston: In some documents in which there were a detailed list of contractual obligations provided to me by the office of the comptroller general, under general government — I've given the minister and her deputy a copy of this — there are three separate line items referred to.

One is a contract for IBM Global Service workstation, and the total value of that contract over the life of the contract is $207 million. The second one is data network and voice telecom services of $302 million over the life of the contract and then various administration operating contracts, $969 million. So of these four contracts that the minister has given in response, can she reconcile that description with what has been provided to me by the office of the comptroller general?

Hon. O. Ilich: The IBM Global Service one is the workplace technology ASD deal, and the data network and voice telecom services is NetWork B.C.

B. Ralston: I had understood the minister to make reference to a human resources contract. I'm not quite sure where that falls in those three categories. Perhaps the minister could confirm the value of the contracts, then, as well, but I'll ask that in a separate question.

Hon. O. Ilich: There is one that is the human resource management system, which is with Telus. We outsource our application maintenance and development functions for payroll. The other one, the workplace technology services, is with IBM Canada. The first one is $133 million over ten years. The workplace technology one is with IBM Canada. That's $300 million over ten years. The NetWork B.C. one is also with Telus. The value of that is $245 million over four years. The Service B.C. one is with IBM as well. That's $35.6 million over eight years.

B. Ralston: Before I go into some specific questions about individual contracts and the method by which they were negotiated, I still don't have, based on those values…. There's no reconciliation with the three contracts' totals of $207 million, $302 million, and $969 million that the office of the comptroller general says that the Labour and Citizens' Services Ministry is accountable for.

Perhaps the minister could…. This is the office of the comptroller general. These are the accounts of the province. So I think there's some obligation to answer how these contracts fit into those three categories.

Hon. O. Ilich: I think the issue we're looking at is that the contracts have various end points and start points over various periods of time. What you're looking at with the consolidated revenue and statements from the comptroller general is over just a five-year period. The total that is at the end there is for that period of time. So the contracts that we have may overlap and extend longer or have started a little bit earlier.

The third one that the member is talking about, the administration operating contracts — that contains a number of smaller contracts. We can provide you with that information at some time in the future. I think we've already said that we would do that.

B. Ralston: Well, it's $969 million, and to say that this is a series of smaller contracts, and the minister is not able to account here in a public forum for that $969 million worth of contracts, I think is not acceptable, frankly. I say that with respect to the minister.

There has to be some basic accountability when I, on behalf of the public and the critic for Finance, ask for a basic description of $969 million in public contracts and there's no answer forthcoming. With respect, that's just not acceptable.

Hon. O. Ilich: What the comptroller general is reporting on here are the public accounts of the province. We don't know how they've aggregated them. What we have said is that we will provide the member opposite with the budget for this year. That's what we've got in our estimates, and that is what we have prepared to talk about.

Even for the big ASD deals, there's only a portion of each contract that would be attributable to this particular year, and that's what we have with us. But I've already said that we will supply that information to the member so that he can do a reconciliation of what the comptroller general has reported on the public accounts and what we were expending in this particular year.

B. Ralston: The minister said that these contracts in this document, as provided by the office of the comptroller general, only go forward for five years. What the last heading says is April 1, 2012, and beyond. So I take it that where there are contracts that extend ten, 15 or 20 years, as they sometimes do, they are aggregated in the last column. To say that this only goes for five years, I say with respect, is wrong.

Given that this information is going to be provided, will the minister make a public commitment as to when this information will be provided, and at this time, can she at least give the title of the contracts that compose that $969 million?

Hon. O. Ilich: We can provide the reconciliation to those numbers. But I think what we need to understand, for instance, is that the…. One of the contracts, the workplace technologies services contract, was signed in December 2004. What you're looking at here, with the public accounts, is 2007 to 2012. That's why we have this issue with reconciliation.

What we're here to talk about is what we have in our budget this year for that particular contract. But we can provide you with all that information, and we have already committed to provide it to you within the next 15 days.

B. Ralston: I want to deal with what's called the human resources applications contract. The minister said it had a value of $133 million. I understand that was negotiated with Telus. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: And I understand from a document that appears on one of the government websites, or maybe it's on the Telus website, that the government of B.C. uses a unique joint solutioning request for proposals to find the provider or partner it is looking for. I'm reading from the document. After spending three months working through potential solutions with Telus and another vendor, the government chose Telus.

Is that an accurate description of what's called the joint solutioning request for proposals? Is that an accurate summary description? It is from the Telus documents.

B. Ralston: Can the minister describe this process and how it differs from a traditional procurement, such as a request for proposals, as would be done in most government tendering?

The Chair: This committee will recess for five minutes or so while we attend the vote.

Hon. O. Ilich: The joint solution procurement process is one where it's a multi-stage procurement process. I think, traditionally, when we do procurement, we would define exactly what it is that we wanted and then put it out there for a proposal call and a tender. Quite often that doesn't allow for us to receive the creativity of our private sector partners that we're hoping to work with — because that's exactly why we are trying to work with them — and not be too overly descriptive of what we do.

We use the joint solution procurement process when it's a fairly complicated contract, and we then do a proponent qualification phase first. We then do a joint solution definition phase. We then do the due-diligence negotiation phase, and finally we enter into a contract negotiation phase. We usually get down to something that works for both the partner and the government, by doing that process where we work together with the applicants.

B. Ralston: I understand some of the rhetorical value in talking about creativity, but I suppose what I would be concerned about is the protection of the public interest and the public treasury. Where one sits down with Telus, in this case — who was ultimately awarded the contract — and spends three months with them, what guarantees are there? What fail-safes are there that the government is getting a value for money and not, through a process of negotiation — subtle or not — being leveraged up to pay far more for the service that's being provided than what might otherwise be the case?

Hon. O. Ilich: After the initial proponent qualification phase, that whole long process is, in fact, done with two proponents at the same time. At any time during the negotiation phase, when we are negotiating the contract, we can stop the negotiations and go to the other proponent. The proponents are well aware of that, so we believe that that adequately protects us.

B. Ralston: The description that was provided by the minister of this $133 million contract was for human resources applications. What Telus says…. Obviously, there's a certain caution that I suppose should be exercised in having a successful bidder's description of what they're providing relied on entirely. They say they provide

employees with information and capabilities beyond just payroll. Many HR functions have become web-enabled, allowing employees to access claim forms, check benefits and enrol in or undertake training, all through an easy to use Web portal customized for government.

That seems to be a relatively straightforward information system solution that would be widely available in many parts of government and the business world throughout North America. Is that what the minister has in mind when she speaks of creative solutions? I don't want to denigrate the work of Telus, but it doesn't seem that that's terribly creative — necessitating an alternate form of procurement.

Hon. O. Ilich: The Telus contract has saved us $35 million over what we would have done it for. It has removed all of the need to keep a constant refreshing of the infrastructure. They do absolutely everything. They have successfully implemented the collective agreement labour changes. They've successfully completed $95 million in bonus payments. They did that in record time.

They successfully upgraded Chronos, our time-on-line application. They have replaced the infrastructure on a regular and a timely basis. They have successfully transitioned the accommodation and real estate services people.

They have successfully introduced a new job-posting website. They do the new service delivery model implications for payroll. They have done that and also the occupational health management system.

It's something that we've worked on with them, to say: "What are our needs?" They've done it at $35 million cheaper than what we can do it for. If they miss any deadlines or they miss anything in the contract that they're supposed to do, they get financially penalized. So we're very happy with it. We think that it's performing very, very well for government.

B. Ralston: Am I correct in understanding that this is a $133 million contract over ten years? Is that correct?

B. Ralston: I confess to being confused here. I'm sure that's partly my failure to understand this. But I'm quoting from the government of B.C. EHR on the Telus website. There's an interview with Miss Mills-Diment, who stresses that cost savings were not a key driver behind the program. However, she does expect to see direct savings in the region of $130 million over ten years. We wouldn't have moved forward if there wasn't a strong business case.

The minister has just told the House that there's a cost saving of $35 million over ten years. Yet one of the chief spokespersons…. In a document on the Telus website the executive director of this partnership, the provincial HRMS Partnership, says there are savings of $130 million. That's a difference of $95 million. What's going on here?

Hon. O. Ilich: I can't speak to what Telus publishes on their website. I know what the contract value is. It's $133 million over ten years. We're saving $35 million over that ten-year period, over a business case that was produced.

All of this information is publicly available on the website. Our ASD secretariat is committed to the most transparent process that they can be. As I read to you and as I told you earlier, all of the information — the contracts, the business case…. It's all available on that website. I can't answer for what Telus has on their website.

B. Ralston: I find that somewhat strange, since this is a joint-solutioning request through careful discussion over a period of three months, and we've had the minister's assertions that there are some very careful and sharp pencils at work here, in order to cost out the savings.

According to the B.C. government directory, in the alternate service delivery secretariat, a Eulala Mills-Diment is the chief alliance executive and is at the office at 548 Michigan Street, along with the assistant deputy minister. She's quoted here directly in this release and also in what's described as the "business benefit." "Direct savings are anticipated to be in excess of $130 million over ten years."

I think the public is entitled to a better explanation than that Telus might be wrong. I find it inconceivable that there's this disparity in what was described to us as an important relationship which has been developed over a period of three months and that the public continues to pay, and is proposed to pay, $133 million.

Hon. O. Ilich: I repeat. I'm not accountable for, and don't know anything about, the Telus website. I would invite the member to go to our website and take a look at the information that we have, which is accurate.

Hon. O. Ilich: Ms. Diment, in fact, knows the terms of the contract very well, and we would expect that that must be a misquote.

B. Ralston: What conversation will the minister's staff be having with the senior executives at Telus? This is obviously a public misrepresentation — a difference of $95 million. Surely the public is entitled, if they care, to find out about that — that Telus is grossly mistaken in what their claims are to the public.

Hon. O. Ilich: Quite honestly, I thank the member for bringing this to our attention. We will discuss it with Telus, but as I said, on our websites we consistently report the right number.

B. Ralston: I suppose the question is: what comfort does it give the minister when a major strategic partner that has been selected through the joint-solutioning-request process is so obviously, according to the minister, in

total and complete error about the value, the cost savings, of a significant contract? Does that concern or trouble the minister in any way?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm not concerned as much about what they report on their website. What I'm concerned about is the performance — that they perform the contract the way they're supposed to do it.

Right now the employees have been paid accurately and on time for every biweekly pay period. There are two separate customer surveys that reported high levels of satisfaction with the contact centre courteousness. The realignment of shift schedules is better to manage peak times based on trended data. There's ongoing analysis of half-hour call arrival interval reports conducted.

The number of incidents resolved by the contact centre averaged 90 percent, well above industry standard. The client call abandonment rate has averaged just over 4 percent, and the service standard has been exceeded every month, with the availability for all applications averaging 99.6 percent availability.

What I'm concerned about is how they perform and if we're happy with the performance, and we are. As far as their contract and what they're reporting on their website, we will bring it to their attention that they have a misquote on their website. But as I said, we're mostly concerned with their performance.

B. Ralston: The minister's just cited a number of performance measures. Is that based on information provided by Telus, or is that the result of an independent audit of the service performance?

Ordinarily, in my experience in business practice, an independent audit has a lot more value than the self-audit of a contractor. Given the gross error that appears to be made in their claims of savings on this contract, one might tend to be a little bit skeptical about self-reporting.

Hon. O. Ilich: We're the ones who performed that audit. We take a look at the contract and what they're supposed to do. We have a highly skilled team of professionals within the ministry that make sure that the contract is being administered and that they're performing on time and on budget for what they're supposed to do.

B. Ralston: Based on the staff description of the secretariat, I don't see anyone who is described as an auditor in the list of staff here. There seem to be about some 30 people or so, all headquartered over at 548 Michigan Street. There are people described as project managers. I see one person, a Nicole Dmytar, described as a financial analyst, but beyond that, no one is described as an auditor.

Who performed the audit function? Is that performed by someone in the secretariat or someone from the office of the comptroller general?

Hon. O. Ilich: I am advised that it's an internal audit that is done by the comptroller general. It's called the section 59-70 audit, and it's done annually.

B. Ralston: While I'm pleased to hear the minister confirm the value of an independent audit, is she prepared to release that audit publicly?

Hon. O. Ilich: That is actually done by Deloitte and Touche for the comptroller general. There's a separate one done by the Auditor General annually.

B. Ralston: Yes, I'll continue this line of questioning after the break. I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.