2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th 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)

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 12, Number 1

[ Page 3521 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Citizens' Services, and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 3, the Supply Act (No. 1).

[1005]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 3 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

On section 1.

D. Donaldson: Section 1 deals with a sum of $6.418 billion to defray the charges and expenses of the public service. It's substantially 10⁄52 of the total amount of this vote. Would the minister explain the rationale for this fraction?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member may know, this spring session of the Legislature is scheduled to conclude at the end of the first week in June. That would allow for ten weeks into the fiscal year before the end of this session. This is allowing for that ten weeks of appropriation in order for us to operate government with appropriate legislative approval.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

D. Donaldson: This section deals with a sum of $388 million towards capital expenditures outlined in schedule C and schedule D of the main estimates. This is substantially one-half the total of the voted amount. Could the minister advise why we're dealing with one-half of the total amount in this section, whereas in the previous section it was 10⁄52?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is in keeping with precedent. I think if the member were to look back over previous supply bills presented to the Legislature, this same 50 percent appropriation is what is normal in a supply bill that is introduced at this stage in the cycle prior to the start of the fiscal year.

It also reflects the fact that in terms of capital expenditures, they don't flow as evenly throughout the year. Therefore, if it's a year where some of those capital disbursements are required at the start of the fiscal year, then this allows for an adequate amount of room to ensure there is the authority to do so.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

D. Donaldson: Section 3 deals with a sum of $1,323,730,000 for disbursements referred to in schedule E of the main estimates. In looking upon schedule E, this is 100 percent of the amount in the main estimates. Could the minister advise on why we're dealing with 100 percent here in relation to the fact that in the last two sections it was proportional?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again this is in keeping with past practice, that these funds would be allocated at 100 percent in a supply bill. These actually reflect moneys that are not collected for the expenditure from ministries per se but rather are dollars that are collected and typically flow through to other entities, and in many cases, it could be resulting in thousand-dollar votes, for example. As I say, this is in keeping with past practices, and this is not in any way setting any kind of a new precedent.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:10 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2010

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2010, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 3522 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I call committee stage of Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

On section 1.

D. Donaldson: Section 1 deals with sections 6 and 33 of the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, and under this section they're to be repealed.

As I understand it, these two sections could have given colleges and institutions more leeway in running a deficit. Could the minister advise what problem this section is intended to remedy?

Hon. C. Hansen: These provisions were enacted in 2003. That was prior to the colleges and other post-secondary institutions being part of the government reporting entity.

One of the recommendations of the Auditor General — and, in fact, one of the qualifications that were put into the public accounts of the province for the years leading up to this — was the concern that the post-secondary institutions, given their governance structure, should be part of the government reporting entity. The fact that they were subsequently brought into the government reporting entity made these particular provisions not necessary.

I think, as the member knows, later on in this bill we have the powers that would be granted to Treasury Board to allow Treasury Board to give direction with regard to accounting standards for any post-secondary institutions that continue as part of the government reporting entity in the future.

[1015]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

D. Donaldson: This section deals with B.C. Rail and the British Columbia Railway Act. Effectively, it's the end of B.C. Rail as it was originally brought into being. It brings the government's shares in B.C. Rail under the authority of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, so it's an end to a long history. Back when this government came into power, they said that they would not sell off B.C. Rail, and shortly after coming into power they did. It's a bit of a legacy that we're seeing now with the HST as well.

The throne speech claims that enacting section 3 will make B.C. Rail more efficient and will enable the government to strategically manage B.C. Rail's assets within the context of the Pacific gateway strategy. That was in the throne speech. Now, the Transportation Minister, I assume…. Would the minister please advise to us the studies that were done to support that claim in the throne speech.

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to ask the member's indulgence in terms of repeating the specific question now that my staff has joined me.

I'll take the opportunity to introduce them while we're here. They do a fantastic job every day — my deputy minister, Peter Milburn, and Dave Byng. We also have Lisa Gow joining us so that we can provide appropriate answers. If the member would indulge us and just repeat his question, that would be helpful to my staff.

D. Donaldson: Yes, no problem, and welcome to the staff as well.

From the throne speech the ministry claims that by bringing the government shares in B.C. Rail under the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, it will make the running of this operation more efficient and will enable the government to more strategically manage B.C. Rail's assets within the context of the Pacific gateway strategy.

My question was to the minister. Could you please advise us of the studies that were done to support the claim that this is going to be more efficient and enable better strategic management of the assets?

Hon. S. Bond: What we did was, as a result of the direction through the throne speech, internally our staff reviewed things like objectives, the costs, the efficiencies. So that was an internal review that was led by my staff.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. Are the results of that internal review available for public dissemination?

[1020]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is not a formal document, as the member is requesting. It was a process where our staff reviewed objectives' costs. That information was obviously prepared for the review of cabinet in terms of a decision that was to be made about the Crown corporation.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Would the process that justified the efficiencies that could be gained through this government share transfer and the strategic management efficiencies, as well, be available for review?
[ Page 3523 ]

Hon. S. Bond: There is no formal document. In fact, it is a process. Our ministry regularly undertakes these types of processes when we evaluate efficiencies and objectives with any of the files or responsibilities that we have as a ministry. It was a direct result of the throne speech commitment, and that advice was prepared for cabinet.

D. Donaldson: I appreciate that answer. The throne speech was a month ago, approximately, so perhaps this information was prepared in the last four weeks. For accountability and transparency reasons, I'm sure the public would be interested in the kinds of efficiencies that the government would be imagining from this transfer, and I'm sure the government would like to highlight those efficiencies. Would the minister make available the content or the directions that the discussions took so that people can be more aware of what the efficiencies are?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we recognize in our ministry, as in other ministries, that it is an ongoing process where we look at opportunities for efficiency, for streamlining, for looking at productivity. This process was no different than that. To the member's question, there is no formal document. It was not a process that was undertaken with that in mind. We constantly review for efficiencies, for streamlining. That was the case in this circumstance.

I should just point out to the member, in fact, that the throne speech commitment was made in September of 2009.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I appreciate that there may not be any formal documents, but I'm sure that it isn't just informal discussions that take place to make these kinds of significant decisions about bringing B.C. Rail under the authority of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

The minister referenced opportunities for efficiencies. Could she describe some of the opportunities for efficiencies that bringing this section in will avail?

[1025]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, as we looked at how we might look at the transition taking place, we looked at a number of things. Anytime you make changes, you want to look specifically at how you could bring a reduction in costs.

We looked at operating cost reductions, for example, in legal services. There's not a necessity to have two separate entities doing that. We looked at the most obvious, which is salary reductions, the elimination of board costs, because when we move that over into the ministry, we will not require a board.

We're also looking at amalgamation of the property group, because as you know, B.C. Rail Properties carried on a significant real estate portfolio. That will continue now that it will be amalgamated into our property group. We're also looking at the consolidation with our financial side in terms of looking at how those two operations would be managed. We're now going to do that with one.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for those details. I appreciate that and getting to it finally. That was appreciated. I would like to come back to the salary reduction costs a little later in this section.

Could the minister advise, getting back to the efficiencies that were imagined…? CN and CP in this province — and I appreciate that those are just examples of other railways, that they're not under the jurisdiction of this province — are able to manage on their own as separate corporations not under government authority. Why does the government think that bringing B.C. Rail under government authority, in this sense, under this section, is necessary?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the primary difference is that, obviously, B.C. Rail is a Crown corporation, which means that it has responsibility for a significant number of public assets.

[1030]

We intend to now, with the transition, manage those public assets, which include property and a number of other issues — so, in fact, quite a different approach than CN and CP.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, Minister.

My next question is still on this section. How will bringing B.C. Rail under the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority help with integration with other railways in B.C.? If we're talking efficiencies, is there some justification there about helping with integration with other railways in B.C.? How might this achieve that?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I'm not quite certain around the clarity of the member's specific ask, but in terms of working collaboratively with CN and CP and BNSF, obviously it's in our best interest in British Columbia to have an integrated, connected, collaborative transportation system.

I certainly anticipate an ongoing positive working relationship with those railways. We currently work with them extremely well, and our goal is always to ensure that our transportation network in British Columbia is integrated. So we certainly don't see that changing with B.C. Rail Properties moving to the ministry.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. What are the implications? Could the minister advise what the implications are of this share transfer for future operations of B.C. Rail? It's a share transfer of government shares in B.C. Rail to
[ Page 3524 ]
the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. So what are the implications for future operations of B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, really, the transfer of shares is simply that. It means that the shares will now be held under the B.C. Transportation Finance Authority, and we expect that there will be continuity in the operation and practices that are underway today. So in fact, it's simply a transfer of the shares to a service Crown, and it allows us to continue to work in a very integrated and collaborative way, the way that we do today.

[1035]

D. Donaldson: Let's talk a little bit maybe about some specifics that this share transfer will create. For example, there's a list of five executive positions right now with B.C. Rail. In 2008 the combined salaries of that executive team was $1.207 million annually. What happens to the executive team under this transfer?

Hon. S. Bond: It is important to recognize that there has certainly been a significant degree of accomplishment by B.C. Rail Properties. If you look at the total revenue that actually has been returned to the province, it exceeds $1.5 billion. We've also seen over $180 million in gross land sales — so significant accomplishments.

There are currently four executive positions. It is our intent to transition one of those individuals in terms of operations to make sure that we have continuity and history as we move that across. So in fact, there would be a reduction of three executive positions.

D. Donaldson: Was the minister referring to the position of VP operations?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct.

D. Donaldson: Now that B.C. Rail is going to be a part of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, the minister referenced in an earlier answer salary reductions. In light of that — salary reductions as one of the efficiencies that this transfer will enable — could the B.C. Rail not be managed by an ADM or such a similar position rather than having, now, three executives manage the operation, or are there more efficiencies that could be gained through this, and why aren't we having more efficiencies?

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to be very clear on the record. We're actually reducing three executive positions out of the four. So we are only retaining one of them. There is a significant degree of work that we'll be transferring over to the ministry.

[1040]

In fact, we have to manage the CN revitalization agreement, which in and of itself is complex, and it's absolutely essential for British Columbians to know that's being managed well. There is a significant real estate portfolio, and of particular importance is the management of the port subdivision, which is absolutely critical to the future of our Asia-Pacific strategy. In analyzing how much efficiency we could create, we also wanted to make sure that there is continuity and stability in terms of the operations of those very significant parts of this portfolio.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. Is it my understanding, then, that the executive position that will be left is the president and CEO position?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, the only position that we'll be transferring over from the executive team is the vice-president of operations. We feel that's critical. We recognize, as I stated in my earlier answer, how important it is to have that continuity of the work that's being done on the ground and future planning, particularly related to the Asia-Pacific strategy.

D. Donaldson: I see. So if I'm correct in hearing this, it's the vice-president of operations' position that will be retained. Then the other four positions — but from what I understand, it's three now — are being phased out, eliminated. Will that result in cost savings of salaries immediately when this section comes into effect, or is there a period of transition?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it is our intent that the positions would terminate at the end of March. Obviously, salary costs related to those three positions…. If the member wanted to clarify the question of four or five, certainly there are four executive positions. Three of those are obviously no longer continuing as of March 31, and there would no longer be salary costs associated with those three individuals.

L. Krog: Were those employees given notice, and is there any severance package associated with the termination of those positions?

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to just clarify one thing, because I did say that the end date for the positions was March 31. That is correct for two of the executive positions. The third executive position, which is actually the CFO, will be ending in December. I wanted to clarify the difference there.

The two individuals leaving at the end of March have received notice, and in fact, there will be severance costs attached with their contracts, and we will be honouring those contracts. The third individual, the December departure date, has not yet received notice.

L. Krog: I mean, generally speaking, one either gets a severance package or they get notice. You work out your
[ Page 3525 ]
notice, and you're free to go as you wish. So is the minister saying that not only are they getting notice; they're going to get a severance package on top of the notice?

[1045]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the member opposite would know that in contracts, in fact, there is a requirement to properly notify people should their contract be ending. That is the case with these two individuals. Also, we intend to honour their employment contracts, which require there to be severance with their departure.

L. Krog: I certainly appreciate her comments, but one is not forced to enter into contracts that provide notice and severance as well. That's something that obviously the company has negotiated with these folks. I mean, the taxpayers of British Columbia have known that for several years we've been talking about a rather minuscule organization in comparison to what B.C. Rail once was before the so-called euphemistic lease of its assets, which most British Columbians believe was a sale.

My question to the minister is: what exactly, in addition to the notice, is it going to cost the taxpayers? Because my reading of this amendment section makes it fairly clear that the government is going to get the money. We're talking about taxpayers' money, essentially. We can beat around the bush around legalistic terms and terminology, but it's the taxpayers' money here. So how much is the severance, in addition to the notice, going to cost the taxpayers?

Hon. S. Bond: As I outlined, we properly notified the two individuals that will no longer be working for B.C. Rail Properties. We also, in a way that is appropriate, will be honouring their employment contracts, which actually require a severance. We will be paying the severance that is required by their contract. There is nothing in addition to that severance.

L. Krog: Well, can the minister tell the House: what is the dollar amount attached to that severance?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there are two severance amounts, as you can imagine for two individuals. The severance will be $392,000 for one of the individuals and $203,000. Those numbers are identified as part of their contract.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can advise what period of time that severance package relates to? Are we talking, then, about a year, year and a half, two years?

[1050]

Hon. S. Bond: The terms are obviously laid out clearly in the employment contract for the individuals, and it covers the period of 2004 to 2010.

L. Krog: I take it from her remarks that these contracts were entered into in 2004 and that the amounts of money involved, just guesstimating what the salaries involved are…. So we're talking about at least a year or more of severance on top of notice. Is that what the minister is telling the House?

Hon. S. Bond: For the member's record, one more time, we properly notified…. We advised the executives that they would no longer be continuing their roles as of March 31. They were given that advice. The only costs that are related to the ending of their positions are related to severance, which are outlined in their contracts. We intend to honour the contracts that were created with these two people.

L. Krog: If I can just come at this from another angle, perhaps then the minister will maybe get my point. My impression from her remarks is that there were contracts entered into in 2004 around the time of the disposition of the substantive assets of B.C. Rail that appear to have guaranteed payments to executives by way of a contract for personal services for a period of six years — an employment contract.

In other words, they're going to be guaranteed six years of service to run a considerably diminished operation — much like a Dickens novel, a company living in reduced circumstances, if I can put it that way. Is that what the minister is telling the House — that they were guaranteed employment for a period of six years whether there was a railway to run or not?

[1055]

Hon. S. Bond: There were no beginning or end dates in the contract. The member references six years guaranteed. There were no…. It was an employment contract. As would employment contracts…. As they're created, there is actually an expectation that should your employment no longer continue…. There were severance provisions within that contract. Those are the actual requirements that we are honouring.

You know, not to continue to debate this with the member opposite, but while he might find it insignificant, we certainly do not. In fact, B.C. Rail Properties has returned $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia and $180 million alone in gross land sales.

There was a significant portfolio being managed by B.C. Rail Properties. Now that we are moving with the transition of B.C. Rail back to the ministry, we have a requirement to pay severance as outlined in the employment contracts that were agreed to.

L. Krog: If I can, in my own simple way, try and understand what the minister's telling me. We have employment contracts that provide for severance. Did the employment contracts that provided for severance
[ Page 3526 ]
make that severance referable in any way to the length of service? In other words, after two years did I get a year's severance? After three years did I get three years' severance?

In other words, what were the terms of the employment contracts that have led to the substantial amounts of money that the minister has given in response to a previous question this morning?

[1100]

Hon. S. Bond: There is a formula contained within the employment contract that generates the amount of severance that these two individuals will be receiving. I'm advised that we don't have the specific details here. The staff does not have the specific detail as to the formula.

I am also advised that the severance costs were reviewed by the provincial government, including PSEC, and that the terms of the contract are fair and that it is our responsibility to honour that contract.

L. Krog: As I understand it, of the three individuals, the chief financial officer will retain his or her position until December 31 of this year and then, in addition to whatever notice was given, will be receiving a severance package. Can the minister tell the House how much that severance package will be?

Hon. S. Bond: We do require the services of the CFO over the next few months as we make the transition, and that's important. At this point in time we have not advised the CFO of a date. It will be approximately the end of the year, December. For that reason, we at this point do not have a severance cost, but we will be honouring the employment contract that is in place for that individual, just as we have the other two.

L. Krog: We've talked about the three executive positions. With respect to other employees of the rail, what will happen to those employees? I'll call it the, I assume, unionized force.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: Our first priority is to ensure, as we make this transition, that employees are treated with fairness and respect and that they also have a great….

Transition is a difficult thing. What we want to do, obviously, is look for efficiencies, but we respect that there is a great deal of expertise, in particular related to the port sub and the operation of that port subdivision. It's absolutely critical that we retain that expertise.

Currently there are 30 employees. We've already pointed out that we will be reducing three executive positions. It's our intent to maintain the vast majority of the port subdivision group of employees, because that's critical in the agenda of the province — to make sure that runs smoothly.

Our intention is to transition over the next number of months, to assess the need for ongoing staffing, but it is our intent to continue to look at reductions in that workforce. Having said that, the port subdivision team is a priority. There's a lot of expertise, and we expect to maintain that working unit.

L. Krog: In reference to those employees, if any of them are severed, will their packages and the formula be the same as that afforded the executive positions?

[1105]

Hon. S. Bond: Good morning, hon. Chair.

We would honour the employment circumstances and contracts as they are laid out for those individuals, should that be required. We're going to be very thoughtful about the transition and the expertise that is in the unit of 30 people, so we would honour those expectations around severance, should there be any, but at this point we're going to transition over the next number of months.

As I said to the member opposite, of particular concern is the port subdivision employees, and I don't expect a significant reduction there.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's concern about all the employees of B.C. Rail, but my question quite specifically is this: is the formula for severance for the unionized workforce the same as the formula for severance for those management or senior positions that we've talked about this morning?

Hon. S. Bond: It's our intention to honour the specifics of each of the individuals, should there be any additional severance costs. That's our expectation. That's our responsibility. Those would be tailored to the individuals, just as the individual employment contracts of the executives are.

L. Krog: Perhaps I'm not making myself clear to the minister, so I'll try once again. There is a formula for severance — which the minister didn't have the particulars of particularly, as I recall from her earlier answers — for the senior executives who we talked about, the three. But with respect to the other employees, the 30 employees, are they in union positions? Are they in salaried positions? If so, what are the formulas with respect to severance for those differing positions?

Hon. S. Bond: We will honour, should it be required, the employment contracts that are in place for these employees. To the member opposite's question, there are no unionized employees.

In fact, we have not explored the employment contracts of the other individuals largely because we don't anticipate actually having to issue any advice that they would no longer continue. So we don't anticipate a large number
[ Page 3527 ]
of reductions in staff, and if there were to be any, their employment contracts would be honoured as we are honouring the employment contracts of the executives.

L. Krog: With respect to the employment contracts of the executives whose positions are being terminated, do those contracts provide confidentiality clauses such that they would not be able to discuss in a public way anything surrounding the disposition of the assets of B.C. Rail or anything they may have received in confidence or heard about during the course of their employment?

[1110]

Hon. S. Bond: I am advised that we do not have the answer to that question. The contract was drawn up between the board and the executive.

L. Krog: Is the minister in a position, in light of her answer, to table those contracts in the House?

Hon. S. Bond: As I earlier answered the member opposite's question, we do not have the details of the employment contract. It is a contract between the board and the individuals. My staff advised me that we do not know the details of the clauses contained within that contract, so I'm unable to make that commitment to the member today.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's answer, but all of the assets of B.C. Rail, as I understand the amendments before the House, are going to roll into the government. That's my understanding. The government takes over everything. So it seems to me that you take over the records, the documents, everything that relates to B.C. Rail.

I'm wondering why the minister can't commit, as those documents are presumably not going to be destroyed, to tabling them in the House as soon as they become available.

Hon. S. Bond: This bill relates to the financial impacts of the transition from B.C. Rail to the ministry. As I've made clear to the member opposite, I am not aware of the content of that particular contract, and neither is my staff. The member opposite would be well aware of the fact that because we don't know those details, I cannot blanketly make a commitment to do that today. We are unaware of what the clauses within the contract actually require.

[1115]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, but this government, when it was elected, as I recall, made a commitment to openness and transparency. The whole disposition of the assets of B.C. Rail is mired in controversy. The taxpayers are now quite directly being asked to pay significant severance packages, the value of which the minister has outlined in her previous answers. The assets are being taken over by the people of British Columbia in a very direct sense, coming right into government out from a Crown corporation.

Surely the minister would want to assure the House this morning that the taxpayers have full opportunity to scrutinize the provisions of what, on the face of it, appears to be a very generous severance package that is in addition to notice provisions that the minister has referred to.

Can the minister advise of any reason, with her staff here to assist her, why she can't commit to tabling those contracts? Surely there's nothing untoward that the people of British Columbia shouldn't see in those contracts.

Hon. S. Bond: I know that the member opposite has heard the answer. I'll repeat it again. In fact, we do not have the details or the clauses contained with an individual's employment contract, which we would be expected to honour. At this point and today I am unable to make that commitment for that very reason.

I also made clear to the member opposite that we, today, have outlined the severance costs that are required by those employment contracts, and I will once again clarify for the member opposite that those are the only costs in terms of severance.

The member continues to refer to notice. What we did was notify the individuals that their employment would no longer continue, and we are honouring the severance expectations that are held within those contracts. In fact, as I said to the member opposite previously, the contracts and the severance have been reviewed by the province, including PSEC, to make sure that it was appropriate to those employment contracts.

L. Krog: What it's like is a poker game. I think it's called "Texas No Peeky" or something.

The minister can advise the House of the amount of money involved in these severance packages, so clearly, her staff has some knowledge of at least that aspect of it, but she can't advise of the other aspects of this contract. So I guess my question is: has the minister or has her staff seen the contracts, or have they not? If they haven't, have they only seen parts, and if so, which parts?

Hon. S. Bond: We have an outstanding staff in the Ministry of Transportation. I have been advised by my deputy and have shared this in three answers with the member opposite. My deputy has not reviewed the employment contracts.

In terms of the additional clauses that are contained within that contract, we are unable today, for that reason, to be able to make a commitment to table those contracts. I'm sure the member opposite would understand that in personnel matters and with an employment contract in
[ Page 3528 ]
place, we intend to honour the expectations within that contract. My deputy advises me that he has not reviewed those contracts.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's answer. I'm going to take it from her answer that the severance amounts have certainly been reviewed by the deputy. The minister advised that government has reviewed them. It's obvious to me. I presume that the deputy minister will, at some point, be reviewing these contracts.

I'm wondering, then, if the minister can commit to having her deputy review and then provide these contracts to the House.

[1120]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to remind the member opposite that this bill is about the fiscal implications related to the transition of B.C. Rail to the Ministry of Transportation, and we've been very transparent about those costs today. They include severance, which I've outlined. Obviously, the deputy would still today not be able to make that commitment, and the member opposite would recognize it, because it depends on what the clauses are that are contained within that employment contract.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's admonition about the sections that we're reviewing and what they relate to. I'm just trying to determine what the taxpayers are actually going to see out of this transaction, as it appears they're going to be on the hook for not only notice but for what, on the face of it, appears to be a fairly generous severance package in these circumstances.

Given the fact that these positions were filled around the time of the disposition of the railway and given the controversy surrounding the sale, I think it would be appropriate, obviously, if the taxpayers had full knowledge of the provisions of that contract that related to disclosure of what actually occurred. The minister might appreciate that the opposition would be somewhat suspicious around this issue.

Again I come back to it. What possible reason could there be that an employment contract with a Crown corporation would be such that it wouldn't be open to public scrutiny, particularly after the fact, when the contract is clearly being terminated by government by way of notice being given and severance being paid?

Hon. S. Bond: The whole point of having an employment contract is that one would honour the provisions that are contained within it. I'm not in a position to and will not speculate about what the clauses within that contract say. We are unable, I am advised by my deputy today, to make that commitment because we are unaware of what the additional clauses within that contract might say.

The Chair: Member for Nanaimo. And I would caution the member on the repetitiveness of this line of questioning.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate your comments as well.

With respect to these employment contracts, the review of them does not seem to be a difficult matter. The minister has already outlined in her answers that the severance amounts are known. The concern from the public's perspective would relate not just to the contents of the contracts but also to the timing of them. In other words, when were they entered into?

Can the minister advise when the employment contracts with the three individuals that have been mentioned in this morning's proceedings were entered into?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I answered this question previously as well. It covers the period of 2004 to 2010.

The Chair: I am again cautioning the member on the repetitive nature of this line of questioning.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's answer — 2004. Can the minister tell us when in 2004?

[1125]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the questioning. Having said that the scope of the bill is around the financial implications related to the transition of B.C. Rail to the Ministry of Transportation, we don't have the specific date of the transaction in the House with us today. It is clear that it was covering the period of 2004 to 2010.

L. Krog: I wonder, then, if the minister can commit to providing to the House what I think is some perfectly legitimate information, and that is: what are the dates of those contracts specifically in 2004, and is there any reason not to provide the dates of the commencement of those contracts?

Hon. S. Bond: Again I'll remind the member opposite of the scope of the debate today, which is around the financial implications of the transition. I look forward to an opportunity to have further discussion about this issue in my estimates. In fact, we do not have the date with us in the House, so we do need to be cognizant of the scope of this debate and the future opportunity the member will have in estimates.

Interjection.

The Chair: I'm reluctant to caution the member again, in that the advice was not followed on two previous occasions.
[ Page 3529 ]

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I appreciate your comments.

The minister has suggested that somehow the questions do not relate to the financial implications for the province of British Columbia. Clearly, with respect to the minister's response, the timing of the contract in any given year does relate to the amount of severance that is to be provided, because that will obviously be based on a time formula.

Again, with respect to the minister's response, is she committing, then, in this House today to be prepared for estimates debate, with respect to her ministry, to provide specific answers to the questions that she hasn't been able to answer here this morning?

Hon. S. Bond: That question has been asked and answered.

D. Donaldson: The minister alluded earlier to the work that the VP operations does and the amount of work that is undertaken by the B.C. Rail executive team.

Now, considering that there are going to be two executive positions lost at the end of March and another at the end of December and that there'll only be one executive position being transferred, will there be additional staff hired under the Ministry of Transportation to deal with what appears to be additional workload — or under the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate my staff. They actually said: "Minister, just look to your left and behind you. Those are the individuals that will be helping carry this file."

The answer to the member's question is that we're not hiring any additional staff. In fact, we will be looking at our ministry and how we manage through the transition. There's undoubtedly an increased workload, and the members of our team in the ministry will be managing those with the ongoing advice and assistance of the VP operations.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. I do believe that the people working within the government system are doing a commendable job and take on incredible workloads, so I congratulate them on that.

On this additional workload, I would like to ask: how does the minister believe that putting extra workload on staff that already have responsibilities — 100 percent responsibilities — leads to efficiencies?

[1130]

Hon. S. Bond: I do appreciate the question. There will be challenges as we take on this additional workload. In fact, this is a ministry that has an incredibly proud record of looking at how we streamline and look for efficiencies, and we're going to have to do more of that.

The good thing is that we have a management structure in place that will accommodate some of the portfolio requirements — for example, the management of land. That's what we do. We have a group that works through that.

We've looked for efficiencies in things like travel, using video conferencing. It's going to require ongoing looking at how we streamline, but we do have a management structure in place that we think will quite nicely accommodate the portfolio pieces that we're bringing over from B.C. Rail Properties.

D. Donaldson: It seems that going from what was originally five executive team members down to one would…. One could conclude that that would lead to an extra workload on the one team member who's left that's going to be transferred.

Will there be an increase in the salary for VP operations? The salary has been made public, but will there be an increase in that salary from 2008 levels, for instance, to represent the increased workload that could happen here?

Hon. S. Bond: The answer to that is no. I also want to remind the member opposite of the context. This individual is coming over but will be supported by the management team and structure that's already in place. We don't anticipate any additional salary costs. That individual will be supported by the fantastic team we have looking at how we organize around this new portfolio.

D. Donaldson: This is 40 kilometres of track that's left with no trains and, granted, some port facilities and operations. There were 24 employees. It sounds like there could be fewer. Despite the savings, it is costing taxpayers quite a substantial amount of money to keep B.C. Rail operating.

Would the minister explain why it is important to keep this railway under the government as a unit?

Hon. S. Bond: It is important for the member to note that all of the costs related to the port sub are actually recoverable, so there is no cost to the taxpayer in terms of the port sub. It's very critical that we maintain an integrated system here.

[1135]

We have three class 1 railways that are utilizing this infrastructure, and we're committed to seeing that continue to run efficiently and effectively. It's an important part of government's agenda in terms of the use of that infrastructure. The costs are recoverable, and that's an important thing to note.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Could the minister advise us: under this transfer, will B.C. Rail make money?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the history of the work that's been done is very significant. In fact, it has been about generating revenue for taxpayers. If you look at the return,
[ Page 3530 ]
we have seen a $1.5 billion return to the taxpayers of British Columbia, including, as I've mentioned, $180 million for gross land sales alone.

Our job is to ensure that we continue to find maximum benefit and to build on that history that's been created and that very successful creation of additional resources. Our job is to continue that process and make sure, where it's appropriate, that we are accruing benefits to the taxpayers.

D. Donaldson: As a result of this transfer of the government shares from B.C. Rail to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, has there been a financial plan created, and will B.C. Rail be a separate reporting entity within the Ministry of Transportation's budget?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's important to recognize that B.C. Rail will retain its current legal status. That's incredibly important. There are probably a thousand or more contracts in place, and it's important to honour those. So it will retain its own legal status. The management, however, will be undertaken by our ministry, and it will, as the bill points out, operate as a subset of the BCTFA.

D. Donaldson: Going back to the generating-revenue aspect of the operation, could the minister be a bit more specific or describe a bit further where the money will come from? She mentioned the port activities. Is that the only area where B.C. Rail will be generating revenue? Are there other areas? Can she describe how the revenue generation occurs from the subactivities?

[1140]

Hon. S. Bond: We've already discussed the port sub. That certainly is on the list. The other two areas would primarily be property sales and property leases.

D. Donaldson: Considering that those are areas for revenue generation, and going back to my previous question, I didn't quite catch in your answer whether there is a financial plan three years out, five years out, for revenues to be generated and expenditures and how that will unfold.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, we have much work to do as the transition takes place, and we are putting together a strategic plan. The major tenet of that plan is: how do we maximize the benefit?

There are initial projections, certainly, that B.C. Rail had about potential future land sales, for example. But we want to assess the process that was in place previously, and it obviously depends on land values and a number of other circumstances.

So yes, we're in the process of analyzing the current process and current expectations and putting together a strategic plan, with our goal and major aim being to maximize the value and the benefit for taxpayers. That has certainly been the practice at B.C. Rail, and we intend to continue that.

D. Donaldson: When would that strategic plan and those projections be available for public scrutiny?

[1145]

Hon. S. Bond: As B.C. Rail transitions over to the ministry, we would include that in our regular service planning process, so in fact, as we lay out our strategic plan for the ministry and also our financials, this particular addition to our ministry would be captured there. We will be working through the transition, and then the member opposite will see the strategic plan and financials linked to the service plan, as we would any other significant part of our ministry.

D. Donaldson: The minister mentioned, in a previous answer, projections as part of that strategic plan around land values. Could she describe the inventory of lands that B.C. Rail holds and the acreage and where it is?

Hon. S. Bond: I am advised that it is approximately 300 properties that currently remain in that portfolio.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. Are they spread around the province or concentrated in certain areas? Could you describe that?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they are spread throughout the province and, obviously, relatively close to railway lines.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the specificity of that answer. I look forward to maybe some more details when the service plan comes out.

I'd like to get an idea — especially for those who might be watching or reading or following this — about the overall value of the ongoing operation called B.C. Rail. We're talking about a transfer of B.C. Rail to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, and I think it would be well worth it if the minister could advise about the overall value of that transfer of the ongoing operation called B.C. Rail.

[1150]

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly would be happy to refer the member opposite to the annual report of B.C. Rail, which is actually where it outlines what their assets are. For the year ending December 31, 2008, the cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year were $306,155. Again, that comes from the B.C. Rail annual report.

D. Donaldson: Noting the time, I'll ask one more question to the minister. Why choose to transfer B.C. Rail into the ministry and not sell it off as…? Granted, it was a 99-year lease with the other B.C. Rail assets, but most people in the public would say that that's selling
[ Page 3531 ]
it off. So why choose to transfer the remaining assets of B.C. Rail and the value of its operations into the ministry rather than sell it off?

I can tell you that up in our area the $185 million, I believe it was, that went to the Northern Development Initiative Trust from the sale of the original B.C. Rail assets by this government is not enough capitalization for the projects that we see in the north. I can give an example of a meat co-op that's looking for $400,000 from the NDI Trust and can't access it, because there isn't enough capitalization.

In Scotland, for instance, in the Highland and Islands Enterprise, they have 185 million a year serving 400,000 people annually. So selling off this asset…. Why is the government choosing not to do that and choosing to bring it into the ministry instead?

The Chair: Member, that question may more properly be dealt with under section 4.

Section 3 approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1155]

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. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS' SERVICES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We're doing the budget estimates on Citizens' Services.

I just wanted to remind the people in the gallery that there's no use of audio technology. For the members in the House — they may use electronic devices but not while they're on their feet and speaking.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $45,063,000 (continued).

D. Routley: The last question I had yesterday afternoon was: when will the B.C. Liberal government bring B.C. Ferries under the Freedom of Information Act?

I'd like to ask essentially the same question about VANOC. Will the full cost of the 2010 Olympic Games eventually be allowed to fall under freedom of information so that British Columbians can have the ability to find out where all the money went? London has already committed the summer 2012 games to the purview of their own FOI legislation.

Hon. B. Stewart: As minister responsible for the FOIPPA act, I have the authority to bring organizations under the coverage of the FOIPPA act by ministerial order if they meet the criteria laid out by the legislation.

In addition, former minister Olga Ilich, responsible for the FOIPPA act, considered VANOC's situation and determined that, in her view, VANOC was not an appropriate entity to be considered for inclusion as a public body under the FOIPPA act. But government is committed to openness and accountability and understands the importance of information being available to the public.

[1010]

For this reason, it supports VANOC'S endeavours to provide information in a timely and transparent way. For instance, VANOC'S website publishes much of the financial information normally sought through the freedom-of-information process. The FOIPPA act also covers the province's financial contributions to VANOC, which are available to the public through the government's audited public accounts.

D. Routley: Well, it would have been nice for all of the information concerning the 2010 games to have been available before the games took place, while people were considering whether or not full value was being obtained for their investment. London, as I've said, has already committed their games to this freedom-of-information access.

The Finance Minister in the previous parliament stood dozens of times and told the House that not a
[ Page 3532 ]
penny more than $600 million would be spent. Well, some of those contentions could have been challenged had this type of scrutiny been available to people at the time. It's unfortunate that the government hasn't taken the step already, before the Olympics, to bring VANOC under full scrutiny, but that seems to be not an intention, at least from the minister's response.

Seven provinces in Canada have right-to-know legislation that essentially is in place in order to protect firefighters and other first responders, but particularly firefighters, in the case of attending to the care of victims of injury. This right-to-know legislation allows them access to medical records and medical status of the people they're treating. This is something that could further the protection of firefighters as they respond to emergencies but also enhance the care for victims potentially. Will the minister consider this measure in the future?

Hon. B. Stewart: It's interesting that you raise that question. Of course, we had the firefighters here recently in Victoria, and they brought that very issue up. They did present to me, and I understand their concerns and am completely sympathetic towards trying to find how we make that.

My recommendation would be that the opposition, through the committee work coming up for FOIPPA, consider whether that direction is something that could be included. Some amendments to enact that could be considered in any legislative changes on FOIPPA coming up.

D. Routley: Certainly that will be a subject of discussion as far as the opposition members are concerned on the committee, but my question would be: is the minister considering such a recommendation to cabinet? Is the minister recommending that such an act be taken in order to protect firefighters and the victims they serve?

The Chair: Member, I would like to ask you to make your questions related directly to the vote that we're taking. There are no speculative questions here or what will happen in the future. It's regarding Vote 21.

So if you want to readdress your question towards Vote 21.

[1015]

D. Routley: Actually, I think I have enough of an answer and all the answer that I'm going to get at this point. I'll move to the issue of the missing electronic documents in the B.C. Rail corruption trial. The minister stated: "Once we're confident that there are no further requests coming from the courts, we'll be happy to provide that number."

What I'm interested in is the number of missing electronic documents. Is that number yet available from the ministry?

Hon. B. Stewart: As the members opposite are aware that this matter is still before the courts, it makes it difficult to discuss this in this particular forum, but I can assure you that the Ministry of Citizens' Services is participating and compliant with whatever directions the court has asked us to provide to them.

D. Routley: I assume that that means we are not able to ascertain how many files are missing.

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that it would be speculative to think that we haven't complied in terms of…. We've provided the records that are available, and as far as numbers, there are still ongoing matters being discussed before the courts, so at this point there's nothing finalized to provide numbers around.

D. Routley: I'd like to move now to the minister's responsibility for the protection of privacy in relation to, in particular, the Wainwright privacy breach. This, of course, is the discovery by the RCMP in May that personal information of about 1,400 income assistance clients had been taken home by a B.C. government employee who was under investigation for fraud and the fact that the public only learned of this massive breach in October.

The chief information officer who reports to the minister is, according to the government's website, responsible for privacy protection. In response to the Wainwright privacy breach, the Privacy Commissioner was very critical of the delays in the case, noting that…. His question was: "What happened here that nothing got done for seven months?"

Why did it take the minister and the ministry so long to come clean with the public about the privacy breach in MCFD and MHSD?

Hon. B. Stewart: As much as this matter is distressing to myself as the minister, we agreed in the House to provide a full accounting and reports, which were done by the public service as well as being the chief information officer's responsibilities in this matter. Those reports were published and made public on January 29. There's a full accounting in there of exactly what happened in terms of the timelines, and I have nothing further to add that is not currently available in that report.

D. Routley: Well, it took seven months for the public to be aware. It took the same length of time for the people who were affected to become aware.

[1020]

In fact, the notification went to the wrong set of individuals, so the privacy breach was even multiplied in the ministry's notification. There were several criticisms in those reports that were directed at the operations of Citizens' Services Ministry, and also criticisms at the ministerial level, not just of this minister but of the
[ Page 3533 ]
Ministers of Children and Family Development and Housing and Social Development.

Why did the public only find out about the breach once there were media reports? Why did the government wait until there were media reports about this breach before notifying the people who were affected and actually notifying the public — without taking responsibility?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't think there's really much more that I can add. I mean, this particular matter has been discussed in detail in the House. The characterization that there were delays or inaction by the office is patently wrong. The bottom line is that this report clearly lays out exactly the timelines as it was discovered by the different people throughout the entire process. It's clearly stated in the report as to…. There's agreement from the Privacy Commissioner's end that they agree with our timelines and exactly what took place.

I apologize for the fact that this happened and that these people's privacy was compromised, but the reality is that we took the necessary steps in a timely manner once we were aware of it at Citizens' Services.

D. Routley: I think that's absolutely in contradiction to what the reports have said and what the information officer has said. In fact, there were delays. In fact, the process wasn't followed. There was a lack of awareness at a ministerial level and in the bureaucracy of the ministries of who was responsible for which action. Steps were not taken to ensure that people within the ministry knew of what was expected of them in order to comply with the policies around privacy breaches.

For the minister to stand here and absolutely deny that there were delays is quite astonishing, given the fact that the reports clearly, clearly indicate that there was a lack of awareness of the process, that the basic tenets of handling a privacy breach were not followed.

Does the minister not believe that he and his government had a responsibility to inform the public before this time? I think that British Columbians generally and the people whose privacy was breached, more specifically, deserve to receive this kind of information directly from the government, not from the media — directly from the government members they elected. This is a government that promised this protection and failed to deliver. The reports have clearly indicated that the process was not followed.

[1025]

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, as I mentioned, the government takes this matter very seriously. Our Ministry of Citizens' Services immediately acted when we became aware of the issue.

The report shows that these events resulted in a series of missed opportunities within Housing and Social Development and Children and Family Development and that there were opportunities to take action, or the actions necessary to bring this to the attention of the people who should have known about it were missed during that process.

I want to highlight the six recommendations that came out of the report done by the office of the chief information officer. These recommendations are in progress of being implemented, and we made a commitment to have those implemented within 90 days.

One of the core things that we are talking about here in the missed opportunities is to establish a central authority within the government chief information officer, with overall responsibility for managing information incidents, including policy, audit, investigations and police liaison.

As well, there are also recommendations to enhance education and training to ensure that all employees are aware of the information and privacy management obligations and practices; to ensure that human resource incident investigations and reviews involving government information include timely consultation and information management direction from the government's chief information officer; to consolidate and to communicate corporate policies that provide direction to employees on how to manage, handle and ensure the security of personal information in their possession outside of the workplace; to enhance information management processes at the medical benefits program, Ministry of Children and Family Development, to ensure adequate protection and security of personal information; and finally, to align investigation processes established by the prevention and loss management services branch, Ministry of Housing and Social Development, with corporate policies.

D. Routley: Well, a couple of issues. It's interesting that the Times Colonist were the ones who found out about it first. Apparently, the Ministry of Citizens' Services and the minister found out after the Times Colonist found out, so that's very interesting. Does the minister have any opinion as to how that could happen — why it happened that the Times Colonist found out before the minister?

Hon. B. Stewart: I don't think that in terms of estimates we're here to speculate in terms of who knew what first. We've published the accounting, which has been backed up by the commissioner of privacy's report, and in it he quotes: "An effective response to the branch did not occur until the matter was finally reported to the minister in October 2009 by the head of the Public Service Agency."

I think that clearly explains…. The timeline is in there. You can follow through with the Times Colonist as to their timeline and compare the two to find out who was notified and when.

D. Routley: I'm not asking for speculation. I'm asking for answers that are related to a breach that actually
[ Page 3534 ]
happened and reports that were made on that breach. They're highly critical of the minister, the minister's operations and ministers responsible for other ministries. So it's about the functioning of this ministry, given the budget that it's allowed, particularly the chief information officer.

[1030]

The minister has quoted the chief information officer. The chief information officer's budget has been severely cut — 22 percent from the September budget and over 30 percent cut based on the February 2009, now laughable, pre-election budget.

What impact does the minister foresee such cuts having on the ability of the CIO, chief information officer, to investigate such breaches as the Wainwright scandal?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I think that the question is really about the budget in terms of the CIO. Clearly, one of the things that we stated in the reduction in that office is that it's going to change in terms of prioritizing technology and other priorities around technological improvements and outside consultants that are advising on that.

In terms of the report, in terms of this breach of privacy, the Privacy Commissioner's report cites that he's not critical of Citizens' Services. The commissioner's report is actually complimentary on the role of the chief information officer. There was absolutely no delay from the time that the chief information officer was notified, in terms of the actions and the steps that unfolded in coming days and weeks after we were first notified of it.

You know, the other thing in our statement on that after we had made the notification to the clients that had their information compromised and the report was complete for the public as to what went wrong and the missed opportunities…. We've said that we will take the next 90 days, which I believe is the end of April — April 29, in fact — and that we will have those recommendations in place or implemented so that the changes within government do happen.

D. Routley: The minister just referred to consultants in the CIO's office. What happened to the controls on discretionary spending — "no more spending on consultants"? Here we see the chief information officer's budget cut by a whopping 30 percent since the February pre-election budget, and the minister is telling me that reforms in the CIO's office will be guided by consultants.

We were told that there would be no more engagement of consultants and discretionary spending of that sort. You know, the question really isn't about the structure of the CIO's office. The question is about the ability of the chief information officer to do his work, given the cutbacks — 30 percent cutbacks — to his office. That means that it's hard to apply human resource to investigations such as the Wainwright scandal.

I guess my question is: how could the minister be relying on consultants to reform the CIO's office, particularly when there's been a 30 percent cut?

[1035]

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I want to restate that it's not easy in government to find savings in any ministry in terms of what we're trying to accomplish by trying to reduce our deficit from the $1.7 billion target that has been set out by the Minister of Finance in this coming year.

In the chief information officer's area, the reliance on outside consultants, who consult on technology and a myriad of different technical issues which you can't possibly have in-house, is going to be reduced, which is going to obviously result in some cost savings.

I think what's important about this particular issue in the breach of privacy is that the office actually handled it in an exemplary manner and that there were absolutely no delays. I think that if you look at the report and you read it, you will find that clearly the timelines are completely reasonable and agreed to by the commissioner responsible for privacy in this province.

D. Routley: Well, let's examine those timelines. In November when the story went public, the minister claimed that he had only been informed two weeks earlier. That would have been late October. Yet the breach occurred and the government was first notified by the RCMP in April or May. There was clearly a delay. Who should have informed the minister?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to make it absolutely clear, as the report states, that the Ministry of Citizens' Services, once they were notified and they found out at the Public Service Agency, acted in an appropriate and timely manner, and carried out the duties and the responsibility of notifying the Privacy Commissioner's office, implementing its own internal investigation. It's clearly laid out, and there were no delays and unreasonableness. It's spelled out day by day in the report.

D. Routley: Well, it's clearly spelled out day by day in terms of the timeline and how the breach occurred. There is clearly a delay that's unacceptable. That's been clearly established and referred to by the Privacy Commissioner. How did the minister finally learn of the breach?

[1040]

Hon. B. Stewart: This report, which is publicly available, clearly states out the timelines as to exactly who knew what when, and when it happened.

I agree that there were missed opportunities from the time that the RCMP first became involved in this, but from the report…. Clearly, between pages 7 and 11 it
[ Page 3535 ]
lays out here exactly the timelines so that the member opposite and the opposition members can take the time to read this and follow chronologically as to how Citizens' Services became involved from the time we started and what our actions were.

I will repeat what the Privacy Commissioner states in his report. "An effective response to the breach did not occur until the matter was finally reported to the minister" — referring to the Minister of Citizens' Services — "in October of 2009 by the head of the PSA."

D. Routley: Was any person disciplined as a result of this case?

Hon. B. Stewart: As the report also states clearly, once we were informed at Citizens' Services by the Public Service Agency, we took steps to suspend, dismiss. There was the employee and his spouse, who was also working in the Public Service Agency, who were dismissed after we found out the allegations in this particular matter.

D. Routley: The person responsible for taking the files home, who was already under investigation for fraud, was dismissed along with his partner, his wife, but that was the end of the problem. That was at the end of the chain.

Was anyone within government disciplined for failing to notify the minister, for failing to properly engage the steps required when there's a privacy breach? There's policy around how to handle these breaches, around informing those affected, taking steps to stop the access to information of the person or parties who have made the breach. None of those steps were taken. Was anyone disciplined? If not, why not?

Hon. B. Stewart: As I've stated, I think that the report is very clear that there was a series of missed opportunities. The government is working to implement those. But in regards to your more specific questions, this is a personnel matter, and these matters are private, so I can't talk about that in detail.

No one is being terminated other than the employee at the centre of this, who was terminated back in the fall. But we do need to take steps to fix some of the judgment issues we found in this case. A key piece of this will be to ensure that we have adequate training and supports in place to ensure that the staff understand their roles and responsibilities when it comes to the management of personal information and the protection of privacy.

[1045]

D. Routley: Mr. Chair, how will it be possible to implement new training and to ensure that all the training is in place when the budget for the CIO, for one, has been cut by 30 percent — the chief information officer being the one responsible for the protection of privacy in the hands of government?

There was clearly a set of judgment errors along the chain that were identified in the reports. What I'd like to know is: has anyone along that chain been disciplined for their failure to administer proper judgment to this case or to notify the minister once the privacy breach was learned of by people in the ministry?

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, this again goes back to what I said in a previous answer. This is a personnel matter. We won't be discussing or commenting on personnel matters here in estimates, but we did make a commitment, when the report came out, that we would take 90 days to implement and come up with a plan as to how we were going to come up with training.

We are going to work within existing budgets to make certain that that takes place, and the chief information officer will make certain that these changes are implemented across government.

D. Routley: This is not a personnel matter. It would be a personnel matter if the minister identified the person and the steps taken to discipline them.

What I'm asking is about the system and about the structure of this ministry and whether or not it's functioning adequately. Was there disciplinary action taken by the minister? I'm not asking the minister to identify those affected. What I'm asking the minister is: were people within the ministry disciplined for failing to engage the proper procedures around privacy breaches? Those procedures were established after previous egregious privacy breaches by this government.

I'd like to know, and maybe the minister would like to know, why his own government has kept him in the dark about these privacy breaches for so long — only finding out in late October, according to his statements in November. How is it that the minister could not find out, after the ministry itself knew for over seven months? Since that is the case, or if that is the case, was there any disciplinary action taken within the ministry?

I'm not asking for the minister to identify personalities, which would be a personnel matter. What I'm asking about is the administration of this ministry.

Hon. B. Stewart: First of all, I think as the minister, the minister's role in this particular case was to make certain that the matter was investigated and reported out on, which we've already done. I want to just kind of point out that it's not the minister's role to take personal action in terms of employees that are involved in other ministries. There are two other ministries involved in this. It was not Citizens' Services employees that were directly involved in this privacy breach.

As a result of that report, the deputy minister that's responsible for the public service employees stated in a letter on January 29:
[ Page 3536 ]

"As the reports explain, apart from the employee at the centre of these events, it cannot be concluded that any employee acted in bad faith, and no human resource policies were violated. However, the judgment exercised in the many decisions made as events unfolded fell short of the due diligence that is expected of the public service. There was a series of missed opportunities, information dead ends and unconfirmed assumptions, which individually may have been minor but cumulatively resulted in an inadequate response in the matter.

[1050]

"No one person can be faulted or pointed to as the sole cause of any failure to respond or take action. No one had either complete information or the experience necessary to take the appropriate action. At the senior leadership level the right people were not informed or engaged. It is a case where steps need to be taken to ensure that more appropriate decisions are made in future cases to ensure that better response ensues, if there is ever another breach of privacy.

"Given these facts, I am not recommending any direct termination of any employees following these findings."

D. Routley: The office of the chief information officer is responsible for protecting privacy within government. In this case the chief information officer was essentially asked to investigate his own role within government, within the history of this scandal.

Does the minister think it's appropriate that the chief information officer was asked, essentially, to investigate his own conduct?

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that the report is very clear about the role of Citizens' Services in this matter. We have the responsibility, and the government's chief information officer for privacy, to establish the rules. We have clearly identified…. The fact is that we have a series of missed opportunities in dealing with our public service employees to make certain that they are current and aware of those policies and how to react in terms of a policy breach.

I think that if you look at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's report, he's very complimentary of the chief information officer's work and diligence in terms of making certain that they got to the bottom of this as soon as he was notified. There's no conflict, because it's the responsibility of the chief information officer to investigate privacy breaches, and these were in two other ministries.

D. Routley: Well, I think it's not worth really pursuing that any further, given that answer.

In the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner report there was a recommendation to establish a chief privacy officer, a recommendation that was repeated in the report for the freedom-of-information review committee. Is the minister budgeting for this?

Hon. B. Stewart: As we've stated what our intentions are after the report came out, the government said it was going to take 90 days to develop specific action plans to implement our recommendations. Over this period we will meet with the commissioner on our progress and how their recommendations are part of that work.

[1055]

There is clear agreement that we need both centralized coordination on privacy matters along with a governmentwide improvement and understanding of the importance of keeping personnel information private. The exact mechanisms of that and how that will be implemented is what the deputy, the CIO and the commissioner need to discuss. It will be implemented by the end of April.

D. Routley: Implemented by the end of April. I think it was in February that we were told 90 days. Earlier in the minister's answers he indicated that he would be taking another 90 days. Is the 90 days a moving window of time, or is there a set date that the minister can commit to for implementing these recommendations or at least reporting out?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, these issues are serious. We need to make certain that the allegations are properly investigated. As I stated in the House in November, we had immediately started an investigation. The terms of reference were produced shortly after the House rose in November. The report was finalized and tabled on January 29, as we stated.

In the report — at the end of it — we said that we would take 90 days to implement the recommendations that are in there, because it is across government, and of course, they only became available to all the ministries and ministers responsible on January 29. So 90 days is the end of April.

D. Routley: I'd like to move now to the government's decision to move ahead with the integrated case management system and the concerns that that raises for privacy protection. The Privacy Commissioner, in his '08-09 annual report, warned that it would be unwise for the government to "move forward with any legislated changes in this area unless and until there has been a full public consultation in the form of a position paper published by the government, followed by meaningful, extensive stakeholder consultations."

Why are the government and this minister ignoring the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and barrelling ahead with implementing the integrated case management system without any further consultations?

[1100]

Hon. B. Stewart: I think that the report the member refers to is in the annual Privacy Commissioner's report. It doesn't relate to this particular project, because this project has only just recently been announced and was in the formation stages when that report last came out.

I want to refer to what the ICM project is really about just so that the opposition members clearly understand
[ Page 3537 ]
why this is genuinely needed. Government is committed to ensuring the privacy and security of British Columbians' personal information. We're also committed to the reforms to address the repeated calls for changes in how we share information. These calls are included in a number of reports written in response to tragedies affecting citizens, including our most vulnerable.

The integrated case management system will initially serve the Ministry of Housing and Social Development and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The project's longer-term vision is to serve government's social service sector. It's important to note that the people using the system will only have access to the information necessary to fulfil their responsibilities. Privacy is paramount in the development of ICM now and in the future.

D. Routley: An astonishing statement, given this government's appalling record on privacy protection. I'm not just talking about the Wainwright scandal. I'm talking about the e-health issues, the PARIS 2006 privacy breaches — on and on and on. So in theory, the minister can read the stated intention of the system, but in practice, the government has fallen flat on its face when it comes to protection of privacy.

I think they've made an oxymoron of the entire act — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It has become a ridiculous set of obstacles to freedom of information and an absolute failure to live up to the responsibilities of government to protect privacy.

Given that appalling record and the warning of the Privacy Commissioner, to move forward with legislative changes in the area of handling privacy and personal information would be a mistake without further consultation. Experts throughout the province are warning this minister and this government that this system imperils personal privacy. People suspect and people are nervous that in fact it's a system that will allow disentitlement when it's applied by social service agencies.

I would just like to ask this minister whether he personally feels comfortable — given his own government's record of handling privacy and personal information — that this massive system, which could be very intrusive into people's personal privacy, is a wise move, given these repeated warnings.

Hon. B. Stewart: In answer to the member opposite's remarks, yes.

D. Routley: Well, that sums it up, doesn't it? Yes. Everything is okay. It doesn't matter that 1,400 people's files went missing, and it doesn't matter that the PARIS system, the e-health — all of these systems — have been criticized for their failure so far to live up to the principles of privacy protection.

Well, along with the Privacy Commissioner, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association of British Columbia have warned the Premier in a letter. I'll quote that letter. "An ICM system that has the capability to harvest, store and interrelate vast amounts of data about individuals, families, groups and communities will inevitably overreach and eventually undermine that system's legal and moral credibility."

[1105]

As well, FIPA has remarked that the huge cost of this project, given the risk of disclosing personal information on such a large scale, does not seem prudent. I'm very concerned that citizens are not able to give consent as to whether their information will be used and shared in such a project.

Has the minister considered these problems? What is his response to the concerns of FIPA B.C. and the commissioner about the privacy implications of this system?

Hon. B. Stewart: The ICM privacy now and in the future will be developed so that it meets the requirements of the FOIPPA act. ICM's comprehensive security and privacy plan will be based on the best practices and will address security and privacy at multiple levels, including people in training roles and responsibilities, processes and technology for system controls.

Within the access provided to staff, ICM's auditing capability monitors use. This further supports privacy measures, in that staff who use ICM inappropriately can be identified and disciplinary action taken — including, when appropriate, termination.

D. Routley: But we won't be able to talk about that, because that'll be a personnel issue. It's basically anticipating what these groups and the commissioner were warning — that there will be breaches. This massive system of harvesting personal information cannot be adequately managed by a government that isn't able to manage the current level of personal privacy requirement in this province.

Repeatedly the government has failed to protect people's personal information, and yet they seek to gather more of it and share it in a broader sense. You know, the committee reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act heard from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In fact, the ICM, integrated case management, was used as an example of what the problem is — the moving towards greater means of harvesting information without adequately protecting privacy.

That is a concern for the chief information officer, the OIPC and FIPA B.C., but not a concern for this minister. He's read from whatever document he has that states this is how the system will work, and if it doesn't, there will be adequate disciplinary actions taken. But we're not even allowed to ask about the disciplinary actions taken in the Wainwright privacy breach under a system where there's less harvesting of personal information.
[ Page 3538 ]

The minister seems to be pointing out the flaws in his own plan while denying that there are any. It doesn't make sense. So has the minister considered these problems, given all of these breaches of privacy, all of the concerns expressed to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act special committee that's reviewing that act?

FIPA B.C. — on and on, experts are warning this minister that this system imperils the protection of privacy. Does he still feel comfortable that British Columbians are adequately protected?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, I just can't understand the opposition's concern on this. When you look at the history of reports, one on top of the other — reports that are about people that…. The system has failed them — the current system of paper documents being transmitted, shared between the same clients not getting the help from different ministries because they don't talk to one another.

Is it really the opposition's intention to have more situations — such as the Hughes report into child death inquests in '06 and '07 — that clearly point out that there needs to be a better sharing of information? I honestly can't understand. This is an attempt to make things work, not fail.

ICM responds to the repeated calls over the years to improve information-sharing across government and to better protect and achieve better outcomes for the citizens. Some of these calls include the Hughes report, the B.C. Coroners Service child death inquests, and the Representative for Children and Youth, the domestic violence report led by the hon. Judge Josiah Wood.

[1110]

ICM is going to lay the groundwork for transformational changes in a way that Children and Family Development, Housing and Social Development and ultimately the wider social sector deliver their services.

The project is going to provide better tools for front-line workers and government service delivery partners, enabling the business transformations underway in each ministry. In turn, these will deliver better outcomes for clients through coordinated planning and improved access to effective services. In terms of ICM, it is also a more sophisticated system, and it will allow us to monitor the use of information by employees and to make certain that people's privacy is protected.

D. Routley: To quote those cases is to cloud the issue in a most unfortunate way. In fact, most of those reports refer to a failure to communicate along existing lines of communication. They did not recommend a massive information-harvesting experiment by government, a government that has failed to protect privacy with the current structures — not that the structures failed; the government failed.

Our concern is that both FIPA B.C., who are experts in this field, and the OIPC are concerned. Their concern creates concern for us. Their concern is that this massive information-harvesting project by government can be misused and that there are not adequate protections in place.

The minister has not even been able to commit to continuing consultations on the implementation. He just flatly stands up and says yes to a question about whether personal privacy is adequately protected. I find that absolutely astonishing.

Is the minister essentially dismissing the concerns of those experts?

Hon. B. Stewart: That's characterizing that we don't take these privacy concerns seriously, and that's patently wrong. The reality is that this system is going to help clients of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, Children and Family Development and other social ministries to deliver services so that these people are being helped and that they get the services.

Have you been into a Service B.C. or a Children and Family Development office or Housing and Social Development and seen the technology that they're working with? It's over 30 years old. This system is antiquated — 40 different business units that don't talk to one another. This system is desperately needed, and the reality is that we're working within the budget that's been allocated to help implement this because these reports cry out for us to get in there and do something. It's a responsibility to the citizens of British Columbia that we do that.

D. Routley: Well, yeah, I've been in a lot of those offices. In fact, there are a lot of empty wickets when you go into most of those offices. When you speak to the people who work there, they say: "We can't get help to implement the new systems. They want us to do it on our own time. We don't have enough time to help the people at the front counter."

Maybe if the minister stopped cutting front-line service and stopped investing in this massive, overbloated project, then perhaps there might be the kind of service in those offices that people have come to expect, or had come to expect.

The minister talks about the responsibility of government. Well, the responsibility of government is to protect privacy. Yet the chief information officer's budget has been cut by 30 percent since February — 30 percent. Yet the integrated case management system, which had an initial cost estimation of $107 million…. Its budget has ballooned to $180 million, so we've seen a $73 million increase in that budget while we see a 30 percent reduction in the budget for the chief information officer.

[1115]

How does the minister equate that to fulfilling his responsibility, or his government's responsibility, to protect privacy when he's cutting from the office of the chief information officer and loading funding onto this bloated
[ Page 3539 ]
program that he has been warned by the chief information officer, by the OIPC…. The FIPA B.C. people are warning the minister that this is not a wise investment, and yet we see a ballooning budget. How does he explain that?

Hon. B. Stewart: I've been responding to your questions around the privacy concerning ICM, and I can tell you that I am personally satisfied that there will be a higher level of privacy protection for clients of Housing and Social Development and Children and Family Development as well as any other social ministry with a project like this.

But in terms of the budget and the discussion about that, that's handled in the Ministry of Housing and Social Development under their capital plan, and it's not part of the Citizens' Services budget.

D. Routley: Well, let's look at some examples of how the government has performed when it comes to developing these systems. We're supposed to, on the reading of a couple of paragraphs by the minister about how this system is expected to work, trust that the government can implement it adequately. FIPA B.C., the Privacy Commissioner and other privacy experts have considerable reason to be concerned. We in the opposition have considerable reason to be concerned on behalf of British Columbians about this move, given that track record.

Just last month the Auditor General came out with a very critical report about the insecurity of electronic records held by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. Auditor General John Doyle found that the system used by Vancouver Coastal, called PARIS — the primary access regional information system — had serious security weaknesses.

The Auditor General found that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority gave unrestricted access to patients' personal information, including records about mental health and addiction, to too many people and that the health authority was able to neither detect nor prevent unauthorized access or attacks.

I assume that this would be a concern to the minister. This is a small example of the type of system that ICM represents, and yet the government and the Coastal Health Authority are falling flat on their faces in implementing it. We see a failure to make sure that systems under e-health can communicate with each other. All of this track record leads British Columbians to be very nervous about their government's trustworthiness around handling their personal information.

We know that the Minister of Children and Family Development has also adopted the PARIS system based on this precedent by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and that, as a result, the records at MCFD have been at risk for several years now. What is the government doing to secure MCFD records in light of the Auditor General's reports?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to reiterate that we do take these matters of privacy very seriously. These projects that the member cites, the PARIS system, fall outside of the Ministry of Citizens' Services. We are concerned about the privacy concerns within them, and your entire statement makes the entire case as to why an integrated case management system is relevant and important to the citizens of British Columbia.

[1120]

You should look beyond the concerns of some of the people that you're hearing from and think about the people that are relying on this — the Sherry Charlies, the people that the system has failed. The fact is that this project will provide better tools to front-line workers and government service delivery partners, enabling the business transformations underway in each ministry. In turn, these will deliver better outcomes for the clients, which I mentioned, through coordinated planning and improved access to effective services.

D. Routley: I'll forgive the minister for that abominable reference to the girl from Port Alberni, because in fact the system failed her. The recommendations of the Hughes report did not exclude these concerns. In fact, in the Hughes report, the recommendations 49 and 55 through 57 all contain the requirement that any adjustments to the system protect personal privacy.

I am not standing here advocating that we fail another girl from Port Alberni. I am not standing here advocating that the system fail people to the extent that it has under his government's watch.

What I am advocating for is a government that will implement with responsibility the changes that it forces upon systems. As it forces these changes in the administration of systems and new systems of management, it also cuts resources, and the outcomes are, in fact, the failures that the minister refers to. So I'll forgive him that very unfortunate, unfortunate comparison. But is he not concerned?

Mr. Hughes — in his report, in fact — was concerned that any changes that the government brings forward should also protect privacy. That is the concern of those people that the minister asks me to look beyond, the people that I'm hearing from.

Well, shall we look…? Who shall we fail? Shall we fail, in the minister's words, those who have already been failed by the government? Is he referring to the girl from Port Alberni, or is he referring to the 1,400 people who were failed in the Wainwright privacy breach? I don't think that we should fail either.

I think that systems should be responsible to the people — people affected as victims but also the personal privacy of those affected by this massive information-harvesting experiment.

People are concerned. They have legitimate concerns. Is the minister prepared to acknowledge those concerns? Is
[ Page 3540 ]
he prepared to allow people to exempt themselves from having their information shared in this way? What protections will he offer to people, as Mr. Hughes recommended?

Hon. B. Stewart: We believe that we're doing the right thing. We firmly believe that ICM supports the recommendation in the reports, like the Hughes report, to share information effectively while protecting privacy. Within the access provided to staff, ICM's auditing capability monitors the use. This further supports the privacy measures in that staff who use ICM inappropriately….

D. Routley: What is the current role of the chief information officer in data-sharing initiatives currently being undertaken as well as future data-sharing undertakings, such as the integrated case management system and e-health?

[1125]

Hon. B. Stewart: The chief information officer of British Columbia currently sits on the deputy ministers committee on ICM.

D. Routley: Given the reluctance of the minister so far to name a chief privacy officer as recommended by the independent watchdog for privacy, does this mean that he's satisfied with the performance of the chief information officer as it relates to privacy protection now stated on his website — that it is the chief information officer's responsibility? Does he believe his government is living up to this important role?

Hon. B. Stewart: I absolutely and categorically agree that the chief information officer is doing an outstanding job in that area.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

D. Routley: I assume that his belief that the chief information officer is doing an outstanding job in that area means he will not be appointing a chief privacy officer, as has been recommended.

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, I've stated this several times. The report was out on January 29. It states that we're considering over the next 90 days. That's one of the recommendations we're considering as to how we look at that in government, and we'll be addressing that by April 29.

D. Routley: Moving along to the Public Service Agency, if we might. The Public Service Agency has had cuts of just over $25 million. This is a 41 percent cut compared to the February laughable pre-election budget, and a $37.6 million cut, or 50 percent, since the September budget. What is the reason for these cuts? What exactly has been cut?

Hon. B. Stewart: In the Public Service Agency there was a $50 million fund set up as the public service transformation fund, which was established in February 2009. This fund was reduced in the September 2009 budget to $30 million. The purpose of this fund was to invest in priority job streams and recruitment, and to re-engineer work processes where they can deliver quality services to citizens with fewer staff.

The fund was also to be used to cover workforce adjustment costs incurred as a result of ministry plans to meet their budget targets. The public service transformation fund is being eliminated in this budget, and the ministries will have to bear their own costs for workforce adjustment.

D. Routley: Interesting revisionist B.C. Liberal history there.

In the pre-election budget the B.C. Liberal government committed to a $75 million fund for public sector transformation, not $50 million. I had intended to ask the minister, but he's answered for me — $25 million, this year, that has been cut. What has happened to that fund? What will happen to that fund in the coming years?

[1130]

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite, you're correct in the fact that there was $75 million originally announced. It was a two-year fund, $50 million in year one and $25 million in the second year. But you are well aware of the challenging financial times. That fund has been eliminated, and the ministries have been asked to handle the transformation, as well as workforce adjustment, within their existing budgets.

D. Routley: Yes, I'm well aware of those challenging times, and you know, I was well aware of them a year ago when our caucus had several economists…. One friend, Rick Doman, formerly CEO of Western Forest Products, warned of this collapse well over a year ago.

We heard market analysts predicting collapse or a burst in the housing bubble well before that, yet this government in the pre-election period had no idea that government revenues were plummeting. In fact, the Premier, during the election, said: "$495 million tops, maximum. That's it." It was one of the few absolutes that the Premier offered during the election campaign, aside from maybe that there would be no HST. That was a firm commitment.

Yeah, we were well aware, and I think the government was probably well aware that those challenging economic times were wreaking havoc with the province's revenues. They didn't share that with the people of the province during the election, and they didn't share the intention to cut the transformation fund.

In fact, during the election in May 2009, right in the middle of the election, the then Deputy Minister to the
[ Page 3541 ]
Premier, Jessica McDonald, sent out a memo assuring government employees of the government's commitment to that transformation fund. The Premier's deputy sent an e-mail out to all the public service workers and said: "Don't worry. We're going to take care of you. If there are cuts, there will be a transformation fund."

We didn't know, and the public service workers didn't know. But did the government know that they were going to cut that fund as part of their measures to contain that $495 million maximum deficit that actually wound up being $2.8 billion? Was the memo from the Premier's deputy simply an election ploy?

Hon. B. Stewart: You know, what's happened with this last, I guess, 14 months or so since that budget came out and the transformation fund was announced is that the government's commitment has not wavered one iota in terms of its commitments to its employees in offering the training or transformation in terms of jobs. I know that these are challenging times, but what's expected is that each of the individual ministries will have to carry the costs. It was determined through a budgeting process that they could handle the individual costs, so that's the reason it's been eliminated.

[1135]

D. Routley: No, government's commitment to these employees hasn't wavered one iota. It's wavered, apparently, by $25 million. I guess that's less than one iota, but $25 million is a significant wavering in the commitment. How can those ministries be expected to absorb this extra cost of workforce transformation when they, in fact, have their budgets being cut?

I would like to ask: does the workforce planning secretariat still exist? What does it do, and who is it reporting to?

Hon. B. Stewart: Yes, the workforce planning and leadership secretariat still exists. The ADM responsible for that is Kevin Jardine, and he reports directly to Kim Henderson, the Deputy Minister of Citizens' Services.

D. Routley: The Premier committed that the government would keep layoffs to below 5 percent of the workforce. Can the minister confirm that this is still the plan, and given the number of layoff notices that are happening, can he explain how that will be maintained?

Hon. B. Stewart: I can tell you that the Public Service Agency…. All of the staff working in the public service have worked cooperatively on maintaining that goal of staying under 5 percent in terms of the adjustment. You know, we anticipated that it might be tougher at the start, but we have been fortunate. The combined layoffs from September and January add up to just over 1 percent of the entire public service.

We made a commitment to keep layoffs at less than 5 percent of the public service over three years, and we are still well below that number with this workforce adjustment. We are very proud of the fact that we've been able to work with attrition and not have to use layoffs as the tool to meet government's objective.

D. Routley: What can the minister tell me regarding the 100 redundancy notices issued to Citizens' Services workers recently, mostly in the Shared Services section?

Hon. B. Stewart: I just want to make certain that they understand how this government feels about making certain that it's taking responsibility for our taxpayers' taxes, in terms of what they contribute to government, and that the budget deficit we're facing is essentially a cheque on our children's and grandchildren's bank accounts. We are very concerned about that.

During the process of the fact that the government has been looking for savings, there's been significant business process review, and Shared Services B.C. is no different. These significant transformations were necessary in order to provide our customers with a more integrated and sustainable core group of services at the lowest possible cost. In order to meet the reduction targets, positions, not people, were reviewed for efficiency and integration.

[1140]

As Shared Services continues its transformation into a new fiscal year, further workforce adjustment impacts are anticipated. However, every effort will be made to minimize the number of employees that are impacted. Every effort has and will continue to be made to assist the individuals impacted to find employment within the public service. We will continue to manage through attrition, limits on external hiring and matching employees to vacancies elsewhere in government.

D. Routley: But for the time, I would ask the minister to repeat that answer, because it was so absolutely entertaining to hear him refer to our children's bank accounts in the future and how they are protecting those cheques written on that bank account in the future.

That is absolutely laughable from this government that has doubled the provincial debt and has, in fact, promised so many things and delivered so few. A $495 million deficit during the election, basically — "not a penny more." A great read-my-lips moment from the Premier, yet we end up with a $2.8 billion deficit.

It's really entertaining to hear that kind of justification from the minister on a question specific to 100 redundancy notices in his department. I'm sure that the people in the ministry appreciate that answer as well — those people targeted by those announcements.

It's difficult to know how to proceed from that. Anyway, why has Shared Services B.C. been so targeted by these redundancy notices?
[ Page 3542 ]

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, I want you to be aware that Shared Services B.C. has been around in a number of iterations. One of the things is that change happens. The reality is that we've gone through a very sizeable business process review to look at how we're delivering services to our clients, which is the government, and to make certain that we're doing everything possible to make certain that service is improved and that the flow of information and the way we do our transactions are improved. That's the first step.

One of the other underlying things about the government is to make certain that we protect the core services: health, education and our social safety net. That's one of the things that we are doing.

At Shared Services we have been working to serve government employees better and provide ministries with the core services that they require, at the lowest possible cost. To do this, we've had to transform and simplify their business processes. Ultimately, the transformation includes some workforce adjustment because fewer resources are required under the new organizational structure.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

D. Routley: A more entertaining response from the minister. Protect core services like education, and every school district in the province is struggling with deficit, cutting programs, closing schools — not for pedagogical reasons, not for educationally sustainable or supportable reasons but because of a lack of funding. So that's protecting core services.

Massively increasing wait times in our hospitals. I just toured the Nanaimo Regional Hospital and found out about how the quick grab on MRI funding is affecting the entire delivery of health care in Nanaimo. So there's your protecting of core services. Well done, I must say.

But you know what? I think that people have a little bit higher expectation than the minister simply reading from an election platform pamphlet in responding to questions here that are about the services that affect them.

[1145]

The commitments of this government seem to be as disposable as a BIC lighter. One of those commitments was that senior executives would be reduced by 20 percent. Has this ministry met the Premier's commitment to reduce senior executives positions by 20 percent?

Hon. B. Stewart: To wrap up on that note, yes, we have met the Premier's commitment, and that's been published, that information.

But noting the hour, I would suggest that perhaps we rise and report progress and ask leave from the House to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175