2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Morning Sitting
Volume 38, Number 12
|
CONTENTS Routine Proceedings |
|
|
Page |
|
|
Point of Privilege (continued) |
14019 |
|
Hon. M. de Jong |
|
|
Committee of Supply |
14020 |
|
Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services |
|
|
Hon. I. Black |
|
|
K. Conroy |
|
|
G. Coons |
|
|
C. Wyse |
|
|
M. Sather |
|
|
N. Macdonald |
|
[ Page 14019 ]
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2009
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Point of Privilege
(continued)
Hon. M. de Jong: Before going to the ordinary business, I rise to respond to the matter of privilege that was raised by the member for Alberni-Qualicum.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Hon. M. de Jong: I do take this opportunity to respond to that matter of privilege that was raised on Tuesday of this week, alleging that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands had intentionally misled the House during two exchanges in question period that took place on February 19 and 23.
Of course, I take the suggestion that any member of the House would intentionally make a misleading statement very, very seriously. The rules and conventions of this place have evolved over many years and centuries, and our ability to operate effectively on behalf of the citizens is dependent upon those rules — those privileges, in fact — being strictly adhered to by all members.
The member for Alberni-Qualicum refers to two aspects of the minister's reply that cause him concern, and I will deal with them.
Firstly, though, very briefly, I do note that our rules require that issues of this sort be raised at the earliest opportunity. In this case, based on the allegations that the member has made in his submission, it seems to me that the earliest opportunity would have been sometime shortly after question period on Thursday, February 19. I note that the member didn't rise to reserve his right to pursue the matter of privilege until about 11:35 on Monday morning, the 23rd of February.
You'll be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the rulings of your predecessor Speaker Schroeder of November 25-26, 1982, reported in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, at page 49, where he states: "It is necessary that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity and that the proposed motion be tendered at the same time."
The Speaker is also aware, I'm sure, that over time this House has set down the detailed guidelines for what is and what is not considered to be a matter of privilege. Again referring to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 294, section 15 of appendix E states — and I think this is important: "A dispute between members as to allegations of facts does not amount to a matter of privilege."
This practice is further described on page 296, where it states: "Unless there is evidence that a member has deliberately misled the House, a matter of privilege has not been established." Based on the procedural criteria I've just described, I'd submit to you that the application made by the member for Alberni-Qualicum must fail.
However, I do also want to address the substance of the allegations briefly. The member's first allegation is that on February 19, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands provided misleading information relating to the position of a specified group concerned with preservation of the Arrowsmith watershed.
As, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, the minister addressed that issue and, in fact, corrected statements he had made on February 23 in the House, as recorded in Hansard at page 13889, where he said: "Yes, I did call on Friday night, when I was made aware that I had used the wrong word, to apologize to them. I have talked to Michael Jessen, and he accepted my apologies. I now set the record straight here."
In his own submission, exhibit 1 is an e-mail from Mr. Jessen, where Mr. Jessen states: "On behalf of AWCS, I accepted Minister Cantelon's apology and thanked him for acting quickly."
As long as I've been here, it's been generally accepted practice that once an hon. member stands in his place to purposely correct an error that he or she has inadvertently made, the matter is considered to be closed. In this case, the minister corrected his error both inside and outside the chamber, confirming that it was an honest mistake, and with the greatest respect, the member for Alberni-Qualicum has provided no evidence that I have seen or heard to the contrary.
The member for Alberni-Qualicum also takes issue with a portion of the minister's reply on February 23 where he stated: "I should have said the Arrowsmith Water Service, which is comprised of representatives from Parksville, from Qualicum Beach and from the regional district, who indeed took part in the watershed assessment portfolio plan to protect the watershed in this sensitive area."
Whilst the member for Alberni-Qualicum may not like the answer he received, it seems entirely consistent with the information contained in an article appearing on page 6 of the February 25, 2009, edition of the Victoria Times Colonist, which I will also submit for your perusal, Mr. Speaker, where it reads:
"'Arrowsmith Water Services was part of a watershed assessment done in 2002-2003,' said Bob Weir, Qualicum Beach director of engineering and utilities.
"'And these activities fall within those prescriptions. They could be considered quite conservative. It's private land, and they have the right to log,' he said.
"'The Island, which often does not have a channel of water along one side, was not separately identified in the assessment but would have been considered as part of that section of the river,' Weir said.
[ Page 14020 ]
"'The watershed assessment did a very good job. I don't believe there's a threat to the water supply or the river,' he said."
At best, it can be said that the hon. member and the minister have a difference of opinion about certain facts. But this, of course, in no way constitutes a breach of privilege.
Finally, I would submit that a similar methodology is applicable to the question of how many trees were impacted by harvest activities and again point out that a dispute between members as to an allegation of facts, in the absence of evidence of an intention to deliberately mislead, does not constitute a breach of privilege of this House.
There is no such evidence, and accordingly, I would respectfully submit that the member's application on both the basis of procedure and substance must fail.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader. I will take it under advisement.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, ongoing debate on the supplementary estimates.
Committee of Supply
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CITIZENS' SERVICES
The House in Committee of Supply; K. Whittred in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
On Vote 38(S): ministry operations, $2,200,000.
Hon. I. Black: The supplemental estimate under discussion pertains to a very specific line item in my ministry pertaining to the connecting citizens grant program. The connecting citizens grant program helps eliminate the barriers to last-mile costs for communities. It helps pay for the technology infrastructure, enabling connectivity through the Internet to more citizens in more parts of British Columbia.
The program is a $5.2 million, three-year grant program intended to encourage the distribution of Internet services. The first year of the program will end on March 31, 2009. NetWork B.C. will grant up to $50,000 per community to organizations and/or businesses that can demonstrate an ability to expand Internet service to more citizens. The program is the latest in a series of initiatives to bridge the digital divide in British Columbia.
The grant process for the first year, fiscal 2008-2009, was announced in September 2008. A two-page application package was posted to the NetWork B.C. website shortly thereafter. The program was communicated extensively. By the November 7, 2008, deadline, NetWork B.C. received nearly 200 applications requesting nearly $8 million in funding.
Just for the purpose of definition, under the program a community refers broadly to any town, village, suburb, subdivision, rural route or coverage area where service will be offered to citizens.
I'm very proud of this program. Citizens in rural and remote areas of British Columbia have been very vocal about their need for broadband. I'm very excited, and I'm very appreciative of the efforts of the staff within the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services for their extraordinary efforts and the outcomes that have resulted to date.
Regional Internet service providers and broadband advocates have identified high costs of infrastructure as a barrier to expansion of services to homes and businesses. This program breaks these barriers down in very real ways felt by British Columbians across the province. Previous infrastructure grants provided by NetWork B.C. have proven effective in getting more citizens connected.
K. Conroy: I thank the minister for the overview. I wanted to ask the minister…. He said there are 200 applications that have been applied for, for this program, worth almost $8 million.
The entire program over three years is $5.2 million, and you've asked for an additional $2.2 million, which is $7 million. How many communities are not going to be able to get access to these funds? There are 200 communities that have applied just for this year. It's a three-year program. I'm wondering how many communities will be denied access to the program.
Hon. I. Black: Just to clarify for the member, the program in total is $5.2 million. What we're discussing today is the first $2.2 million of that. So the total program is $5.2 million. The discussion item for today is the first $2.2 million, which is this year, and there's $1.5 million in each of the next two years after this.
The number of applications speaks, I believe, very clearly to the need that…. For lack of a better phrase, we've hit on a winner here. We have recognized a need, and communities have embraced the opportunity to bring broadband connectivity across the province.
We are very pleased with the response and the interest in this program. Like almost any government program offered, it has not only received a full allotment of applications to take advantage of the moneys being put into the program, but in this case, there's a lot of excitement out there about helping British Columbians bridge the digital divide.
[ Page 14021 ]
K. Conroy: In the fall the Premier announced this program and said it was a $5.2 million program. Supplementary estimates are for dollars that are needed in addition to dollars that are budgeted for in the existing year.
My understanding, then, from what the minister has said, is that even though it was announced in September — the $5.2 million program was announced — there was no money in the budget to deal with it. It's just now being dealt with for this year.
Hon. I. Black: This is not the first program of its type that this government has rolled out. Taking on the challenge of bridging the digital divide is something that our government and our Premier has been focused on for some time.
In fact, the program immediately preceding this one was known as connecting communities. It was a million-dollar program that was also in very, very high demand — resoundingly successful with some fantastic feedback from some of our most rural and remote areas in the province.
In response to that successful program, and to show the continued commitment of this government to bridge the digital divide, the Premier announced at the UBCM that this new program would indeed be announced to really work on what we refer to as the last mile of connectivity within some of these communities, to encourage entrepreneurship in some of these very exciting technology areas throughout the province.
As such, being a new announcement, the first portion of that program would not have been in the budget up to that point, which is precisely why we're here.
K. Conroy: Again, then, back to how many communities applied. There is only $2.2 million, and the minister's comments earlier were that there is $8 million that's going to be needed. I'd like to know how many communities are actually not going to get applications this first year.
Hon. I. Black: In an effort to help the member, I think the first thing to note is that the process of this particular program is still underway. We've actually not announced the number of applications that have been deemed successful, so I have to approach the specific answer to your question from a slightly different way.
The very first initiative that our government rolled out to bridge the digital divide involved identifying and then subsequently, in partnership with industry, bringing broadband capabilities to 364 communities which up to that point did not have any Internet connectivity of a broadband nature in British Columbia.
For the benefit of those not as technical, getting a point of presence effectively means that the very large capacity infrastructure required for small entrepreneurs and/or Internet community societies to then hook up to that and thereby connect their neighbours, friends, businesses, schools or whatever to the broader Internet…. They would then have that ability as a result of that first very….
The heavy lifting, if you will, was connecting the 364 communities in British Columbia, and it's a program that we are very, very proud of.
I should take this opportunity, because I neglected to do so when I first stood up. I have some assistants with me today who I would like to identify and acknowledge in the House. The first is the province's chief information officer, Dave Nikolejsin. Sitting to my immediate right is Wilf Bangert, and I want to get his title right. He's the executive director of community and external initiatives under NetWork B.C.
I want to add one more comment, if I may. The other reason that I identify the 364 communities to the member is that many of the applications received will be in some of those 364 communities. There will actually be some overlap, because the intent of this particular program is to basically do what is referred to as the last mile.
Having done the heavy lifting, having brought the high-speed Internet connectivity to a very central point within all of the 364 communities identified, this program is to encourage the entrepreneurship that says: "Well, now that we have this ability, the Internet entrepreneurs and/or non-profit societies in the communities are then of the ability to use some of this money to then access or enhance services that are already there."
G. Coons: I was interested when I saw the supplemental estimates of this extra $2.2 million coming into play for rural-remote communities. It's a key component, as the minister has said and we all realize. The digital divide must be closed, obviously, for educational reasons, whether it's on-line learning, businesses, tourism, access to provincial and federal services.
As we know, and as I've read, 92 percent of B.C. has access, and there's 8 percent that doesn't. That's why we're here having these questions and talking about that. It says on page 110 in the fiscal plan book, "This funding supports a grant program to encourage last-mile delivery of broadband Internet connectivity and cell phone coverage for homes and businesses in rural and remote communities" — which I believe is imperative.
I believe the minister was talking about when the program started. I'm not too sure what the time frame was, but there were 366 communities, and 151 didn't have access. Now 320, apparently, have access, from the reading that I've talked about. So there are about 46 or 47 or 40-ish that don't have access.
Do we have that information of which ones are still struggling to meet the needs of having access in rural and remote communities?
[ Page 14022 ]
Hon. I. Black: The member is correct in pointing out the 92 percent number. Actually, just as an interesting aside, British Columbia has the highest per-capita Internet penetration in the world, even more the Silicon Valley and other high-tech centres around the world. We actually have a more connected citizenry here, which speaks to a variety of factors.
With respect to his specific question on the 320, trying to get his head around the numbers, I'll try to keep it within the context of how you asked the question, if I can. The 320 represents the number of communities that have had the heavy lifting done, if you will, getting the large bandwidth capability to the community, but they have not yet done the last mile. That is, the point of presence is existing in the community. An entrepreneur or a non-profit society may establish an Internet service provider, who in turn would give retail or residential service to the population of that community. That's the 320 out of the 364.
The 44 difference are those communities who currently don't have an ISP, and that is precisely the intent behind this program. It is to encourage some of the communities and some of the entrepreneurship and some of the non-profit societies.
As a quick aside, as I travelled some of our northern communities last summer, I was pleasantly surprised to learn how many community Internet associations have been established to basically be a non-profit Internet service provider specifically for this kind of reason. The expertise and the enthusiasm was really very, very impressive.
So it's those 44 who have got the high bandwidth to their community, but they are the ones who would most likely be able to take advantage of this particular program to establish that last mile, to become an ISP, or to form a community association to act as an ISP, to deliver the service ultimately to the residents and businesses and various community organizations.
M. Karagianis: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Karagianis: Although I don't think they've quite made it in here yet, I wanted to introduce grade 4 students from Sangster Elementary School. They are in the precinct today because they are studying debate. They thought this was a great opportunity to come in and watch debating here in the House.
I would ask members to give them not only a good welcome but a real rousing debate when they show up in the House in the next few minutes.
Debate Continued
G. Coons: Somewhere along the line, before we finish today, we would like to find the communities that are still struggling to have access that we need to work forward on.
I'd like to refer back to…. The minister talked about the last mile. The last-mile infrastructure, as I read here, includes wireless equipment, towers and supplies to connect local buildings to an Internet gateway and provides high-speed Internet and cellular coverage.
What I'm reading from, and it was mentioned earlier, is the press release from September 29, probably five or six months ago. The minister talked about: "Grants totalling $2.2 million will be available in the first year of the three-year program." I would have assumed, as most British Columbians and those in my rural and remote communities would assume, that when I looked at the supplemental estimates, it sounded to me like there would be an additional $2.2 million that would be coming, and I was pretty excited.
I contacted a few of the stakeholders and said: "You know, back on September 29 the minister announced grants totalling $2.2 million, but apparently it wasn't budgeted for." The supplementary estimates have this $2.2 million. I'd like an explanation of why the $2.2 million that was announced in the $5.2 million grant back on September 29 by the minister was not in the current budget from last week.
Hon. I. Black: The good news is that your excitement was well placed. It is actually net new money, which is why we're here. The second and third year of the program are the $1.5 million and $1.5 million which are reflected in Budget 2009. The $2.2 million that we're discussing today is very much part of the current fiscal year, which is, again, why we're here, by definition.
The ensuing months, just to perhaps fill in a gap for the member as well, reflect the employees and the senior team in the ministry pulling together the program from the announcement that was made at UBCM, the press release that you pointed out in late September, rolling the program out, soliciting the applications, getting those applications in. I've made reference to how popular this program has been.
Those applications are in the process of being adjudicated. It is our expectation that the moneys involved will be in a position to flow out the door to the communities precisely within the fiscal year. So it's still very much within the spirit and the fiscal year of the government.
G. Coons: It still doesn't wash with me that in September, five or six months ago, you would announce a program and wouldn't have it in the current budget and then that you have to bring it out in the supplementary
[ Page 14023 ]
estimates. That's why, on this side of the House, we thought it was going to be a $7.4 million amount for connectivity to remote and rural communities. That's hard to swallow, I think, especially when we realize the necessity of having this connectivity.
Again, this whole budget scenario the minister is putting forth seems to me to be a sham. The explanation that you just gave is just hard to believe. It's not that I'm saying that the minister isn't being straightforward, but I don't believe it.
Now, the $2.2 million that was announced on September 29. The deadline for applications was what date?
Hon. I. Black: With respect to the member's confusion, I can only refer him to the press releases, which clearly identified $5.2 million in the program.
The fact that it was a new program…. It is not at all unreasonable for any government, when they announce a new program that is not in the current budget, to access the funding necessary for that new program to reflect the priorities of the government of the day by using the vehicle that we're going through just now.
I cannot account for why the member would perhaps go with numbers that were not included in the press releases around that. I would have to leave that to their math analysis.
I will say, to answer the question with respect to the application deadline, that it was November 7, 2008.
G. Coons: When I look at page 27 of the supplementary estimates, where this $2.2 million is listed under "Government transfers," I notice that the 2008-2009 main estimates have $4.95 million. So the leftover amount from the $3 million…. The difference between the $5.2 million and this $2.2 million is $3 million. Is that $3 million accounted for in the current budget that we're debating from last week?
Hon. I. Black: The $3 million in question is split into $1.5 million times two for Budget 2009 and Budget 2010.
G. Coons: Yes, I see that in the estimates. Under "Government transfers" in the estimates booklet, I see that for 2009 it's $1.53 million. I guess that was the confusion that I had. I was looking for that missing $2.2 million, but I guess it's just a rehashed announcement and nothing really new. Somehow it has, in my mind, been slipped into this supplementary estimates process. It is very confusing, not only on this side of the House but for taxpayers and British Columbians to sort out, especially those in remote and rural communities.
I do have a question about the Central Coast Communications Society, which is in the Bella Coola Valley. The minister, being relatively new in this position, may not realize this, but I'm sure his staff does. They've been the Internet provider since 1995, first with dial-up and then with some wireless high-speed Internet. But they inherited some real difficulties.
Their concern is serving the Bella Coola Valley, including first nations, in a dependable, reliable and affordable way, but they have some major concerns with towers and the towers going down in winter and the towers being on mountaintops — on Saloompt Mountain, which is very inaccessible. There's a high cost to get in to that, and it goes down for months at a time in the winter. Last year, in their last monthly report, they had a loss of over $800 in high-speed revenue due to the outage.
Again, these are volunteers, non-profit, working towards building a service to look after the community and region. They had tried to get the services of somebody to write the applications for the last mile. I was talking to somebody yesterday, and they hadn't got it in. I would hope that the minister and staff realize the importance — I can see some heads shaking — of the situation in the valley and whether or not there could be some help for the people with the Central Coast Communications Society in their dilemma.
When is the next series of applications, or are there going to be any?
Hon. I. Black: Just with respect to the member's preamble to his question, he made reference to a re-announcing. I believe the word he used was "rehashing." To the best of my knowledge, this program was announced only once, and the process that we're going through today does not constitute a new announcement of any kind. It is merely the formal process required to send out the cheques to the rural and remote communities once the adjudication process is complete.
With respect to the dates, yes, there will be another round of applications for the $1.5 million that is allocated in Budget 2009. Those dates will be set upon the completion of the current round of applications and give our senior team the opportunity to learn from this process so that they're able to best fine-tune the next round of applications. Those dates will be announced once they have had a chance to complete the current round of applications and issue the cheques.
G. Coons: It's interesting. When I started to contact a few people about the supplementary estimates, I said: "Look at this. There's another $2.2 million coming in, along with the money that was announced last September." Again, there was that optimistic smile on a lot of people's faces.
Now the minister is saying that this money and, it sounds like, the 200 applications that deal with $8 million will already be distributed. So the next round of applications will be, I guess, for the $1.5 million in the 2009-2010
[ Page 14024 ]
year. Again, that's very disappointing in the news that we're hearing.
I'm sorry if you already answered this. When will announcements be made for the funding for the $2.2 million?
Hon. I. Black: I think it's regrettable that the member chose to interpret the publication of the supplemental estimates documents as some sort of announcement of new money. For future reference, the member can avail himself of my office if he chooses to get such clarification before getting communication going with some of his constituents. I'd be pleased to do that.
With respect to the current program — the $2.2 million — the adjudication process will be complete, and the money will be distributed prior to the end of the current fiscal year, which is March 31.
G. Coons: Well, I was involved in the Community Development estimates, which was money going out to communities. It incited a bit of optimism, and here again, that's how I saw this money. So it's regrettable that it wasn't put in the original budget and seems to be this pile of money that's going out in the next two or three months.
I do just want, as concluding remarks, to reiterate that the Bella Coola Valley, as the minister's staff knows, and now he knows, desperately needs last-mile funding. The upper Bella Coola Valley needs to get off the Saloompt Mountain. They need to get towers in the valley or some other strategy. They're working hard as a non-profit society.
There is another concern that I'm sure the minister's staff knows about. That's the tower that's on Four Mile Reserve land, on band property, which is serving the lower Bella Coola Valley and some of the band members. They need a secure location, because it's on somebody's property, on reserve property, and could have huge implications to servicing the valley. They need a dependable service and one that will basically go towards Williams Lake and be able to get Firvale the service they need.
On that, I'd just like to reiterate that, hopefully, the Bella Coola Valley will be on the minister's and the staff's list. On that, I'll pass it on to one of my colleagues.
C. Wyse: Hon. Chair, an explanation. A staff member that I have had working on this file since the supplementary item was announced unfortunately has taken ill. As a consequence, I need to ask my questions more generally of the minister than I would have preferred to have done.
If I do understand the minister correctly, he has referred to there being approximately 40 communities that still require the heavy lifting to be done. My question: whether he would commit to provide me with a list of those communities that still require that work to be done so that I can compare them to the Cariboo-Chilcotin area.
Hon. I. Black: First, I'm sorry to hear about the illness of one of your staff. I trust that better days are ahead for all concerned.
There are a couple of parts to the member's question. The first had to do with the 40 communities in question. Those are not communities that have yet to receive broadband access. Those are communities that have yet to have the last mile done. So the millions and millions and millions of dollars that it takes to drag high-speed Internet access over mountains, under rivers, whatever it may be — through conduit — has been done so that there is now the opportunity for Internet service providers or non-profit community organizations to provide Internet service to the community at large.
So the 40 in question are those that, of the 364 who have had the broadband brought to a central point within the community, have yet to go that last step to actually create an Internet service provider, etc. Those are an example of the types of communities for which this program is ideally designed.
The second part of the member's question was whether you could get access to the list of those 40. And yes, we can get that to you by the end of the day. It's about 40, give or take. But we'll get that list to you by the end of the day.
I want to add one important thing, though. I don't want to leave the member with the impression that those 40 communities are the only ones that are eligible for this current program. There are many other rural and remote communities that can take advantage of the connecting citizens program beyond the 40 that were, if you will, left over from the 364 that have already had broadband brought to them.
C. Wyse: I appreciate the promptness of being provided with that information. Part of the issue that we deal with, at least that I see, is to try and ensure that there is impartiality applied throughout this process, given the sensitivity of where we are not only in the budget year, but where we are within terms of office.
I did understand, I believe, that there is a larger group of areas in the province that are applicable, as the Premier's technology council has outlined. Again, hon. Chair, if I understood the minister accurately, he had indicated to me that there would be a preference given to these communities that are short this last mile. Assuming that there are some priorities that are in there, that's why I wanted to see the list.
Does the minister have the full list, then, of all of these applicants that are in front of his group for consideration? If he does, is he also willing to share that information with me at a time that is convenient — presumably, the sooner the better?
[ Page 14025 ]
Hon. I. Black: With respect to the criteria used in the program, those criteria are readily available. They're actually published as part of the program itself, and I would refer the member to the NetWork B.C. website, which is www.network.gov.bc.ca. There are all the forms there and all the criteria that are published in advance, discussing the various priorities that will be placed on the application process.
With respect to his first question about the list of applicants that exists for the current $2.2 million in question here today, I have a bit of a caveat around my answer. From a program standpoint, we don't have any concerns with that, but my caveat would be the privacy concerns of the applicants.
If the member could oblige us with the opportunity to refer to the Privacy Commissioner on that particular point and circle back with my office, we'll abide by the ruling of the Privacy Commissioner on that. If it's deemed that that is shareable information from his perspective, then we'd be pleased to share that with the member.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
C. Wyse: I appreciate the answer of the minister. I must admit I was somewhat surprised that the caveat would be necessary. Being from a very large rural geographical constituency, I already know from a list that there are between 20 and 25 of these communities that have been accessing the program at various stages.
My question was simply meant to ensure, from my constituency aspect, that they were getting full hearings with the minister. I'm not second-guessing either him or his staff.
It did and does provide me with an ability to do my work as an MLA and narrow down my job to ensure that as many of my constituents that are attempting to access government programs have been provided with that access, and then at the same time to be able to work with my constituency staff to provide further support to those that may not have been successful and to follow up for subsequent new funds that come around.
It was in that light that I was requesting the information so that both of us cumulatively, you as a minister and I as a member of the House, can more effectively provide service for the general population here in British Columbia, particularly for us from rural parts of the province that recognize the significance of having access to the modern convenience of the Internet.
I am going to request as politely and as forcefully — and all those other types of words — as I can of the minister that any enquiries he's made around this are done not to put a 90-day roadblock impediment in my ability to go about trying to do my job. It's simply his staff ensuring that this is a process.
Unfortunately, I have experienced things that have gone through this process with staffing reductions tied into that nature. This could get tied up for weeks to months, and that would concern me.
I leave those comments with the minister. He can determine whether it merits a response on his part. With that, I thank the minister for the kindness he's extended to me as an MLA, and I would turn it over to one of my colleagues.
Hon. I. Black: To the member: you've never been anything other than polite with me, so I have no problems on that at all.
Also, I want to acknowledge in a very forthright manner the role that we all have as MLAs to make sure that whatever government programs are available in any ministry are fully exercised to the benefit and that the fairest adjudication possible takes place with respect to our constituents and the organizations within the constituency as well.
Just for clarity for the member. The privacy concern really would be — just to give an example — if there was a community organization or a small business that had applied for this. Because this is open to entrepreneurs — right? Those businesses may actually not wish, as somebody who had applied to the process, for that information to be passed along.
I don't know the answer to that, which is why I put the caveat in — that those individuals may have some privacy rights. I would defer to the commissioner to identify what those may be. But there's no interest on my part in delaying getting you that answer, so we will get that to you forthwith.
K. Conroy: Just for the minister's clarification, the lotteries actually list all the people that have applied, all the organizations that have applied, for grants on a website. All they do is put the name, so there's no information, and just a date when they applied and where the status of their application is. It doesn't contravene any privacy act, and it leaves the information open for everybody to access. It might be some way to look at this too.
You mentioned that small businesses also have access to these funds. Can you tell me how many, just a number, of the 200 applications are actually applied for by small businesses, please?
Hon. I. Black: First, my thanks to the member for the reference to the gaming grants as a reference on the privacy stuff. We'll use that as our comparison point for sure. That should actually help us get the answer quicker. Thank you for that.
To the member's question, there were 186 applicants in this program. One of the key criteria was that the applicant had to be an Internet service provider. There was no specific requirement to identify whether it was a
[ Page 14026 ]
small business versus a community association versus an ISP being run out of a small community college. The application process actually didn't force people to declare what they were.
Our ability to give a very specific breakdown is not there at this point, but presuming that the list of applicants is made available to you forthwith, then you should be able to have a look at that and perhaps apply some judgment of your own to that. But we did not request that in a manner that would allow me to characterize it in the specific way that you asked.
The other point I wanted to make was that, of the 186 applicants, I don't want to leave the member with the impression that that represents 186 different communities. You could actually, in the spirit of encouraging entrepreneurship, have several entrepreneurs from a given community that avail themselves of this program and apply accordingly. I didn't want to leave the member with the impression that 186 represents 186 communities. It's just the number of applications. We know that there are several from certain communities within that.
K. Conroy: I'm assuming that it would just be one per community that's going to get the contract, then, or get the grant. A lot of small communities out in rural B.C. don't have Internet service providers other than Telus, so I would think that in order to provide rural connectivity to a lot of places in B.C., Telus would be the only service provider that would actually apply for these grants.
Is that what's happened?
Hon. I. Black: The large carriers, specifically — including the likes of Telus — were excluded from being able to participate in this program.
K. Conroy: So the small communities that have no Internet service providers — they're significant out in rural B.C. — that only have Telus…. You're saying, then — you can just nod — that they could not apply for this program?
Hon. I. Black: I think I understood the question. Through to the member, I'll give it my best crack, and you can come back if I miss it.
This program is designed to enable communities that have an established broadband connection within the community — whether it has come through Telus, a cable provider or a satellite system that's privately owned and operated or publicly owned and operated through a school or whatever — to buy the additional equipment they need, in turn, to connect their citizens through the existing gateway, for lack of a better phrase, to the rest of the Internet.
One of the criteria in the program said: "We're willing to consider your application and give you up to $50,000 if you can show us that the Internet service provider that you either already have or are looking to have set up has a way of getting out to the rest of the world."
K. Conroy: They're not Telus — right. Okay.
But Telus, in collaboration with the Premier's Technology Council, ranked the priority that the communities would get the dollars in, as far as the funding. The need of the communities was ranked in priority, and this listing was done through Telus.
An Hon. Member: No, given to Telus.
K. Conroy: It was provided to Telus. The listing was provided to Telus. So Telus has the priority lists for the communities. Okay.
What we would like is actually the list of how the communities were prioritized. We would like that list, to see how the communities have been prioritized for their services.
Hon. I. Black: I want to step back just for a second. I think the involvement of Telus…. This needs to be properly positioned, and I think it might be helpful to the member.
There are three distinct programs that have brought us to where we are in British Columbia with respect to our efforts to bridge the digital divide. To be very clear: from the outset, the province has never, nor ever will desire to be an ISP. We're not in the business of connecting people in terms of running little ISPs all over the province. That's not the intent at all.
With that in mind, the very first program was known as NetWork B.C., which I touched on in my introductory remarks. This was the program that took the list, developed by the Premier's Technology Council, of those 366 communities which were identified by…. I want to read it to make sure I get it correctly. "'Community' referred to any town, village, suburb, subdivision, rural route or coverage area where service will be offered to citizens." Basically, there had to be, for example, a hospital or a school or a facility like that that allowed them to be so designated.
That list, once identified by the Premier's Technology Council, was then used as part of the initial effort to bridge the digital divide in this program that is known as NetWork B.C. This is a program that used zero dollars from taxpayers but leveraged the spending that we do with Telus on an annual basis and encouraged them to invest $110 million to connect the 364 communities that I referenced earlier.
That's where that connectivity came from, and that was a program that we are very, very proud of. In fact, it won international recognition in Washington, D.C. Actually, I had the honour of representing the government, going to Washington.
[ Page 14027 ]
We actually received an award for this program, and we were in the same category as things like the AMBER alert program and some of the military technology, the unmanned reconnaissance planes used in Afghanistan. It was an incredible category and an incredible honour to be considered, to have NetWork B.C. in the same category as some absolutely phenomenal projects that were done around the world.
The reason it got the accolades it did is because it was $110 million of Telus's money, not of taxpayers' money, to connect 364 communities. By comparison, it is my understanding that the province of Alberta spent about 400 million taxpayer dollars and didn't connect nearly as many.
It was a very creative program that was rolled out, and that then led to a need, because we had, as was identified, 40 communities that had the connectivity from Telus. Telus brought in, if you will, a little box with green, blinking lights waiting for somebody to do something with it.
That led to the next program that we rolled out, which was the connecting communities program. That was a million-dollar program that was so successful that it led to what we're now dealing with, which is the connecting citizens program.
Both of those programs were designed to allow aspiring entrepreneurs or existing ones, existing organizations, to say: "We have now access to the world through broadband. Now we've got the opportunity through this program to help alleviate some of the costs of actually setting up an ISP or enhancing an existing ISP to allow us to communicate in a broadband fashion with the rest of the world."
I'm not sure if that fully addresses the Telus issue. Telus did not have a role in prioritizing communities. They took the list from the Premier's Technology Council, I'm advised.
The other thing I want to add is that you asked about the criteria for the current program. If I understood that question correctly, I mentioned to your colleague a little earlier that the full information on the criteria is on the NetWork B.C. website, along with all the forms, etc., as to how the applications for this current program will be adjudicated.
K. Conroy: Just to clarify, when we do look on the Internet and look on the website at the information provided, it talks about the provincial criteria that were developed through the Premier's Technology Council. Then it also talks about Telus's criteria and how they reranked the communities once they were ranked already by the Premier's council. Just to put that on the record — that Telus did have a hand in ranking. I think maybe there is a disconnect there.
That's what we were asking. We wanted to know how those communities were ranked. I know there are criteria, but we would also like to know where they sit now. I know you said you would provide us with a list, but we would like a prioritized list so we could see that please.
Hon. I. Black: I believe we now have the…. We are looking at quite literally the same list as the members opposite. I am advised that that is the list from the original program. Basically, that was the build schedule for Telus working with the identified communities, and it was based on engineering and logistics in terms of construction and the necessary technology considerations, ruling out bandwidth.
That is with the original NetWork B.C. program. It has nothing to do with this current program. For the current program, the $2.2 million that we are here discussing today, there is absolutely no involvement whatsoever from Telus with respect to the adjudicating of the applications that have come in.
K. Conroy: People had to have their applications in by November 7 for this program. They're not going to know until…. I understand they should get their cheques by March 31 of this year.
Are people actually going to get their cheques sent to them, or are they going to have to wait for some kind of an announcement? Are they going to have to wait for a cheque to be presented to them, or are the cheques just going to be mailed to the communities?
Hon. I. Black: As I mentioned a little earlier, it is fully the expectation that the cheques will be in the hands of the various applicants before the end of the current fiscal. As to how some of the recipients may wish to celebrate that news, I can't comment on the individual applicants and how they plan to manage that.
K. Conroy: With all due respect to the minister, it's usually determined through the minister's office how the minister wants to hand out his cheques and how they want to continue on with that process. It's usually done with the minister's office or someone of that nature. But I think these communities that have been waiting for a long time to know whether they've got the grants or not would be only too happy to have the grants, the cheques sent to them very quickly once the decisions are made.
A number of these communities, I know, have the access, as you said. The broadband has been put in place. It's like a highway that has been put in, but then they don't have the money to splice into the system, so they can't access it. The lines have been laid. Until they get this money, there's no ability to get into that broadband system, so it leaves them not connected.
The percentage of communities that might actually have the broadband laid throughout B.C. is high, but the actual communities that are spliced into that broadband system, I
[ Page 14028 ]
think, is in question. The sooner they get the dollars to help them to accomplish that task, I think, the better.
I think most communities would be only too happy to have the cheques sent to them as soon as the decisions are made so that they can get on with the project of actually connecting the communities once they get it in hand.
I wanted to clarify something that the minister said. He said that at the 2008 UBCM the Premier made the announcement for this project and that the reason it has taken so long to implement it is because the staff didn't know, the ministry didn't know. Nobody was consulted about what was happening with this project. So that's why we now are sitting with us looking at $2.2 million in supplementary estimates, because no one within the staff knew that this program was going to be announced and that it was first announced to everyone, staff included, at the UBCM in Penticton.
Hon. I. Black: I certainly hope I did not give the impression that I was anything other than pleased with the progress of our team in the ministry with respect to what they've been able to do in the last number of months — going from soliciting interest in a program to receiving the applications, adjudicating the applications and on the verge of being able to announce and distribute those funds in the very near term. I'm certainly very, very pleased with the commitment and the talents of the people in the ministry.
What I did say was that the $2.2 million that we're discussing today was not included in the budget of Budget 2008. However, I would like to emphatically state that the notion that there was no staff involvement, that there was no consultation, that there was no work being done on this prior to the Premier making such an exciting announcement at the UBCM is actually not accurate.
I would point to the fact that very shortly — meaning hours and possibly minutes — after the Premier finished his speech on that particular day, the forms were on line on the ministry website.
K. Conroy: I was in no way referring to the staff's ability to get up and running. I apologize to the staff if I put them in an awkward position, but it does seem to be the nature of this government to put staff in an awkward position when it comes to announcements. I just was clarifying that.
An Hon. Member: We were having so much fun, too.
K. Conroy: Well, the truth hurts.
At this time I'm going to pass on the chair to my colleague.
M. Sather: The Auditor General put out a report, most recently, on wireless-networking security in Victoria at government offices — gaps in defensive line.
The press release that went along with that mentioned that two-thirds of scanned wireless access points near government buildings used only moderate encryption — that's the way that these transmissions can be made safe — or none at all to secure transmission of information. He added that even relatively small wireless network segments could put the entire network at risk, which obviously is of great concern, I'm sure, to the minister as well as myself and the residents of British Columbia.
The Auditor General also found that the government's wireless security policies were not up to date. Before going on to talk about this in the context of these supplements, it just needs to be made clear that this is very sensitive information, obviously, that is at risk here.
We're talking about the health information for British Columbians — about their physical health, which all of us want to be made to be kept private. Mental health concerns that British Columbians have are part of information that the government transmits. Certainly, we all want that information to be kept private.
Child apprehensions is another very sensitive issue that certainly we all want to be sure…. I'm sure the minister wants to address that, because we all want to ensure that that privacy is protected.
I am going to ask the minister how the government is going to meet the recommendations of the Auditor General in light of no mention of this issue in the supplementary estimates. But first, I would like to ask the minister a question on the extent of these investigations of wireless network breaches. This took place in the downtown area. Did it also include the legislative buildings?
Hon. I. Black: I am at a loss to see how that question relates in any way, shape or form to the matter in front of us with respect to supplemental estimates.
M. Sather: Perhaps I misjudged the minister in imagining that he would want to be forthwith with the people of British Columbia to clarify the issues around these obvious severe breaches of privacy.
One of the things that I've noticed in the discussions of the supplementary estimates we've had, through the various ministers, is the arbitrary nature of the responses. For example, I noted yesterday that the Minister of Health took quite a different approach.
Perhaps the minister…. I haven't certainly given up that he is going to respond, but the Minister of Health took a very different approach yesterday wherein he was most forthcoming in his answers. Although we on this side of the House think that the Minister of Health is oftentimes wrong, perhaps most times wrong — I certainly think he's wrong about things like keeping the truth about wait-lists from the people of British Columbia — we do admire the fact that whenever he has the chance to defend the record of his government, he takes advantage of that opportunity.
[ Page 14029 ]
I know this minister — at least I think this minister — was very keen to be in the executive branch. I'm sure he's very happy to be there, and him being a young man, he probably, at some point, will get another opportunity, if he sticks around a long time, to be on cabinet. But we have serious concerns around this, and I'm sure the minister does. So I'd like to give him another opportunity to respond to this matter of great public interest.
Hon. I. Black: I am most flattered at the suggestion from the member opposite that I may have a long and fruitful career within these hallowed halls. There are days when you wonder.
I can tell you that part of the experience that brings me to this place includes a decade and a half, almost two, within the technology sector. Within that, one learns — especially when you're in the position that I was, which involved being a senior officer of a publicly traded company — to understand things like due process. You learn to understand things like how there's a time and place for appropriate questions.
I'm afraid that, much as the topic fascinates me greatly, this is neither the time nor the place for the member to be questioning something outside the $2.2 million allotment to further enhance, yet again, the Premier's and this government's efforts at bridging the digital divide and taking our already world-renowned Internet penetration, on a per-user basis, to the remote and rural communities of this great province.
M. Sather: With regard to the $2.2 million that the minister wants to talk about, there are various criteria that have been referred to, I believe, with regard to the applications that have been made for these services.
Is there anything in those criteria that will help to address the extremely important matters that the Auditor General has brought up with regard to keeping the private information of British Columbians safe vis-à-vis the Internet and any other transmissions such as wireless transmissions?
Hon. I. Black: This $2.2 million is all about giving entrepreneurs and community organizations the opportunity to invest in technology and to bring last-mile high-speed Internet connectivity to their communities — their residents and the organizations within it.
There is no involvement in the program or the adjudication of the Auditor General, unless the Auditor General chooses to move to a community where last-mile connectivity is needed and perhaps make an application as an ISP.
M. Sather: Well, I want to address this issue, then, from the point of view of the gentleman that's sitting to the left of the minister. The chief information officer for the province is responsible to ensure the access to information and the protection of our privacy. Now, how is that individual going to be able to ensure the safety of our information when his office budget has been cut by $11 million, a 37.6 percent decrease?
Hon. I. Black: I'd be delighted to discuss that question when we are in the estimates process of Budget 2009.
M. Sather: Well, again, it's disappointing that the minister isn't flexing his considerable intellect to stretch his answers a little bit. I mean that sincerely. I think the minister is a very, very bright individual. I just hate to see it being wasted in this fashion. It would be lovely to hear some discussion of issues that are pertinent to the citizens of British Columbia.
You know, another very serious issue has been brought up about the transmission of information. Let's face it. That's what we're talking about here, and the supplementary information is about hooking up, getting people hooked up throughout the province to the Internet and to be able to transmit information. But along with that kind of hookup, of course, comes the very, very important aspect of the protection of privacy of the people of British Columbia.
In that regard, there have been concerns also expressed by Mr. Loukidelis on freedom-of-information requests being far too slow in British Columbia. "It's unacceptable that delays when asking for information from the provincial government, from the freedom-of-information process…" says the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner.
In his annual report, which he released recently, he wrote about what can only be described as an unacceptable pattern of governmentwide failure to respond to access requests in as timely a fashion as it should. Now, I understand from the minister that a statement that he made earlier about the sensitivity ratings that have been given to these kinds of requests, which certainly are of concern…. That political parties, special interest groups, the media and so on were given special sensitivity ratings. I think the minister should be commended for apparently taking the step to remove those.
But why does it take a complaint from the commissioner to correct this? And is the government actually going to do this, or is this a pre-election promise?
Hon. I. Black: I'm not sure how strong a telescope we would need in order to establish a line of sight between the member's questions and why we are here today, but I'm relatively certain we don't have one that strong within the precinct. These questions for today, Madam Speaker, should be focused on the $2.2 million supplementary estimate to do with an exciting program that is making a meaningful change in the lives of British Columbians who live in rural-remote areas.
[ Page 14030 ]
British Columbians are going to get access to e-health services and e-education services because our government has shown that it can work with private sector, with industry, with community-based ISPs and with striving and aspiring entrepreneurs in this province to really make a difference in their communities.
That's what we're here to discuss. I'll entertain any question from the opposition on that particular point. But as for this other, it's a useful speech to listen to on occasion, but this isn't the occasion.
K. Conroy: No one denies that the availability of Internet in rural B.C. is needed and that this is a great program. I think that what the minister fails to recognize in the questioning is that some of the concerns addressed in the Auditor General's report are real concerns.
Is there anywhere in the criteria for these programs…? Is there anywhere in the criteria when people are making the applications…? Do the Internet service providers have to show how they're going to protect the information that's being shared out there? Is there any way to make sure that those critical e-files are going to be protected?
I mean, we're talking about Internet service providers that are small businesses. You said that they're community groups. Is there a way to ensure that the information of the people of rural B.C. is going to be protected when it's being transferred around the province?
Nobody denies the good things that are coming from this program, but I think we have to recognize that there is a concern with making sure that information isn't shared with people who shouldn't get access to that information. I think it's a legitimate question and that it should be answered.
Hon. I. Black: What this minister fails to understand is the relevance of most of the questions of the last half-hour to the topic at hand.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Black: I know. It's the minister who doesn't understand the relevance.
But having said that, that question actually came closer to the relevance of today's topic than most in the last 20 minutes, so I will pass along this to the member. Internet service providers in the province of B.C., along with every other type of organization and business in British Columbia — whether it's your corner store, whether it's the department store, whether it's your car dealership — are accountable and subject to the Personal Information Protection Act. To the extent that the member's question dealt with some of those areas, they are subject, like other types of businesses, to that act.
N. Macdonald: In the time that remains I just want to have you break it down for me what you're going to be providing for us later. My understanding is that you're going to be providing two lists of communities and that they are going to be put in order. One list was presented from within government in order of the criteria that you set up.
So we're going to get one list, and then we're going to get another list, as I understand it. You can correct me, because I haven't heard all of the discussion. Another list comes back from Telus, which puts in line the communities — some sort of a response like that.
Is that correct, or could you explain to me…? What sort of lists, in terms of the communities, do we expect to get from the ministry?
Hon. I. Black: The two lists that we have said that we would be delighted to furnish for the members opposite include the list of the 44 communities, of the 364, where broadband access exists in the community but there has been no last mile established through an entrepreneur or a community Internet association.
The second list requested that we've agreed to provide is the list of the 186 applicants to this program, with the caveat that we just need to make sure that we're not in violation of any privacy laws by releasing that. This has been pointed out by the member opposite. There are lists very much like that. I don't anticipate one, but I'll defer to the Privacy Commissioner.
But in both cases, Member…. Just to be clear, there's no prioritizing in either one of those two lists. It's just a list of those communities that have not yet been connected at the point in time where those 44 communities were identified, so that may have changed in the recent and ensuing months.
And then the 186. Those also will not be prioritized, because those are the ones that are going through the last phases of the adjudication process of the program that we're currently discussing here today.
N. Macdonald: The second list is non-profits, communities as well as businesses. That is the list of the people that have applied for the funding and that are going through the assessment process right now.
You have said that that assessment process, of course, would be completed before March 31. What is the exact date that that assessment process will be finished, and at what time will the government be making that announcement? Will it be an announcement that will be put up on the website, or how will that be communicated?
My apologies if these questions have already been asked. I believe there may be some repetition, and I do apologize for that. But if you could answer those questions, that would be very much appreciated.
[ Page 14031 ]
Hon. I. Black: There's no question that the applicants to this program, as evidenced by the high number of them and the typical oversubscription to this program, indicate very clearly that there's an interest in getting on with the process. So to that end, I can assure the member that we are absolutely committed and confirm to the member that we're committed to the announcement and distribution of the funds before March 31.
As we are still in the final phases, I'm not capable of providing a specific date as to when the adjudication process itself will be complete. But once it is, the intention is to announce to those communities as soon as possible and to have the cheques sent out to them as soon as possible as well — but in any event, before the end of March.
N. Macdonald: Okay, I thank the minister for that.
Obviously, this program is one of many that we've been debating over the last number of days where we've gone through a process of supplementary estimates. Normally, what we would expect is that programs would be thought through and that they would come through in the budget process that exists. So they would have come through in the previous year, or they would have come through in next year's budget.
I think that most would accept that much of the spending that we have seen is pre-election. Nevertheless, that is something that's as old as time, and coming from it can be a lot of beneficial programs. I think this is one where there are many, many communities that I represent that are looking forward to that connectivity.
There's a tremendous amount that government does that assumes this sort of connectivity, and I'll give an example to the minister that he may be familiar with. Even the marks program, the BCeSIS program, assumes this sort of connectivity. So for teachers that live in these rural areas, being able to work on the report cards at home is something that's important. As well, many of the websites that the government has assume that you're not on dial-up.
So these are going to be important funding initiatives. At the same time, we want to, in a timely way, be able to look at how the government is spending this money.
The last question I would have is: when the decision is made on these projects, is the government or the minister going to be making the announcements one at a time? Or is there a set date when all of the funding will be announced, when we can go to a website or easily find it on the government website as to which businesses, which non-profits, are going to be allocated these funds and in which communities? Is that going to be available immediately on one website on the day that the decision is made, or are we going to have to wait while the minister travels around and hands out cheques?
I would say that for us to do our job here, it would be appropriate, I think, that it would be information that would be provided as soon as possible. I'll give the minister a chance to answer that. I think that at that point, we're almost ready to move on with recessing for lunch, but I'd ask the minister to answer that first, please.
Hon. I. Black: I echo many of the member's comments, specifically pertaining to the need for programs like this and the need for high bandwidth Internet connectivity to a lot of our communities. They're dependent on services like this, frankly, at a family level and beyond just businesses and within the community.
This question was asked earlier, and as I mentioned there, it's difficult to know precisely how the various communities may wish to celebrate these announcements. We'll work with them and, frankly, probably defer to them as much as we can. But I can tell the member that I do not have personal plans to travel across the province of B.C.
Vote 38(S): ministry operations, $2,200,000 — approved.
Hon. I. Black: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of Supply, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN 1499-2175