2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, July 15, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 2

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

MONDAY, JULY 15, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: Joining us today in the gallery are a number of fantastic people from my ministry. I'd like it if the House would please make welcome Corinna Filion, Sheldon Johnson, Lisa Leslie, Jeremy Uppenborn, Shawn Larabee, Darren Harbord and Francesca Guetchev.

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today. The first is a constituent of mine, Marina Isadore, who is visiting with a very good friend of hers from Calgary, Sarah Fennell. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce some members of my family here today, who are at the end of the gallery — Jerome Williams, my nephew, who was recently the valedictorian at Mount Douglas High School and is on his way to McGill to study science; his sister, my niece Charlotte Williams, who is studying journalism at Concordia University; and her friend Antoine Muzard, who is a mechanical engineer from Montreal.

This, Madame Speaker, is the Québécois branch of my family, and I'm very proud of them. I hope the House can give them a warm welcome.

[1335]

A. Weaver: Today I'd like to introduce Paul Weaver, who's visiting here from France. He plays for the Toulouse Rugby Club under-16s, who are the French national champions. He was here attending a rugby academy at Shawnigan Lake School over the last couple of weeks. He's accompanied by his cousin and my son David, and by my father, John, up there.

J. Tegart: I'm pleased to introduce my new constituency assistant, Lori Pilon. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I am very happy to have my family here — my daughter Zoey Walter and my two favourite friends of hers, Megan Jang and Parmis Forouzandeh Bakhsh. I hope I got it right, Parmis. Please welcome them all to the Legislature.

D. Donaldson: I'd like the House to make welcome today the chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, who's in the precinct today. I understand she'll be meeting with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations later on. I had the good fortune to meet with her on Friday, and we discussed the challenges and the hard work the B.C. Treaty Commission is doing. Would the members please make her welcome.

Madame Speaker: Member continues.

D. Donaldson: I neglected to say that that's, of course, Sophie Pierre.

Hon. P. Pimm: As everybody knows in this House, we have a fabulous tree fruit industry in the province. I had the opportunity to meet with this organization today. Joining us in the House today are Jeet Dukhia, president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, and Bhupinder Dhaliwal, vice-president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. He's not in the House right now, but Glen Lucas, their executive director, was also with them earlier this morning. I'd like the House to give them all a warm welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: I have a number of guests in the House today. I'll start with a dear friend whom I met on the first day of university. I won't say what year, in case somebody is doing the math. I have Laura Vishaspar, who has been more like a sister to me all of these years — a confidante, a businesswoman, a community activist and now a super mom.

I have with her Annalise For, who is a national-level Irish dancer. As well, she was my youngest campaign volunteer. Beside her here is Alexander Thomas, who goes to Western University, studying psychology and criminology. He hopes to be a lawyer someday and perhaps wants to work in this House as well.

Behind them, a special welcome to Tan Barkley, 1984 Olympian in rowing. Now he teaches rowing, and many of his students have gone on to become Olympians. May the House welcome my guests.

J. Sturdy: I'd like to take the opportunity today to introduce some of my constituents from the Squamish area: the Harrison family, Mark and Satoko, with their children Erica, Sarah and Matthew, who are in the capital regional district for a celebration of life. I wish you all would join me in making them welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I have several guests in the House today as well. Joining us today we have Susan Auchterlonie; her husband, Harvey McDougall; and her daughter Zoe McDougall, who attends Ecole Puntledge Park, which is the same school that my daughter goes to. Zoe is in grade 7 next year.

I'd like to introduce as well…. Behind them they have Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, who is the commander of the Pacific fleet, and his son Michael Auchterlonie,
[ Page 456 ]
who is going into grade 11 at Esquimalt secondary.

I'd also like to mention that the Auchterlonie family has been a huge pillar of Cumberland village in the Comox Valley. Not only have they been great community citizens, but they've provided bakery items for our communities for many generations. Would the House please make them so very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PARKSVILLE BEACH FESTIVAL AND
SAND SCULPTING COMPETITION

Michelle Stilwell: For the past 31 years the Parksville beach and Parksville Community Park have played host to the Canadian Open Sand Sculpting Competition. We call it Beach Fest for short.

[1340]

So this weekend, with my sand pail and shovel in hand, I hit the beach for the official opening to watch the contestants from around the world. They came from as far as the Netherlands, Latvia, Mexico, all over the U.S. and Canada. We had 15 soloists and seven teams of two people creating their sculptures while vying for a spot in the world championships.

Based on this year's theme of fairy tales, sculptors had 24 hours over a three-day period to create their sculptures from sand, water and imagination. Contestants were given fine-grain sand provided by a local importer and were judged on the wow factor, artistic merit, degree of difficulty and the use of the sand that they were given.

We know that volunteers are what make events in communities a success. I want to send out a special thank-you to the 2013 board of directors for organizing such a fantastic event: Cheryl Dill, Penny Rutherford, Leslie Phillips, Joan LeMoine, Jim Hoffman, Judi Van Swieten, Sharon Franzen, Brenda Boyd, Kirsteen McLean, Julia Brown, Beth Ritchie and Trish Smith.

The sculptures are just the beginning, as Beach Fest offers many other events, like Art in the Park, the Lions International Kite Festival, the Oceanside Overdrive car show, the Quality Foods Festival of Lights fireworks, KidFest, the weekly Summer by the Sea market. And every weekend there's a summer concert series showcasing a variety of talent from country, comedy, blues, folk, Motown and even an Elvis tribute.

Madame Speaker and members, if you haven't been to the Parksville Beach Fest, I invite you to drive up to Parksville and have a look at these whimsical sculptures or take in one of the multitude of other events running throughout the summer. It's a chance to release your inner child.

USE OF LOCAL FOODS IN
SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM AT
SHORELINE COMMUNITY MIDDLE SCHOOL

M. Karagianis: Local, organic, native and traditional. These are words that are not often associated with a school lunch program. But there's nothing everyday and usual in the school lunch program at the forward-thinking Shoreline Community Middle School in my constituency.

Under the guidance of principal Kim Strom and her team, the school has started a lunch program that serves food grown within 30 kilometres. It's one of the very few schools in all of Canada that offers students healthy, organic meals prepared daily using fresh ingredients that are locally sourced. For some of the students, lunch may be the only meal of the day, so the staff have decided that it must be healthy, nutritious and farm-to-table fresh.

How fresh? Well, there's a container garden right on the school grounds, and a chicken coop. Students enjoy their lunch in what's called the dining room, not the cafeteria, and teachers eat with the students. Students can volunteer to help make soups and salads. There are two different soups every day, bread made right on the school grounds and salads with dressings that are also fresh-made. I'm told that the kids like to eat their greens. They are loving it every single day.

The school has many First Nations students and a strong connection with the nearby Songhees Nation. The lunch team is planning to introduce students to some aboriginal cooking as well. A grant from the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation helped get it started, and the students that can afford it pay $5 for a meal.

The program's Facebook page is called "Shoreline food revolution," if anybody is interested, and that says a lot. It's revolutionary thinking on one level, but yet such a return to the basics.

Congratulations to the dedicated team at Shoreline Community Middle School. I hope members of the House will join me in thanking them for their fresh thinking and for implementing a school lunch program that is farm-to-table smart.

ALEXIS CREEK DAZE COMMUNITY EVENT

D. Barnett: If you are looking for some real excitement with down-home country flair, follow Highway 20 through the beautiful Chilcotin to Alexis Creek on July 20 and enjoy Alexis Creek Daze.

What is Alexis Creek Daze, you ask? It's a day of fun, food, relaxation and good country fellowship with First Nations, ranchers, loggers, business people and children, and pioneers telling stories from now and then. There are vendors with their wares, children playing games, horse-and-buggy rides and most things you will see and find in
[ Page 457 ]
the good old country.

[1345]

One of the main events is the horseshoe competition. This started three years ago. I have a great partner by the name of Al Madley, who is a third-generation rancher, guide-outfitter, trapper and community volunteer. We have won the prestigious title for the past two years. We know what tough competition we will have again this year, but we are ready.

I invite all who would like to enjoy real living, real people and a great day of fun to come to Alexis Creek on July 20 and throw a shoe or two.

OPTIONS COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY
CRISIS LINE SERVICES

S. Hammell: Imagine a time in your life when you felt down on yourself. Imagine a bad experience or a series of bad experiences — a real low point in your life. Now imagine not having anyone to turn to, no one to confide in and no one to console you.

For most of us in this House, it's simply unfathomable to envision life without our loved ones or without the very support system we rely on, on a daily basis. The tragic reality is that hundreds and thousands of British Columbians battling depression or anxiety disorders feel this way.

Today I rise in the House to speak about a great organization in my community that helps relieve individuals from the burden isolation can inflict on their lives. Options Community Services Society is a not-for-profit and registered charity in Surrey. They are committed to empowering individuals and promoting community health.

Among the long list of services Options offers is a 24-hour crisis line. Last year over 36,000 calls were made to the crisis line, which is staffed by 200 community volunteers. Volunteers logged an astonishing total of 23,400 volunteer hours, and each year these numbers grow.

The crisis line is urgently seeking volunteers who are willing to assist others to ensure that individuals have somewhere and someone to turn to and a place to feel heard.

I would like the House to join me in congratulating the volunteers at the crisis line who provide this invaluable service to the people of the Fraser Health region.

REOPENING OF
FRANK VENABLES AUDITORIUM

L. Larson: As many of you are aware, in September of 2011, while under renovation, the Southern Okanagan Secondary School and the attached Frank Venables Auditorium were completely destroyed by fire.

The auditorium, which was not part of the original renovation of the school, had previously gone out to referendum, and the people of Oliver and area C had supported a $3.8 million renovation for the auditorium to coincide with the school rebuild. After the fire the money was reassigned by the regional district to include the words "rebuild, not renovate."

Frank Venables, who the auditorium was named after, moved to Oliver in 1920 and was one of the many returning World War I vets who were put to work by Premier John Oliver to complete his dream of bringing water to the South Okanagan and creating the farming community we have today.

Frank was a school trustee for over 37 years and board chair from 1945 to 1970. He worked closely with the Osoyoos Indian Band and was the force behind having the first aboriginal children attend the public school. He would even personally drive them to school each day. Frank is the only non-aboriginal to be named an honorary chief of the Osoyoos Indian Band.

He was instrumental in getting the first high school built, including the iconic auditorium. This theatre became the centre for arts for the whole South Okanagan. The auditorium was named for him to recognize his contributions to the community.

This fall the Frank Venables Auditorium will open again, and almost 60 years later a piece of history will remain alive with the name and legacy of one of our pioneers.

MEMORIAL WALK FOR RAMONA WILSON
AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

D. Donaldson: On a sunny Saturday, June 15, if you were driving along Highway 16 just west of Smithers, you would have seen a large number of people walking along the shoulder. They were heading from Lake Kathlyn School to Yelich Road. It was the 19th year for the Ramona Lisa Wilson Memorial Walk, and Yelich Road was where Ramona's body was found in April 1995.

[1350]

Ramona disappeared while hitchhiking in June the year before, a 16-year-old heading off to graduation parties — a young girl remembered by her mother, Matilda, as bubbly, very happy and full of plans for university. This is the real face of the Highway of Tears. As I walked with members of Ramona's Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan extended family, plus community members and RCMP, we had conversations about all of the young women we have seen hitchhiking along Highway 16.

As Matilda Wilson spoke at Yelich Road at the end of the walk, she said: "Some days are better than others, the pain of loss always lingering and the anger always something to deal with."

That anger is understandable. It has been seven years since the Highway of Tears Symposium in Prince George recommending a shuttle bus service along Highway 16.
[ Page 458 ]
It has been almost a year since the UBCM endorsed a similar recommendation. After hearings that included the communities of Gitanyow, Gitanmaax, Moricetown and Smithers and Stikine in 2011, the Wally Oppal missing women report from last year also made a public transit system along Highway 16 a top priority, highlighted again last week by 20 advocacy groups dismayed by the lack of action.

It's no wonder people are angry. As we debate about $6 million paid for Basi-Virk legal fees or $15 million for government advertising on the jobs plan….

Madame Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

All members will know that these two-minute statements are to be non-partisan.

Does the member wish to continue?

D. Donaldson: Yes, hon. Speaker.

We still see there is no shuttle service and no transportation system for Highway 16. So women hitchhiking are at great risk, as Matilda Wilson points out. That leaves people on the memorial walk and others wondering about priorities and how much the lives of young women from the north are worth.

Oral Questions

COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING
GOVERNMENT STAFF MEMBER AND
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

A. Dix: There is new evidence showing this government conspired to silence an unnamed employee whose work was part of the multiculturalism quick-win scandal revealed prior to the election. I refer specifically to an e-mail contained in the 10,000 pages released five weeks ago by the government, subsequent to the election.

The e-mail details a plan outlined by now departed government staffer and Liberal operative, Brian Bonney, to silence an unnamed employee who had information that, if revealed — I'm quoting from the e-mail — "would damage the Premier and the party."

The scheme was prepared for the former minister, the member for Richmond-Steveston, and also directs Harry Bloy, also a former minister, to "meet with her and explain how doing anything would damage the Premier and the party." To the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism: what is the damaging information that is being hushed up to protect the Premier and the Liberal party?

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you, Member of the opposition, for bringing up this question.

I would like to start by saying that the outreach strategy draft document is wrong. The language and ideas contained in the draft document are all wrong. Our Premier has shown strong leadership and has taken responsibility by ordering a thorough review of this incident. A full report was delivered, and the government has accepted all the recommendations.

I think we have to move forward, put this aside and try to focus on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is our priority, and the diverse communities are our competitive advantage. They are a bridge to the Pacific, and I'm going to engage them and work to the benefit of British Columbia.

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

A. Dix: Well, to the minister, it's a very serious situation that took place in her ministry that was not dealt with in any way in the reporting question.

[1355]

This information has been publicly available for five weeks and available to the Premier's own deputy minister for months prior to that.

The e-mail has another disturbing and separate element. It goes on to advise that if the initial efforts of the former minister, the member for Richmond-Steveston; MLA Bloy; and partisan staffer Brian Bonney to silence the staffer were unsuccessful, there was a plan for money to be offered.

Again, let me quote from the government's document, one they chose not to release prior to the election. "If need be, offer X dollars per month to do non-public work up to the election." In other words, this was a scheme to silence an employee by making an offer because she had information that, if revealed, would "damage the Premier and the party."

To the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism: why would the government do that? Why would the government offer a financial inducement to silence a staff person who could damage the Premier and the Liberal party?

Hon. T. Wat: To the member of the opposition, as I stated in my earlier answer, our Premier has taken full responsibility and ordered a full review of the incident, and the government has accepted all the recommendations. I have made it very clear to all my staff that they have to strictly observe the appropriate standard of conduct.

As the Multiculturalism Minister, I am going to put this aside, and I'm going to move forward and engage our multicultural communities to work to the benefit of British Columbia. We are fortunate to have close family, cultural, business and government relationships with our priority markets. I'm going to leverage these connections and try to get our economy going.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.
[ Page 459 ]

A. Dix: I'm sure it will be news to the Liberal caucus and to the people of B.C. that the Premier took full responsibility for an effort to silence an employee who would damage the Premier and the Liberal party before the election. She did no such thing.

The standards of conduct in force for the B.C. public service state that every employee has an obligation "to report any situation relevant to the B.C. public service that they believe contravenes the law, misuses public funds or assets." This code was in fact appended, by the Deputy Minister to the Premier, to the Dyble report.

This e-mail was obtained by the Premier's office as part of the early investigation into inappropriate activities undertaken by members of the Premier's office, members of cabinet and partisan staffers. The e-mail that I have quoted from outlines a plan to try and silence an employee who has information damaging to the Premier, according to the document, including the offer of a financial inducement.

It only came to light now because the government decided to keep it silent, to keep it hidden before the election. The e-mail was in the Premier's office's possession in early March.

Madame Speaker: Is there a question?

A. Dix: My question is to the acting Premier: was Mr. Dyble aware of this e-mail, and what did he do to investigate the matter now, before the election or since the election?

Hon. T. Wat: As I told the member of the opposition earlier on, our government and our Premier have already taken full responsibility and strong leadership by ordering a thorough review of the incident. A full report was delivered, we accepted all of the recommendations, and they're in the process of implementation. I have already made it very clear to all my staff that they have to observe the standard of conduct.

[1400]

In my job as the Multiculturalism Minister, I have to continue to engage the multicultural community for the benefit of our province. This is our priority, and this will be the priority of our government.

J. Horgan: If the Premier had taken full responsibility for this fiasco, these documents would have been released before the election, not after.

Recommendation 4 from the Dyble report: "The legal services branch of the Ministry of Justice should take appropriate action to secure any government records in the possession of former public servants or caucus employees named in the report" and seek an understanding that these records have not been used inappropriately.

We have, in the e-mail that's just been outlined by the Leader of the Official Opposition, an opportunity to induce someone to change their behaviour — coming from a member of this place now, two former ministers — and now we have the current minister saying: "We're going to move forward."

My question to the Minister of Justice: has the criminal justice branch looked into the proposal of an inducement for behaviour changes by the government of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Wat: As I told the member of the opposition earlier on, our government has taken full responsibility by ordering a thorough review, and 10,000 pages of the report are already posted on the website. I encourage the member of the opposition to go on the website and look at the full report.

J. Horgan: Well, now we know that the new minister assumes that government information comes with big white patches right in the middle of it. That's not how it's created, hon. Member. It's created by having a whole comprehensive set of words so that we are able to read and understand what the intent of government was.

In that document, heavily redacted though it was, we had the following: "…would damage the Premier and the Liberal party." So my question is: what information would damage the Premier and the Liberal party? Why was that not released?

Hon. T. Wat: I don't know how many times I have to remind members of the opposition that our government and our Premier have taken full responsibility by ordering a thorough review….

Interjections.

Hon. T. Wat: This is nothing funny. This is very serious. We ordered a thorough review, and a full report was delivered. We recommended all the recommendations, and we made it clear to all our staff that they have to observe strictly all the standards of conduct.

C. James: This e-mail involved the then Minister of Multiculturalism, a government caucus member and a partisan multicultural staff person that was appointed by the Premier. It included a scheme to silence an individual who had information that could be damaging to the Premier and the Liberal party. The minister says that the Premier and this government have taken full responsibility. Then could the minister responsible please tell us who exactly was involved in executing this scheme?

Hon. T. Wat: In my first answer to the member of the opposition I already stated very clearly that the outreach strategy draft document was wrong. The language and ideas contained in the document were also wrong. That's why our government and our Premier ordered a
[ Page 460 ]
thorough review of this incident, and that's why a full report was delivered. Our government has accepted all of the recommendations, and they are now in the process of implementation.

[1405]

Let me emphasize, once again, that as the Multiculturalism Minister, I'm going to take multiculturalism as my first priority, and this is a priority of our government. We are going to engage the diverse and multicultural community to work for the benefits of British Columbia. They are our competitive edge, and they're our bridge to the Pacific Ocean. We are going to leverage all of these kinds of family, cultural, government connections to increase trade and our export markets, to attract investment and to create and protect jobs for British Columbians.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to remind the minister and remind the government that taking full responsibility means providing answers — not brushing the issues aside, as we're seeing. The scheme outlined in this e-mail contemplates including an offer of "X dollars a month" as a financial inducement to try and silence an individual.

Again, to the minister responsible, a very specific question: who authorized the financial inducement to be offered, and was this money to be paid by taxpayer dollars or private interests, like the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. T. Wat: I don't know how many times I have to keep on telling members of the opposition that our government and our Premier have taken full responsibility by ordering a full report, a thorough review. The full report was delivered, and 10,000 pages are already posted on the website. I urge members of the opposition to take a look at those 10,000 pages of the report.

J. Kwan: For the minister to keep on repeating her message box does not mean to say that the government actually took responsibility. The truth of the matter is that in that 10,000 pages there's new information that has been reviewed — disturbing and serious information. The e-mail involving the then Minister of Multiculturalism, a government caucus member and a partisan multicultural staffer appointed by the Premier included an offer of "X dollars per month" as financial inducement to try to silence that individual.

My question to the minister is this. How much was that amount, how much was the financial inducement, and who was ultimately to make that decision on the amount?

Hon. T. Wat: I think I have to emphasize, once again, that I already told members of the opposition that the outreach strategy document was wrong. The language and ideas contained in the document were wrong. That's why this government, not the opposition, took the full responsibility and ordered a thorough review, and the report was delivered. I don't know how many times I'll repeat myself to make the members of the opposition understand.

J. Kwan: If the minister admits that what the government did before the election on their multicultural strategy was wrong, does the minister then agree that a financial inducement to silence someone is also wrong? And can the minister confirm today that the employee who was being offered the inducement, the financial inducement, both worked for Christy Clark's leadership campaign and had been employed in the B.C. Liberal caucus?

[1410]

Hon. T. Wat: I want to make it very clear, once again, that as the Multiculturalism Minister, my priority is to engage our diverse and multicultural community to work with us, with all British Columbians, and work with the government to bring benefits to all British Columbians. They have strong family, cultural, business, government relationships with our priority markets, and we've got to take advantage of the competitive edge. Also, they are our bridge to the Pacific-Asia region, and we work with them together to increase our trade, to diversify our export markets and to attract investment to British Columbia.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF
GOVERNMENT STAFF INVOLVED IN
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

B. Ralston: On June 19, 2013, the Premier signed an order-in-council rehiring Fiera Lo, the former executive assistant to the former Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. The Dyble report said this about Ms. Lo: "E-mail records show that Fiera Lo sent three packages of lists of individuals who had been attending events with Minister" — and it gives the surname of the member for Richmond-Steveston — "to her personal e-mail account on March 4, 2013."

In case the B.C. Liberal government has forgotten, that was after Mr. Dyble's investigation had started. It was the very same day the Premier stood in this House and said: "What happened was wrong."

Ms. Lo violated the standards of conduct for the public service. My question is for the minister responsible. Why was Ms. Lo rehired?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm hesitant to repeat some of the answers that members have already heard. If the members, in their desperation to try and re-create an issue that they spent 28 unsuccessful days campaigning around…. If they sense a reluctance on the part of ministers to ac-
[ Page 461 ]
cept at face value their reference to e-mails that they have yet to provide to the minister responsible, it's because we have had too many experiences in the past of members of this opposition mischaracterizing what is contained within the e-mail information.

The Premier stood up, as my colleague has said, and accepted that what took place was wrong. The language used was wrong. The methods proposed were wrong. I believe that the people of British Columbia accepted at face value that admission and provided their judgment on the leadership she demonstrated.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, the Premier accepted the Dyble report and agreed that what took place was wrong. Ms. Lo was specifically named in the Dyble report as engaging in activity which violated the public service code of conduct. So what is the reward for that misconduct? Being rehired? Is that the message the minister wants to send to the public of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member is a lawyer. He's not the Finance critic anymore. He must have more time on his hands. If he has an assertion to make about whether some guideline within the public service has been violated, he should stand in this place and make that assertion.

[1415]

But he should do more than that. If he wants to make that assertion about an individual in this House, he should have the courage to make it outside as well.

L. Krog: Well, it's not just Ms. Lo who's been rewarded for her behaviour. In addition to misusing tax dollars while building a partisan website and acting as B.C. Liberal caucus research director, Blair Phelps was deeply involved in the quick-win scandal. He was listed as leader on two aspects of the quick-win scandal. He abused taxpayer resources, not just once but on two occasions, and now we see that Mr. Phelps has been rewarded with a promotion.

Now, the Minister for Multiculturalism went on at great length today to talk about how we're moving forward. Well, we're certainly moving forward. Mr. Phelps has now been hired as her communications director. Does the minister think that behaviour is appropriate?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure that I properly understand the nature of the opposition's outrage on this one. So an incident occurs. The Premier steps forward, accepts responsibility, commissions the deputy to complete an exhaustive report — releases 10,000 pages of material. There is a hiring process that is completely public.

And now, weeks after the fact, the opposition stands in this chamber and purports to be outraged? Boy, I want to talk to their research department, because these are issues that have been raised in the public, have been discussed in the public and have been dealt with by a respected member of the public service in Mr. Dyble.

What we have here is an opposition that is so bankrupt of ideas, they're trying to reignite old issues that didn't serve them well for 28 days.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo on a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, we certainly know that over there the vault of arrogance is full to the brim.

The minister can yell all he wants. The fact is that two Liberal staffers who were involved in the quick-win scandal don't get fired, don't get disciplined and don't meet the new standard of morality emphasized so repeatedly in this chamber by the Minister for Multiculturalism. In fact, they both get rewarded by a promotion and a pay increase.

My question is to the Minister for Multiculturalism. How is it that she can explain to this chamber, to the people of British Columbia — to the honest, hard-working taxpayers — why if you're a B.C. Liberal and you do wrong, you get a promotion?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, humility almost prevents me from answering, but let me try. As I understand it…. And I do want to ensure that I understand.

I'm not sure if the member is most offended by the fact that the Premier stood up and accepted responsibility for what took place. I'm not sure if he's offended by the fact that a respected public servant, John Dyble, completed an exhaustive analysis of what took place and included recommendations that have been accepted and are being executed upon. I'm not sure if he's offended by the fact that there were ramifications, that people did lose their jobs without any severance provisions.

[1420]

Or maybe what he's most offended by is that having done all that, having proceeded along that line, having said to the public that a mistake was made and we're taking steps to correct it, the public said on May 14: "Premier, you and the B.C. Liberal Party are going to be re-elected as a free enterprise government."

S. Hammell: When Premier Clark was confronted with the quick-wins document, she said: "This government is accountable for what happened because it was wrong, and I'm going to take action to make sure we address those problems."

What happened was wrong. The Premier admitted it. This minister just admitted it. This second minister just admitted it. Yet rather than being disciplined, staff involved were promoted.
[ Page 462 ]

The question is of judgment. Is this how the Liberal government punishes staff who act wrongfully?

Hon. M. de Jong: The real issue here — and it has been the case throughout — is leadership and accepting responsibility when an error is made. An error clearly was made here. It is about ensuring that sanction is imposed, and in this case, sanction was imposed.

I'll tell you what it's not about. It is not about satisfying the desire of an opposition, which apparently, in the midst of a session, has nothing more to talk about, no more ideas to pursue, than an issue that has been fully canvassed, for which the government and the Premier have accepted responsibility and for which sanction was imposed.

It is unfortunate that in the aftermath of the people of British Columbia having made a choice, that is all this opposition has to offer in this chamber. We're going to get on with governing British Columbia, growing the economy and creating jobs in British Columbia now.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In Committee A, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Education. And in Section C, the Birch Room, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

[1425]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:28 p.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,345,039,000 (continued).

Hon. S. Cadieux: At the beginning of our meeting last time I was having a little trouble remembering who worked in my office. I will correct for the record and for the member opposite that there are currently five staff members in my office — not six, as I stated. It's a reduction of 0.5 over last year.

To be clear for the member, they're the chief of staff, ministerial assistant, executive assistant, administrative coordinator and administrative assistant. I do actually know who they are. We've had a few changes of late due to some members of my staff being off on sick leave and such. So thank you very much for that.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that correction.

When we left, Minister, we were discussing the poverty reduction plan and the ministry's direction around the pilots. I just want to go back over a couple of the specifics, if we can, on that section.

The minister had said that in the seven pilots that were in place over this last year, there were 72 families who took part in those pilots and 61 families that had moved on from those pilots. I'd just like the minister to clarify that.

[1430]

Does that mean there are only families left from the 72? Have they taken in new families? Is there any kind of tracking going on with those 61 families who, the minister said, have left the program?

Hon. S. Cadieux: It is a little confusing to explain. We've got the seven pilot communities that we were working in and had assigned staff to work specifically with those communities and with families who came forward voluntarily to be part of a pilot process. Through that process, 72 families in the last year were working with the community liaison officer, and 61 moved off, in the sense that they achieved the goal that they were working with that consultant on.

As a result of that work, in the seven communities on the poverty reduction strategies with the families, working on direct service to those families, we found a lot of valuable information in terms of what the ministry could be doing differently, which is why we've embedded into practice the work that the community poverty reduction teams were doing in those communities, and we've embedded it into the practice around the province so we can help more families.

We aren't tracking them, as such, in relation to their outcomes on an ongoing basis and relating it back to the poverty strategies, because those families wanted to remain anonymous and came forward in that fashion. That said, where they are receiving services from government as a result of that action, those things are, of course, tracked.

[1435]

Just to show the impact, there was a single mother of two children that came forward in one of the communities who identified that lack of employment was a barrier. The consultant worked with the woman in that community, and as a result, the woman is now employed full-time, supporting her kids.

C. James: Are the seven pilots, then, wrapped up? If so, are the strategic plans, the measurable plans that the
[ Page 463 ]
ministry said they were going to prepare in those seven communities done? If so, when will they be released?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The community poverty reduction strategies that are being developed in the seven communities remain ongoing. The way it is structured is that those plans are developed by and owned by the community tables, the poverty tables in those communities, which are a mix of members from the municipal government, our ministry, as well as community agencies. They're unique to each community. They are continuing to work on those, and we continue to sit at the table in those communities.

As well, we did a forum with those communities and the ministry in February, at their request, to discuss sort of the ongoing work and where we were at. It is through the work that we've done with these seven communities and the poverty tables that we've come to understand some of the ways we can work better in the ministry to support families that are struggling with issues of poverty, which is why we have now embedded that work into all of our offices.

As it relates specifically to plans developed in each community, I have a meeting scheduled, coming up later this summer, with UBCM to discuss the next steps.

C. James: There was a piece in the ministry's strategic plan previously about putting together measurable plans in each community. I understand the minister is meeting with the communities and UBCM. Will those be released, then, after those meetings have occurred?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reports of those community tables will be released in the fall.

C. James: It was mentioned in the very beginning, when the plans were put together, that there would be a provincial steering committee. Has that provincial steering committee met? If they have, have they reported out, or have they done reports on each of the seven pilots as well?

[1440]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There had been a steering committee proposed. When it was brought up to me newly as minister last fall, I thought that it may be adding another level of bureaucracy that wasn't required. I spoke with UBCM, the committee, about that.

In light of our decision internally to be embedding into practice the work that had been identified through the work with the seven communities, at the same time as UBCM was recommending not moving forward with additional communities until we had had an opportunity to look at the work that had gone on in the seven and have the forum, and so on, we agreed that we would not move forward with the steering committee at that time. But it was open to be rediscussed in future if either myself or the UBCM thought that it was necessary.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, if there isn't a provincial steering committee and the individual communities haven't done strategic plans — the work is just being embedded — how is UBCM or how are the broader community or the broader province going to be able to learn from the work that is occurring in these pilots?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reports of the seven communities and the work to date in those communities is going to be made public in the fall for that purpose.

C. James: One of the other announcements that was made when these pilots were chosen was that once the project had been implemented and it got started in the seven communities, it would be expanded to include 20 more communities each year for the next two years. Could the minister give me some progress on that statement?

[1445]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We had quite a discussion here, so I hope I can answer the question for you, hon. Member. The decision in the spring was to not move forward with adding additional communities at this time and to instead look at the work to date — look at what was coming out of the community poverty tables and their plans. As I mentioned, those plans will be available in the fall.

In the ministry we had decided to embed the work that the poverty consultants had been doing in the seven communities into the practice of our ministry around the province to see how that looked moving forward. We will be looking to include, in our performance management report, which we spoke of earlier in estimates, some measurements, as well, to the work related to the poverty reduction strategies.

There is no decision at this point not to move forward with that in communities. So if there are additional communities that wish to work on poverty reduction strategies with us, we certainly would be welcoming those. But as I said, I have not yet had a follow-up meeting with UBCM post-forum. That will happen in the next couple of months.

C. James: Well, I certainly think that communities, when they heard that the government was taking on these pilots to deal with poverty, were taking on pilots and that the program would be expanded. A pilot, by definition, is the beginning of something that is then carried on. I think communities will be surprised, and I think the public will be surprised, to find out that in fact, it's not going to be carried on and that the 20 more communities per year for two years are now no longer planned.

Here the minister is shaking her head. I just want to
[ Page 464 ]
be clear from the minister. The minister said, "We are not continuing on with the 20 communities per two years," so I just want to be sure I'm clear. Did I hear correctly?

Hon. S. Cadieux: What I said was we were not…. The decision was made in February, after consultation with UBCM, to not move forward at that time with additional communities.

We've now just looked at how we're embedding that work into the ministry on an ongoing basis around the province, not just in pilot communities. So we will have ministry staff around the province working in all of our offices on these family development responses, working with families in all of our offices in a more structured way. And we'll be looking to include outcome measures for that work in our performance management report.

I haven't had an opportunity to meet yet with the UBCM, following our forum that was held in February, to discuss where their individual plans are at and to discuss next steps. I'm not saying we're not moving forward with additional communities. I'm saying we haven't yet had that discussion with UBCM.

[1450]

C. James: Each of those seven pilots had one staff person, as the minister described in our last go-round on estimates. They were called consultants to the projects. If additional communities come on, will they have those consultants in each of the additional pilots as they're added?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just confirming, but yes, absolutely they would have. That is the work that we're embedding in the ministry. The work of the poverty consultants as they were working in those pilot communities is the work that is now embedded into the ministry provincewide.

C. James: Again, to be clear, embedded in the ministry means this will be done off existing ministry staff within the ministry.

Hon. S. Cadieux: For clarity, if we identify or if UBCM identifies other communities that wish to work in a structured way around this going forward, we'll certainly dedicate staff to work with them. But at the same time, the reason for embedding the work in the ministry is to ensure that communities — and families, more importantly — are not left out of the work and the success that we're finding in some of those communities. That's why we have embedded it into the work in all of our offices.

C. James: Could the minister tell me if there's any additional budget put aside for the expansion of these pilots or the existing pilots?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No.

C. James: I want to summarize. I think it's important because of the issue of poverty in this province and the issue of children, in particular, living in poverty. As we all know, children don't live alone in poverty. Those are families living in poverty. The ministry, over this last year, then, has had seven pilots with one staff person who's been allocated from the existing ministry, and they have managed to meet with 72 families. That's been the extent of the government's poverty reduction plan.

When we have 97,000 children living in poverty in this province, I have to say it's shameful. I don't know any other way to describe it. That is not a poverty reduction plan. That does not address families and children living in poverty.

While I appreciate the minister saying that this will be embedded in the ministry's work, I would expect this is part of the ministry's work already. I would expect that that's already part of a social worker's job — to try and address families living in poverty, to try and provide support to them.

Certainly, the social workers that I know in communities already do that work. That's already part of their job. That isn't a poverty reduction plan. That's asking staff to already do their job. Then the ministry is trying to take credit for it instead of putting together an actual poverty reduction plan. So I have to express my frustration to the minister that we still don't, after all of these years, have a poverty reduction plan in place in this province that actually is going to address the issue.

Now, I've heard the minister talk…. We saw it again in a letter to the editor that the minister has put out. The government argues and the minister argues about statistics, around the measures that are used to measure poverty. My question to the minister would be: does the minister plan to undertake a discussion with the community about what measure, if the minister isn't happy with LICO, would make sense to measure poverty in this province?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member will be well aware, we certainly have had many conversations in this House and outside this House on the difference between our approach to poverty reduction and the opposition's approach. We certainly believe that you have to create jobs and build an economy.

I know that we agree on both sides of the House that children are not in poverty alone, that their parents are in poverty. Certainly, we have the plan to work on and continue to work on reducing child poverty in the province. That plan is our jobs plan, but it is also very much the targeted supports that we provide to families.

[1455]

I'm going to, for the member's information, explain why I believe that that's working and, in fact, why the work that the poverty consultants that we are now embedding in the ministry — and certainly, it is the work
[ Page 465 ]
of social workers — is working.

A lot of the families that have come forward, that the social workers have been working with and had success assisting this year, all required supports that government already provides, but they did not know how to access them. In some circumstances that was access to low-cost housing.

There was a circumstance where a man had been given custody of his children, but he had lost his housing and didn't know how to access the programs and services that he needed. With the help of a consultant, they made a concerted effort to connect him with the housing providers in his area, and he now lives in low-cost housing with his family.

In another circumstance a single mother had concern about her child being left home over the summer while she was at work. The consultant helped the mother connect with community programs where the child was able to attend free day camps for the summer.

There are all sorts of programs and services offered both in communities around the province and by this government — things like housing, child care subsidies, dental subsidies and other programs.

In many cases the issues facing families in this province are not as simple as the member would like them to be and don't require measuring against a number of statistics but in fact require people working on the ground, providing the supports that are already in place through many, many government programs through many ministries and in the community.

C. James: While the minister talks about the plan already working, let's remember that StatsCan numbers show that 6,000 more children lived in poverty in 2011 than the year before — 6,000 additional. I don't know how the minister could say the plan is working when we know those numbers continue to rise.

I also think it's interesting that the minister raises the jobs plan when we know, one, that we're losing private sector jobs since the jobs plan came out and, two, that we have also seen a large number of these children and families living in poverty actually employed. These are families that are employed. These often are two-parent families that are employed and continue to live in poverty.

The minister mentions the importance of services. Well, in my community we have a two- to five-year wait-list for low-cost housing. So it's all well and good to say that low-cost housing is the solution. I would certainly agree. I think it is a huge solution. But if you can't get affordable housing, if you have a wait-list for affordable housing, then it's awfully difficult to say to that family that you're going to be able to address poverty.

The minister says that it's not as simple as some may believe. Well, I would say to the minister that I have never said that this is a simple process. This is a complex process. This needs a comprehensive plan that goes across ministries. It isn't simply the Ministry for Children and Families' responsibility.

This is an issue that is a responsibility across government, which is part of the reason I believe a comprehensive plan is the only way we're going to begin to address the issue of poverty.

The minister mentions the jobs plan. Well, we start measuring jobs, and then we start addressing some of the issues in the same way that we can start addressing poverty. Again, I've expressed my frustration on this issue. I think it's important to make sure we register it. These are not statistics. These are children and families who have been struggling for a large number of years and, I think, deserve better than they have been getting.

To move to residential services for a moment, one of the big challenges that I know the ministry faces, and that certainly we know of in this province, is the issue of children with complex care needs who aren't able to find a specialized residential care home or a residential care bed. People and young children, and youth in particular, have often been placed in inappropriate settings — have been placed in youth custody centres, sometimes in hospitals — because of the inability to find a care home.

[1500]

We've seen custody used in that circumstance, and of course, we saw that outlined in the representative's report, Who Protected Him: How B.C.'s Child Welfare System Failed One of Its Most Vulnerable Children. As we know, that report studied the tasering of a young boy in Prince George.

One of the key findings in that report was that the ministry needed to develop a robust plan to address the deficiency in matching children in care with a care home with complex needs, with trained caregivers, properly staffed and properly equipped and resourced be able to house them.

My first question to the minister, then, is: has the ministry developed that comprehensive plan to develop a continuum of residential services for children and youth with complex needs?

[1505]

Hon. S. Cadieux: When this report was made public, I made a number of commitments. One of those commitments was to report to the representative in October — not my commitment but the ministry's commitment — on our plans to develop both the tertiary unit for children with complex needs at the Maples Centre that I announced would be moving forward as well as the outreach and the ongoing planning for five regional community resources to support that plan over the next year and a half or so.

Their work is well underway. There's an interim executive director working on the development of the project and the plan for that. We are keeping in touch with the representative's office on that plan in advance of a full
[ Page 466 ]
plan being available to her in October.

C. James: Just to ask a few more questions about the specifics. I understand the report is going to the representative. The minister mentioned five regional resources. Could the minister expand a little bit on the recommendation on that specific action?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The new treatment centre at the Maples that we announced will be the hub, so to speak, for the assessment and stabilization of kids with complex needs. Then the opportunity to plan to develop an additional five resources out in the regions is so that there is a place for kids who require these specialized services to not have to be moved far away from their home area and so that if there are circumstances where children are needing to be stabilized at the Maples, there's somewhere for them to go back to that is adequately staffed and supported with the right interventions and the right supports for those children.

C. James: Could the minister tell me what additional resources are being put in the budget to address both of these recommendations?

[1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: At this time there are no additional dollars allocated to this. It is part of our due diligence and efforts at the moment, as a part of the planning, to take a look at all of the circumstances around the province where we have — and there are many — one-off circumstances where we have homes for one child, perhaps, and where those circumstances might be shared if we better used our existing resources in a more cohesive, planned way. It is also a part of our residential redesign process as a whole to look at how we better support the other residential resources in foster homes and so forth around the province to ensure that the supports are where they need to be around the province.

In many cases, when we have one of these one-off situations — I'm sure the member can understand — the biggest expense of doing that is actually the staffing costs of that. It is believed that we have an opportunity to better utilize the resources if we take a cohesive look, and that is certainly what we're doing. That said, we are at the early stages of doing that work as a part of this plan. If, at the end of it, we determine there are more resources needed, then it is my job to advocate for them.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I think we'll keep track of those items that are going to need additional resources, because I think we've already got a long list just from a few hours of estimates. I like the model of looking at regional resources. I think it's the right direction to go, but I think it's awfully tough, as many other things are in this ministry, to do it without resources and to try and stretch existing resources. So I worry. I worry that we won't see the kind of training, the specialized staff, the specialized services that are going to be needed for, I agree, not a huge number of children but certainly enough children that need specialized supports, that it's going to be very difficult to do with the existing budget.

I think the other piece I worry about, and it's similar to the poverty reduction plan, is the $8 million-plus that has to come out of contracted services that, again, provide those services for those families. With the $8 million that they then have to cut to find the wages, again, we could be looking at fewer resources.

The minister mentioned the residential redesign. I understand there was a public consultation process that occurred with that residential redesign. Could the minister tell me where that project is, how it's been going and what was gained or learned during the consultation process?

[1515]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There was an extensive consultation, and well over 1,400 participants were involved in discussing and sharing their ideas on how we can improve the current system of care. The consultations resulted in a three-year approach to strengthen the system and improve the outcomes that it provides.

The first phase will involve creating a hub of community support for all the caregivers, whether they are birth parents, relatives, foster families or adoptive families, to help them provide for the needs of children in their care in their community. The ministry is currently in the process of finalizing or establishing where the pilot communities might be for launching the model. We certainly don't want to disrupt the system any more than is necessary and, as such, want to do this in a very coordinated and planned fashion.

C. James: The minister described the hub for caregivers as one piece of the approach. Is that similar to a peer-support kind of approach? Is that what's being looked at in these pilot hubs, and is there anything else that the minister wants to outline within that three-year approach?

[1520]

Hon. S. Cadieux: What I have just described in terms of the initial pilots would include creating a hub model where there's sort of a lead foster parent — somebody who's very experienced, who is able to provide the peer support component and assist with the other families and support — or staffed residential, with access to ministry staff support specialists. So things for behavioural supports, mental health supports, parenting supports, youth consultants, and so on, that will all be working as part of a team to support that team.

It will involve additional training to caregivers, res-
[ Page 467 ]
pite support opportunities as well, and link from the low end of the care spectrum in some of the foster settings or kinship settings to the high-end needs at the Maples Centre and so on. We want to create a continuum that is linked and works well together, which currently, I think, is strained.

C. James: Will there be performance measures put in place for these pilots?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, there will be performance measures to ensure that this is having the desired outcome. Some of those will be things like the average length of stay in care residences, a reduction in the number of moves, a reduction in the length of time to adoption — I think there's another way to say that — just a fewer number of children coming into care at all and an increased number of out-of-care placements, placements with family. As well, once we've been able to put in place the new system, or the communities of caring, then the audits that the ministry will do will also involve this system.

[1525]

C. James: The audits, then, are published on the ministry website? I'm just trying to get at how this information and the pilots and the evaluation and the reporting out will become public.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes. The performance management tracking that will be done will be made a part of our performance management report that'll be made public on a regular basis. Once the audits are undertaken, they, too, will be provided in summary form on the website.

C. James: Moving on to another recommendation within the report on the tasering incident. There was a recommendation related to the need for the office of the provincial director to develop policies and standards to ensure that oversight was in place in each region, which would then provide accountability when it came to planning and delivering services for children with complex needs.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what work is being done in this area.

[1530]

Hon. S. Cadieux: When this report came out, it was obviously very difficult for all of us to read. The circumstances weren't acceptable. In my response I did explain that a number of things had already been put in place since the point in time that was referenced in this report.

The first thing was the re-establishment of the office of the director of child welfare, to strengthen our oversight for kids, and increasing the reporting of incidents to the director and the representative to improve monitoring as well.

As well, we had undergone the complete review of the foster home and group care services that support children in care in the province. And we've introduced a new child protection assessment planning process to ensure that their safety and well-being is certainly paramount in any decision. All the staff have been trained on that.

In addition, we have a new placement-tracking report that was put in place in October of last year. It tracks the number of moves and then reports that to senior management so that we can flag, certainly, circumstances we are not comfortable with.

As well, there is a tracking system for children with complex needs. Senior staff in the service delivery areas…. When a new child or a child with complex needs comes to their attention, they then consult with the provincial office and ensure that there is an integrated approach to making sure that all of the needs of that child are being met.

As well, as a result of this report, we did put in place a director of guardianship. That person is now in place with a mandate.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, the director of guardianship now will have responsibility for the issue of residential care for complex needs? The second question would be…. The minister mentioned reporting standards, which I think are important. I think it's all good work that's being done, but that is a little bit different than policy and standards being put in place for each region. I just wonder whether the reporting also included policies and standards for each region to follow, as was recommended in the report.

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just after this report, the provincial director issued a practice directive called "Clinical Consultation and Support in Complex, High-Risk Child Protection Cases," which is allowing us to clarify the work while we do a full review of the policies relating to residential care in the province as a part of the residential redesign.

We want to ensure that all of the policies also line up with our new audit procedures so they can be evaluated on an ongoing basis. As well, that will allow us time to ensure that the policy in the directive is implemented on a go-forward as well.

C. James: The process around the residential redesign. The minister mentioned a three-year approach to that residential redesign. I understand that guidelines are out. Where is the priority around the policy? Is that coming somewhere in the three years?

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The work on the policy review is underway, and a revised set of residential standards and
[ Page 468 ]
policies will be in place by the end of the fiscal year.

C. James: Another recommendation that was within this report was related to the discontinuation of the use of isolation and restraints as behaviour management. Has that been done?

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry has stopped all use of locked safe rooms in British Columbia. That was a directive. As it relates to restraints, there is a policy in place that if they must be used for some reason, the resource must report that that had been used, and the manager of the region then must determine if that's reportable. If it is, that report must be sent to the director of child welfare.

C. James: Could the minister tell us how many other children are in the situation of being in a place of complex needs, not having a proper placement? The representative's report said it could be as high as 30, but I wonder if the minister had any numbers around how many other children are in that kind of situation currently in British Columbia.

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Following the report and the re-establishment of the director of child welfare and the integrated team looking at kids with high complex needs, there were 15 children where we determined additional supports were required and have put those in place.

C. James: Thank you for that. I understand you can't give specifics, but just from a human perspective, I wonder how the child is doing, from the report, and whether they're in a stable home situation, whether residential service has been found for the child and whether they're now settled into a residential home?

Hon. S. Cadieux: On the same grounds, I'd offer the member a private briefing after estimates.

C. James: Thanks to the minister.

Now, moving on to the area of youth mental health, I have some questions to kick it off, and then I have a couple of members who want to ask some questions, as well, in this section.

I think, similarly to the child poverty area, there are probably a couple areas that we hear the largest number of concerns about. It would be the area of youth mental health and the challenges that are being faced by families and by youth themselves. We certainly saw that in the representative's report that came out in April, where there were concerns after concerns raised around lack of supports. Lack of service, lack of coordination, the difficulty of navigating the system are constant complaints that we hear.

[1555]

I think one of the things that was so powerful about that report was the fact that it also included youth voices. I think that's really important. Just to quote from the report, one of the youths said: "I'm tired of asking for help because I don't get help or I don't get a response." One of the parents quoted in the report says: "We had to wait until my daughter became violent before even a semblance of help appeared."

I wish I could say that those were rare stories, but they're stories that I hear consistently as an MLA, so I'm certain that other MLAs, including the minister, have probably heard these concerns being raised as well.

There were a number of recommendations in the report, and I wondered, just to start us off, if the minister could tell us if they've accepted all of the recommendations that were made in the report by the representative.

Hon. S. Cadieux: While we agree with much of the information found in the report relating, certainly, to the circumstances families were finding themselves in — having difficulty accessing the system and with wait-lists and various other aspects, we had actually been doing work in the ministry already and reviewing the services that the Ministry of Children and Families provides through our community mental health services.

Our immediate focus moving forward in our two-year action plan is to improve access to services, manage wait-lists, provide additional supports to families who want to receive services and improve the transitions that need to happen much more fluidly between community and youth and adult services.

[1600]

We are continuing to work with our Ministry of Health partners and the health authorities to ensure better coordinated access to services.

Much of what was discussed in the report the representative put out is actually in the purview of the Ministry of Health, and as such, the Ministry of Health was the lead to respond to this particular report.

C. James: I appreciate that mental health obviously goes over both ministries. I think what the minister has referred to is exactly the frustration that many families feel, which is that they will go to the Ministry of Health and ask for supports. They'll be told to go to the Ministry of Children and Families. The Ministry of Children and Families tells them to go over to the Ministry of Health. So while I understand the minister's answer, I think it is exactly the kind of frustration that families are feeling.

I have to say, as critic, that I'm reading through the report, and I'm reading through the strategies around mental health and the ministry. We see that the ministry has a five-year plan, the Ministry of Health has a ten-year plan, and then the ministry has a two-year strategic plan. I wonder if the minister could tell us how those plans all
[ Page 469 ]
work together and how we actually get action out of those plans and not simply more planning based on these plans.

[1605]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member has a point. There is a plethora of plans. What we want to see is change on the ground for families, certainly. I will clarify, however, that the five-year plan of the ministry and the ten-year plan dovetail and are inclusive of one another and that the two-year strategic plan is operationalizing much of what is in the ten-year plan.

Since this report, and certainly since so many concerns were raised about access over the last year, our ministry has spoken with our staff on the front lines to discuss the realities of problems of access and ideas for how to change that or make that better. We have been working with the Ministry of Health and health authorities to implement transition protocols between the youth and adult mental health services to develop and implement transition protocols between the community, mental health services and hospitals.

Again, where there are challenges, we need to find ways to do that better. We have developed local management tables in communities to look at those transitions and dispute resolution to ensure that, indeed, the people are getting the support they need and that we are not directing them back and forth.

C. James: I'll come back to this issue, but as my colleagues have to go off somewhere else, I'll turn it over to the member for Burnaby-Lougheed.

The Chair: Member for Burnaby-Lougheed, and I believe leave has been given to sit in other spaces, so go ahead.

J. Shin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to congratulate the minister and her staff for returning to this very special portfolio. Just recently I met with the Burnaby–New Westminster Task Force on Sexually Exploited and At-Risk Youth. The members who joined us from this committee for the meetings were Burnaby school district 41; St. Leonard's; and Odyssey, the substance abuse services for youth and families. The meeting was chaired by our Burnaby city councillor, Colleen Jordan, and all Burnaby and New Westminster MLAs were present at that meeting.

I'm sure the minister is aware, seeing as there was a representative from MCFD that's a part of that committee…. Admittedly, there are some very disturbing statistics that were shared with us at that meeting. There was a count that was conducted this year in February of the exploited and at-risk youth, and the number was 217. Compare that to last year. In 2011 the number was 146, so there is a significant increase in the number there.

What's more disturbing is that there is a very real trend going away from street prostitution to the Internet and boyfriend/pimp sort of sexual exploitation that's going on, which indicates that youth sexual exploitation is becoming more and more underground and less visible.

The task force is ringing the alarm bells on this particular issue and calling it to the ministry's attention. These agencies and organizations are, obviously, painstakingly splitting the little resources they do have available. They're pretty much volunteering everything else in order to look into this issue, to assess the situation and to come up with recommendations.

[1610]

I was hoping that the minister would please identify how MCFD is addressing this particular issue, if it's aware of it. What are some of the funding figures and allocations of the resources that you can share?

[1615]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: welcome to the estimates.

While it would be very difficult to parcel out specific programs without a lot more detail, what I can tell you right here is that our budget for youth support services and agreements is $36.7 million this year. That's an increase of about $11 million since 2001. That funds a range of youth services, including outreach workers, youth support workers, youth and family mediation, safe-house and emergency shelter beds, transition housing, youth agreements, support services to sexually exploited youth and agreements with young adults. That would also provide….

In a programmatic way to explain that, one of the things that is funded there is the I-RAYL program, which you may or may not be aware of, in the Lower Mainland. It's a joint project between the Ministry of Justice and our ministry to provide youth workers to specifically work with sexually exploited youth, or youth that are at risk of sexual exploitation, via the SkyTrain system in the Lower Mainland.

Of course, as with any complex service, the services span many ministries in what is available to youth. There would be services available through the Ministry of Justice victim services or the office to combat human trafficking as well as a variety of services available to these youth through the Ministry of Health.

As it relates specifically to the table that the member has talked about, we will follow up with our executive director that was at that meeting and provide you with more information specifically about Burnaby.

J. Shin: This is on a separate note. I noted on page 8 of the revised service plan for MCFD that it reads: "The child and youth population in B.C. is forecasted to gradually increase each year, producing a greater demand for services." I was hoping to some get clarification on that. Has the ministry identified which segments of the popu-
[ Page 470 ]
lation in particular are increasing? If so, the demand for which specific services is the minister expecting to increase accordingly?

Hon. S. Cadieux: That growth rate is looking particularly large in the younger segment of the population and, most specifically, in First Nations and aboriginal communities. The demand for services is expected along those lines — the aboriginal, First Nations lines — but across the service lines of the ministry.

A. Weaver: There's been significant coverage lately about the long wait times and gaps in crisis care associated with adolescent mental health on southern Vancouver Island. Indeed, throughout B.C. families have reported that their children have been discharged from local hospitals that are unable to provide the type of care that is needed yet have been required to wait three to four weeks, on average, for a bed at Ledger House, the only facility of its kind on southern Vancouver Island and residing in Oak Bay–Gordon Head, my constituency.

What steps does the budget take to reduce times for Ledger House and to enhance the quality and access to care for adolescent mental health?

[1620]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Questions related to Ledger House would be best directed to the Ministry of Health, as they have responsibility for that particular resource. However, I can tell you that our work in the ministry around our residential redesign and the development of the new resource at the Maples Centre, and the development of community-based resources around that as we move forward, will help to provide additional opportunities to support kids in their communities. It is a component of our two-year strategy to improve, along with the Ministry of Health, the transitions to and from acute care.

A. Weaver: Then I'd like to seek what new funding and initiatives are being taken with this budget to enhance cooperation and information flow between the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health, particularly on this issue of adolescent mental health.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry invests $94 million annually to address child and youth mental health challenges in British Columbia. Three-quarters of that funding, or $70 million, is spent on our community-based mental health services. The remainder of that is spent on specialized services like, as I mentioned in the previous answer, the Maples Centre.

There are no new dollars in this budget year for the work with the Ministry of Health on enhancing our cooperation and information flow, but there are a number of structures that are in place whereby we can have those discussions and make those changes. They are the Healthy Minds, Healthy People ADM action committee; the Healthy Minds, Healthy People cross-government implementation team; Healthy Minds, Healthy People directorate, which are senior managers from MCFD and Health meeting monthly. The Ministry of Health, MCFD and health authorities have a mental health and substance use planning council, which meets every two months.

[1625]

As I explained in a previous answer, there is ongoing work between MCFD and the health authorities to implement transition protocols between the youth and adult mental health services, to implement protocols between child and youth mental health community services and hospitals. We've developed local management tables to aid in those transitions.

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister.

In the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health plan, as previously mentioned — Healthy Minds, Healthy People: A Ten-Year Plan to Address Mental Health and Substance Use in British Columbia — the ministries distinguish between preventable and non-preventable mental health issues.

My question to the minister is: what percentage of your budget is allocated to preventative supports for adolescent mental health, and what percentage of the budget is allocated for treatment of existing but otherwise preventable mental health issues? As a supplemental to that, does the ministry have an estimate of how much overall funding could be saved in the medium or long term by increasing investments in preventative supports for adolescent mental health?

Hon. S. Cadieux: MCFD's child and youth mental health budget funds both direct ministry staff and contracted services. Our staff respond to the needs and demands in their communities performing a number of roles, including family counselling, outreach and community development. Staff respond to individual needs as they present. It's not possible to allocate their time directly towards prevention versus treating mental health issues.

With regard to contracted services, during the five-year mental health plan the ministry had an expectation that 15 percent of the child and youth mental health budget would be allocated to reducing risk and 15 percent towards building capacity. Many of the activities that were funded in those areas were directed towards prevention activities.

An example is the Friends program, which is funded to the tune of about $550,000 per year. As well, the Strongest Families program with the Canadian Mental Health Association also looks at prevention and early intervention.
[ Page 471 ]

It's acknowledged, certainly, that prevention is an important part of the continuum for child and youth mental health services. Given that mental health issues are not always the result of a direct causal relationship but, rather, have a correlation of multiple factors or activities, it's not possible to accurately predict direct impact or savings that prevention activities have in the future.

[1630]

That said, academic research does, of course, acknowledge the importance of prevention programs and the importance that they play in the continuum of child and youth mental health services that we provide to the public. We look for opportunities to promote and support child and youth health prevention activities where possible. That's why there were those funding targets in the five-year plan — the 15 and 15 percent.

A. Weaver: Finally, what external and independent audits or evaluations are planned for measuring ministry performance in regards to the delivery of effective adolescent mental health programs?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We are not aware…. At this point we don't have any external, independent audit processes of our child and youth mental health services. That said, they do arise from time to time, as we saw in the spring with the representative's report on child and youth mental health. As for our own ministry work, the director of child welfare has a case review function which provides integrated and comprehensive reviews of reportable circumstances, which would also pertain to any reportable circumstance for child and youth mental health.

[1635]

Each review has an action plan and recommendations associated with it, and our enhanced process, which is being developed through the ministry at this point in time, will have a child and youth mental health component. We estimate that that will be up and running by the next fiscal year, and it will be on a three-year cycle with our other audits.

C. James: Just to get into a bit more specifics around the program areas in the area of mental health. One of the real concerns that we hear and that was certainly outlined in the representative's report as well, is the shortage of supports in communities — community-based treatment programs, community-based supports. I wondered if the minister could let us know specifically what's being done to expand those services and provide opportunities for families to be able to access those services.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Our focus over the next two years is on four things: improving access to service and managing, reducing wait-lists; improving support for families who are having difficulty navigating the system; ensuring that our ministry and the Ministry of Health have a consistent approach as children move between the community health services and hospitals; and improving the transition process as youth move to adult mental health services as well.

We are also reviewing our intake function to streamline and simplify it. Frankly, it's obviously too complex for families, and we need to make that simpler. They certainly don't need added complexity when they're already dealing with a child who needs service.

C. James: Just, I guess, to continue to boil down a little bit. The minister says that the ministry is looking at how it helps people navigate the system. Could the minister give me some specific examples or programs that are being looked at to be able to ease the complexity in the system for families?

[1640]

Hon. S. Cadieux: In regards to improving navigation and supports for parents that are trying to navigate the system, in partnership with the Ministry of Health and health authorities, the Ministry of Children and Families is building an e-service map to provide families with easy access to information on community and provincial child and youth mental health services. In addition, we'll be developing a toolbox of local and provincial resources that practitioners can provide to children, youth and families until they receive services, while they may be waiting.

In addition, as another example, 19 of our child and youth mental health teams around the province have a Parent in Residence that is provided in partnership with FORCE — which is the Families Organized for Recognition and Care Equality, I'm sure the member is aware — who are there to also assist in supporting parents who are dealing with child and youth mental health issues in their family.

Another example is that we've partnered up with the Canadian Mental Health Association to deliver Strongest Families and to continue to work with them to improve access to support for families in training parents or working with coaches over the phone to help them acquire the skills that they need to assist their children in the early preventative stages.

C. James: One of the other large concerns in the report spoke to wait-lists and the significant barrier that wait-lists create for families and, in particular, for the youth who are waiting for the mental health services.

As the minister, I'm sure, knows, we certainly have heard from families — I meet with families and met with families just a couple of weeks ago — who often have six-month waiting-time periods after their child has gone through a crisis, has been in an emergency ward, is given medication and sent home and then told to wait for ser-
[ Page 472 ]
vices, which I think all of us would agree is unacceptable for a child who is going through crisis and certainly for a family.

Could the minister tell me how many people — and whether the ministry keeps track — are currently on wait-lists and what program area in youth mental health they're waiting for?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Hon. Chair, if you would indulge me with a five-minute recess, we'll be right back with the answer to that.

The Chair: The committee is in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:51 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you for that brief recess, Mr. Chair.

Wait-lists are obviously critical in terms of monitoring the need for services and determining where and when they need to be provided. That said, urgent cases, of course, are always dealt with on an as-needed basis and are not on a wait-list. Cases are prioritized, and circumstances like acute psychosis or risk of harm to self or others are dealt with immediately and are not wait-listed.

There are a number of things we do to provide services and assistance to families while they may be on a wait-list for other services. Many of those things we have already talked about today, like connecting families with information for parents on different areas of concern, access to different websites for information and so on in the meantime. But clearly, this is one of the areas that needs the most work, which is why it's listed as one of the priority areas for work over the next two years.

At this point in time we believe there are about 1,000 around the province on a wait-list for community mental health services. That said, we can't, from that, determine for what service specifically. It's clearly an area that needs work. Up till now wait-lists have been managed individually by regions, and there hasn't been a central way of managing that.

One of the things we are moving to late this summer and early this fall is a provincial-wide system that will enable us to track it better. It is clearly a circumstance that is a priority for us in the ministry, so we can really make sure we know where what services are needed.

C. James: Could the minister tell us what the average wait time is for those 1,000 children who are on a wait-list?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Going from the same data that I just mentioned on 1,000 children, the average wait time would be 149 days at this point.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that.

I think the definition of what's urgent and what isn't urgent still leaves a lot to be desired, because certainly in the families that I talk to, many urgent cases are on wait-lists. You talk to families that spend a couple of days at a hospital bed in emergency, who are then given medications for their child to go home and told: "Now you're on a wait-list."

That's an urgent case. They're medicated in order to keep them under control until the situation is able to be addressed. I certainly think that those continue to be crisis cases — many cases that aren't being addressed right away, that still have to be on wait-lists.

[1655]

Just to speak a little bit about the residential care. My colleague asked some questions around Ledger House here on the Island.

I hear a lot of valid issues raised by families about the lack of youth mental health beds in hospitals. I understand that that is an issue for the Ministry of Health, and I understand there is, again, the difference between the two ministries, but I'd like to ask the minister: what has the Minister of Children and Families done in discussions with the Ministry of Health and with the health authorities to talk about the lack of youth mental health beds in hospital settings, currently?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, it is a discussion that is had at all levels, because child and youth mental health, and mental health overall, is an issue of urgency — urgency required.

[1700]

I certainly know that the new deputy of Health understands the challenge well, and I expect we'll be having some very fruitful conversations in that regard, given his background with this ministry.

As well, we do have an acting ADM lead within child and youth mental health who is facilitating forums between MCFD and Health Ministry staff and health authority staff to consider ways of improving services, where they look at more responsiveness and acute care beds in hospital settings. For example, he met two weeks ago in Kelowna with Interior Health and in Nanaimo with VIHA.

As another example, there is a model in Nanaimo for the province, I feel, in that the health authority and MCFD work together quite closely to triage the acute cases to ensure a coordinated response. I think they've got a very good working model there that I would like to see expanded.

C. James: Just continuing on with this discussion. One of the areas that I would hope — because I think there is an opportunity — is the discussion that's going on right now with the Comox and Campbell River hospitals and the building of those two hospitals.
[ Page 473 ]

Currently there is not a youth mental health bed as part of that hospital plan. The health authority has said that they don't believe they need a separate bed. I certainly would encourage the ministry, in those discussions — as you are looking at them — to add that to the list of health authority discussion issues to be had. As I said, there's an opportunity, obviously, with the building of two new hospitals, much more than there is to reconfigure existing hospitals. I would hope that that would be added.

I think it makes good sense to look. When you're talking about the entire north and centre of the Island, I certainly think there are plenty of cases to provide use of a dedicated youth mental health bed.

I know there are often discussions about sharing beds or segmenting or having dividers put aside for youth beds. I understand the need for that, but it's certainly not an ideal situation. The families that I've talked to — and I'm sure the minister will talk to as well — would say that it provides less than satisfactory support for both the people in the adult beds as well as for the youth. It's not a good situation for either, to look at that mix. I think it's something that certainly could be discussed.

The minister answered some questions earlier about Ledger House and mentioned Maples and the expansion of beds at Maples. I wonder if the minister could give a little bit more detail about what the expansion is at Maples. Are there any other residential care beds, including Ledger, that are being looked at for any expansion in this upcoming year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, I can't comment on any plans that Health may have. I would recommend the member bring that up in Health estimates.

With relation to the Maples, we're looking at having those six beds up and running as soon as possible — hopefully, early this fall. But it may be a little later, once we get fully up and running. That would be followed by up to five regional centres with up to four to six beds per, which would be available for children with high and complex needs over time, which may or may not, depending on the circumstance, be available to children with severe mental health needs as well.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, the minister is referring, then, to the five regional beds for children who are in care who have complex needs that may, then, also be used for mental health beds? Or is the minister talking about additional mental health beds to be put in place?

[1705]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, the six new beds at the Maples would be for children with complex care needs that are in care. The additional five sites, potentially, around the province, of four to six beds each, over the next year-and-a-half, would be available for in or out of care, but that will depend on need as we move forward.

C. James: How will it be determined, for those regional sites and those beds? How will the minister determine…? The minister said over the next year-and-a-half, if needed. I would expect there probably isn't a region that would say that they didn't need additional youth mental health beds. How will the ministry make that determination around where additional beds go, which regions will receive those additional four to six beds?

[1710]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would agree with the member. I don't anticipate there would be a region that wouldn't be needing additional resources. It has not been determined yet where these will be. That is part of the work that is underway now, that I spoke of earlier, that will be reported to the representative in October as part of the planning.

Certainly, as a part of that determination we have to consider what the health authority resources are in various areas and, certainly, work in partnership with them as we develop where we might be putting additional resources. There will be over the next year-and-a-half or so an additional five centres of four to six beds, as I said.

C. James: Could the minister tell me where those resources are in the budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned earlier when we spoke about this the first time, at this point there are no new dollars. This will be looked at as a part of our residential redesign process and looking at where we should be better utilizing resources that we have currently in place, particularly in one-off resources. At the end, if we determine there are more resources required to act on this plan, then it will be my job to go and advocate for those.

C. James: Again, as we've talked about in other areas, I can't imagine that there are extra resources that could be found to provide these kinds of numbers when you're talking about mental health beds. Four to six in five regions is a fairly big undertaking, an important undertaking. It should be done, but I'm not sure where the resources are going to come from.

I think part of the challenge with the Ministry of Children and Families, often, is that families feel there is a lot of planning going on and not a lot of action. I have to express that concern around this area as well.

We've now talked in the area of youth mental health. We've talked about improving navigation for families. We've talked about a toolbox of local and provincial resources. We've talked about addressing wait-lists. The minister has said there are 1,000 children and youth, roughly, on a wait-list. We've talked about expanding
[ Page 474 ]
youth mental health beds in hospitals. We have talked about addressing the challenges of community services. And no increase in the budget.

I guess I would ask just a general budget question in this area, then. Is there any increase in the mental health budget to address any of these issues that we've referred to, with specific resources dedicated to improving youth mental health?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are no new resources in this budget for youth mental health. We are spending approximately $94 million on child and youth mental health services across the province. That continues, and certainly, the area I see for the short term is ensuring that we are in fact acting and improving on the services where we can and improving our own policies and practice to improve access.

[1715]

C. James: I think the families, in particular, that met with the previous Minister of Health and Minister of Children and Families before the election, certainly will be disappointed in these kinds of responses, because they had expected that there was a commitment on behalf of the government to look at additional resources in the area of mental health. I think that'll be a huge disappointment, and most importantly, a huge blow to families and to youth who are struggling with mental health.

One of the areas…. Again, to come back to performance measures. I've talked about performance measures in each of the ministry areas. Right now there is only one performance measure under mental health in the service plan, and that's to do with telehealth sessions. While I appreciate that that's a program that will assist…. Particularly in remote and rural areas, I think there have been some positive indications around the use of telehealth when it comes to health issues.

The measurement that is there is simply to measure the number of telehealth sessions that have been in place for youth and families on mental health. Does the minister think that simply measuring the telehealth numbers is a good performance measure around youth mental health?

[1720]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I would agree with the member that it's not an adequate measure in and of itself. It is one measurement.

One of the things that we've been working on and using with the Strongest Families program is called the brief child and family phone interview, BCFPI, and parent ratings, as well as client satisfaction. It measures sort of functionality before and after treatment — these things.

We've been using them quite effectively with that Strongest Families program, and we are looking to expand that across the child and youth mental health services.

C. James: I think it is one measure, but simply one measure. I would agree. I think there are lots of question about how effective those calls have been. Was the family served? Did they get service? Were they able to receive service and supports in the community? I certainly hope that there are some additional measures added, beyond simply the number of calls.

[1725]

The minister mentioned earlier reporting to the representative in October on the mental health reports. In a previous area that we were talking about, the minister said that the ministry was not looking at doing as many written reports to the representative but rather was looking at doing verbal reports.

I just wondered if the minister could clarify. Is the direction to look at verbal reports something the ministry is looking at in every area? Will there be written reports in some areas and verbal reports in the other? Is this a direction the ministry taking?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify for the member — I'm sorry if I caused confusion — when we were referencing an earlier report to the representative and a response, it was particular to that report from the representative. We are continuing to provide reports to her in written or oral form as required or as committed to.

C. James: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

My colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed has a question. Then we'll get back to another section.

J. Shin: I would like to thank the minister for her answers to my previous question, and I'll certainly look forward to getting a more detailed explanation as it pertains to Burnaby soon.

My next question for the minister is on the general side, and I think some of the details the minister might have already touched on in previous conversations. But I would like to generally inquire about the science or the evidence behind how the ministry determines its goals and objectives each year.

If the minister would please shed some light as to what kind of independent third-party research or in-house surveying or any other forms of population statistics or studies that the ministry incorporates in the beginning of each fiscal year to determine what strategy or which direction, which populations to go after and better serve.

[1730-1735]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Great question. Very many answers, so bear with me as I go through this.

The ministry has an applied practice research and learning branch, which is responsible for supporting and
[ Page 475 ]
enhancing organizational research and learning through partnerships with post-secondary institutions, researchers and the community social service sector.

Some of the things that were done last fiscal were to develop a shared research agenda with the Federation of Community Social Services and the University of British Columbia to highlight key research questions for each of MCFD's six service lines. We also developed an applied promising-practices toolkit to guide and identify implementation documentation and evaluation of practices that are seen to be promising.

We've partnered with the University of Victoria to run a graduate course entitled "Multidisciplinary Research Internship: Research and Evaluation in Children, Youth and Family Services and Policies" as well as an undergraduate advanced honours seminar, "CYC Theory, Research and Practice."

This year this branch will focus on mobilizing the shared research agenda and developing a sustainability strategy for the agenda, implementing the toolkit and continuing to build on external partnerships to support the organizational learning.

In addition, we fund the human early learning partnership to the tune of $1.9 million a year for the early development instrument. We also fund the McCreary Centre youth survey to the tune of $75,000 a year. We have $300,000-plus a year that goes to SFU for research in child and youth mental health; $200,000 per year for the Canada Northwest research partnership on FASD; and $1.5 million that was committed and spent between three ministries for a longitudinal study on autism, of which the results are coming to the ministry now and over time.

We also have an internal research network to mobilize research undertaken by ministry service lines and to make sure that is shared across. All of the policy is based on best practices and on research.

That's it for now. If you have further questions about that, we could provide a briefing in more detail on any of those.

C. James: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I now want to move on to ICM and have a discussion around ICM. I think it's important just to take a little bit of time to reflect on what's happened with ICM. I'm sure the minister and the ministry will have more to say about that.

I think the concerns and the comments that have been raised on ICM certainly have been there from the very beginning. I think one of the interesting pieces of information around ICM for us — and we raised this in this past year with the minister — is the fact that during the RFP process there was no requirement by the proponents to have any kind of experience using this system in the social services sector. I think that if we look now at the problems that have occurred, I would certainly say it has a lot to do with the issues that we faced.

Comments from front-line staff, as well, that they were not involved in testing a prototype. They weren't asked what kinds of requirements were needed in a system. I think that, again, has a lot to do with the challenges that have been seen.

In May of last year we certainly raised concerns that had come forward from social workers around technical issues with ICM. They were concerned about children at risk, that some of the information wasn't being put in there. As the minister knows, the representative, as well, last year raised concerns, saying that she was worried that ICM, in fact, wasn't adequate to provide safety to vulnerable children in British Columbia. There was also a letter from the deputy minister in June of last year that raised concerns.

So the concerns around ICM are not simply coming from the opposition. I guess that's why I raise this issue. These are concerns that are coming from front-line staff, from the former deputy himself and coming from the children's representative. These are very serious issues when we're dealing with, particularly, a ministry like the Ministry of Children and Families.

[1740]

As we know, a couple of things have happened since then. There were additional dollars put in to address the challenges — $12 million. I'll come back to that issue as well. Then the independent report that was commissioned with Queenswood to report back on ICM. Again, I'll get back to that independent report.

I just want to take a little bit of time to look at how we got here, because I think it's important to look. When resources are used to fix a mess and to fix a problem, there are resources that can't be used for things like mental health, which we've talked about earlier — and child poverty. This also isn't the first time we've seen challenges in the technology end with this government. We saw it in education with BCeSIS, where again, a system was brought into place, implemented, didn't work and had to be thrown out.

My first question to the minister is: could you tell us why MCFD chose this system to implement?

Hon. S. Cadieux: MCFD didn't choose the vendor directly. In fact, the procurement process was run through Citizens' Services. The ministry defined its requirements to that process along with the other ministries involved. Based on those requirements from the three ministries, the RFP was developed.

C. James: Could the minister let us know whether one of those criteria was that this system would have been used for a child welfare system previously?

[1745]

Hon. S. Cadieux: What government was looking for with the development of the ICM system was an enter-
[ Page 476 ]
prise-wide solution in line with the recommendations from many, including Hughes and the representative herself, on needing to be able to have a system that didn't stand alone but that, in fact, was a multiministry system. Further to that, child welfare as a service line certainly is a difficult one to track or to manage in an on-line environment, at best.

C. James: The minister says that the ministry provided information to the centre, which then procured the system, procured ICM. Could the minister tell us what kind of criteria were put together from the ministry that was then submitted to look at the procurement for ICM?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member is requesting information that was put together over a period of time from 2006 to 2008, and it's not something that I have access to here. Certainly, if that is important to the member, we could arrange to get that to you after the fact. But what we're focused on today in the ministry is the status today and the implementation and how we get the best product for the social workers.

[1750]

C. James: I would appreciate that information from the minister. Thank you.

I understand the importance now of a fix, of fixing the system that's there because of the frustrations and the worries about the child protection issues. But I also think it's important…. The system may not be possible to fix, and if that place is reached, then it's important to look at how we got to the issue of ICM in the beginning so that this doesn't happen again, both from a taxpayers' perspective, but even more importantly, from a children's perspective and a ministry perspective.

I don't think anyone believes that it was wrong to look at an integrated system and some kind of approach for multiministries, but I think everyone would agree that the system that was chosen has had more problems than most people would have imagined.

One of the concerns that I've heard from people in the technology field and people in the ministry, as well, is that…. The minister mentioned that the ministry was looking for a multiministry system, and yet the system that was chosen is a single-viewer approach. To be used for different ministries when it simply has a single-viewer approach, I think, is part of the problem. It doesn't have the ability to do the different kinds of things that different kinds of ministries need it to do.

I guess my question is: were those concerns raised by the ministry when ICM was looking at being chosen? Was the ministry involved in those discussions to ensure that the criteria you put forward were actually part of what was selected as the RFP?

[1755]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Senior staff would have been, and were, involved in the 2007-2008 procurement process to provide information on the requirements for MCFD. But to clarify, ICM is specifically designed for multiple role-based access. It's being used across ministries in various programs — in different areas within MSD, but also in different areas across MCFD, including autism, child care, medical benefits and child welfare. The characterization of a single view is, I don't feel, truthful or correct. It is designed specifically and had the different access for different users.

C. James: One of the things that the ministry stated they were going to do with the challenges of ICM was to look whether there were changes or enhancements that could be put in place to try and make the system more manageable within MCFD. It was mentioned that the ministry would be sending a team to other jurisdictions to take a look at the systems and see what could be done.

Did that happen? Were other jurisdictions visited? If so, could the minister report out on that.

[1800]

Hon. S. Cadieux: MCFD did have staff participating with the Representative for Children and Youth in some site visits and looking at some other systems. It's all summed up in the Queenswood report, which we anticipate receiving in the next few weeks. But the nature of the learnings, I am informed, is that implementing IT solutions in the area of child welfare or in the child welfare context is always challenging and not perfect.

C. James: Could the minister tell us what site visits were done and where?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Staff from MCFD were involved in the site visit to Washington State.

C. James: The interim report from Queenswood came out in January. The minister said shortly, so just to confirm, there will be a final assessment coming from Queenswood in the next few weeks?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, that's correct — a final report.

C. James: The interim report had a number of further pieces of work that needed to be done and also a lot of concerns around ICM. One of the quotes from the report said: "While we have initial impressions as to whether the solution for child protection is 'fit for purpose,' we would like to further substantiate our opinions through a review of best practice from other jurisdictions." That was to be done by Queenswood. Was that review of best practices done? And will that be part of the final report?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, we understand that that has been done, and we look forward to the results of that in the report.
[ Page 477 ]

C. James: The previous minister stated that all case files were going to be reviewed for risk, given the problems that were raised around ICM, both by the representative as well as social workers. Could the minister please let us know if that review has been done, and what were the results?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The director of child welfare's office did, in fact, review 19,290 files entered into ICM between April 1, when the child protection workers started using the system, and December 31, when the extensive training and upgrades had been completed, and has found no evidence of a child left at risk as a result of ICM.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for that. Could the minister outline the resources that have been spent on ICM so far?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: if you'll indulge me for just a moment, we're just changing some staff.

[1805]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budget for ICM, the entire project, is $182 million. It hasn't changed since the project was announced in January of 2010. To the end of phase 3, $125 million had been spent, leaving $57 million available to complete the project.

C. James: The minister put the additional $12 million in. Did that come from the $182 million? Was that from the $57 million? Where were those resources from?

[1810]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Up to $12 million in additional funding was made available to us, if we needed it, to deal with the challenges that had arisen with the child protection portion of ICM. We were able, though, to draw on the contingency funding that existed within the ICM budget and from administrative savings in MCFD's budget, so the overall government budget for ICM remains at $182 million.

C. James: My understanding was that a number of staff were hired with those additional resources to be able to assist in training and assist in catching up on files. I understand that those staff…. Now the money is finished, and the staff are now finishing up in those roles.

Could the minister give me some details around that? How many staff were hired, and how many now are finishing their temporary contracts on this work and are now in the process of being laid off?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Over that whole period, at the height, 117 staff had been hired. Eighty of the staff still remain, and they are not being laid off.

C. James: How will the minister and the ministry now assess the loss of those individuals who are helping with the additional work that needed to be done and the training that needed to be done and its impact on front-line staff on ICM?

Hon. S. Cadieux: If I could just ask the member to clarify. We're not quite sure what you're asking.

C. James: I will. Additional staff were hired. They were put into field offices to assist with ICM, whether it was the problems or the backlog or implementation or training. A portion of those staff are now finishing up. As the minister says, 80 remain.

Is the ministry tracking to look at the impact of those staff who will no longer be there? I guess my basic question is…. The problems could continue to arise now that you're taking those staff out of the mix. How will the ministry ensure that if additional supports are needed, they will be there?

[1815]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The 117 was at a high point when we were very intensively doing the training prior to December. The 80 staff that remain now will continue, as work continues now, to inform the improvements to the system that will be a part of the final phase. But we're anticipating that the support plan for the users of this system will remain relatively constant now until such time as we have to draw upon resources for training for that new component or new module at some point in the future. At that point in time we'll revisit staffing requirements and our rollout plan.

C. James: Could the minister tell us what the ongoing costs are for ICM — not the implementation or the total budget to put it in place but the ongoing costs to the ministry each year?

[1820]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, we can't quantify all the costs of using computer systems in the field. What we can share is the shared support division that is there to support all of the systems that the ministries use, including ICM. MCFD's portion of that Shared Services division is $11.7 million for operating.

C. James: There were a number of emergency shutdowns of ICM, in the month of June in particular. Could the minister tell us what that was related to and what the issues were?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Very quickly, ICM has experienced some intermittent slowdowns related to usage. It's not unusual in a system of this size. That said, it was temporary. There was a one-hour shutdown to fix it on Thursday,
[ Page 478 ]
June 20. That seems to have worked.

Noting the hour, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (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.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,329,349,000 (continued).

The Chair: We're currently considering budget estimates for the Ministry of Education, and I will start with the minister.

[1430]

Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I wanted to correct a misspeak that I did at our estimate session on Thursday. That dealt with the education fund and the fact that I said we had flexibility in terms of the deadline date as it was contained in regulations.

My misspeak was that it isn't in regulations. It's in policy. The fact is that we do have that flexibility, but I wanted it on the record that I had said regulations when, in point of fact, it is policy. I wanted to correct that before we move on.

I also wanted to introduce, again, the staff that are joining me here today. We have our deputy minister, Mr. James Gorman. We also have Rick Davis, the deputy superintendent, and Doug Stewart, the assistant deputy minister.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask about some of the fiscal situations that are facing boards of education in our province. One of the comments I want to ask the minister to address is from the B.C. Association of School Business Officials, which has documented what they believe is a structural shortfall in terms of funding that happens annually to boards of education, which is a situation they believe is growing worse.

They have pegged in the past two fiscal years, I think beginning in 2010, the structural shortfall as being approximately $300 million. You can put that in percentage terms on an approximately $5 billion budget, but it is significant for them, they believe, and growing worse.

This year their analysis suggests that the structural shortfall is now likely closer to $400 million a year and climbing. One of the reasons why it is climbing is that there are a number of new, additional, unfunded cost pressures, things like medical service premium increases that employers, school districts, are 100 percent responsible for — when those go up, it falls to the school districts, and it does not increase the amount of money granted by the province — or hydro rate increases.

We've been talking about it in the House during other venues. Again, those kinds of fixed costs are increasing for school districts and do not adjust the provincial formula.

There could be more, of course, because we're in a collective bargaining year. There are pension increases that are negotiated by the province, signed off by the province, that are not funded in terms of the block funding that is provided to school districts.

On the issue of increasing structural shortfalls as described by the B.C. Association of School Business Officials, I wonder if the minister could comment on the approximately $100 million increase of what they claim currently exists that is going to occur over the lifetime of the service plan in this budget.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member opposite, I want to remind him that, indeed, in 2013-14 we have committed $4.725 billion that goes directly to B.C. school districts and their operating grants. That's a significant investment in their operations, and that is an increase over previous years.

[1435]

In 2013-2014 the average per-pupil operating grant is now $8,603, which is again an increase over the 2012-2013 allocation. The annual operating grants are now over $981 million, close to $1 billion, than they were in 2000-2001. Those increases, I think, reflect our commitment to investing in education.

R. Fleming: If I could bring the minister's attention back to the unfunded costs that the provincial government requires another level of government to figure out and which the association of school board officials refers to as a structural shortfall…. Again, these are costs like mandatory employer-paid MSP premiums. They include operating costs overhead like utilities and B.C. Hydro, which are subject to rate increases and may be subjected to significantly higher ones now that the election has come and gone.

There are the costs around the transition from the GST/PST to the HST and then back again. All are covered by local school boards who have wage increases that have been negotiated. There are teachers pension plan contributions that are provincially required that then fall to boards of education to figure out how to fund. WorkSafe B.C., employment insurance premiums that are unfunded — on and on and on it goes.

The school board officials association estimates it has been approximately $300 million as an unfunded shortfall since 2010. They now peg that over this budget cycle at $400 million, so it's growing. It's getting more difficult for boards of education to manage.

My question to him is: does he just deny that these concerns even exist, or has he sat down with the school board officials organization, looked at their numbers that they've come up with, which they call a structural funding shortfall, and — now that he's reasserted the provincial intervention and control over collective bargaining that's now happening — tried to give an understanding to the actual employers of teachers in local communities and regions of B.C. that this issue is going to be addressed?

[1440]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think one of the critical things that I've learned in the time that I've been minister and in the meetings I have had with the School Trustees Association is the whole issue of co-governance and who is responsible for what.

This provincial government, in our platform prior to the last election and subsequently, is committed to investing in education in significant ways. I talked about the increase and the investments that we've made. I don't doubt for a second that anyone in the House representing any party would love to be able to invest more in education. I think we're all committed to recognizing that education is one of the keys to the future of our province and our welfare and that of our children.

That being said, when I have spoken, as late as last week, with an individual school district…. The member may or may not be aware that out of 60 school districts in this province, there are only three that have not run a surplus. The other 57 are running surpluses.

Why are they doing that? Because we changed, about a decade ago, the way we fund school districts. We clearly heard from school districts over the years that they wanted to manage their fiscal environment and that they were prepared to be accountable and responsible for the allocation and the priorities of those funds. We have given them, now, block funding. They make the priority decisions, and they allocate the funding. The fact that they have been running fiscally responsible local school districts is a testament to the 57 that are now running surpluses.

I think that is absolutely critical, because we recognize that in the current fiscal environment, there is no more money to invest. So what we have to do is take the resources that we have, invest them wisely and ensure that they go to where they're most needed. The people who are in the best position to make those decisions are our co-governance partners, the local school districts. They welcome that responsibility, and they understand how important it is for them to run tight ships.

I also wanted to mention that in the learning improvement fund, I had an opportunity just today to hear from some people in the system who said that one of the best things this government has done is implement the learning improvement fund because it has allowed them to have the flexibility, based on priorities, district by district, to invest where it's necessary.

So I think what is prudent on our part is to give them that responsibility, to work with them, to be their partners, to give them the block funding and the increases that we've given up to now and to say: "It is your responsibility, and we support you in that, in making the priority decisions in your district."

All of the things that the member opposite talked about is part of their fiduciary responsibility as managers of their local budgets to make those decisions and to apply those in their collective agreements and throughout the spectrum of responsibilities that they have.

R. Fleming: Just to maybe pick up on the minister's response there. Surpluses happen in school districts around British Columbia because it's the law. It's not like the provincial balanced-budget law, which is a law that can be ignored and broken, as it has been in the last five years. It's the law, and if you don't meet it and run a surplus or a balance sheet that's in the black, you can be dismissed. Indeed, that's happened once in the last year.

My point in asking, on behalf of the school board officials who have tried to put a value on how big the structural funding shortfall is in education in the province of British Columbia, is to really ask the minister about
[ Page 480 ]
this gap growing even wider. The school districts, the boards of education, are the ones that implement the cuts. They're the ones who've addressed the funding shortfall by closing 150 schools. They've responded by reducing learning positions.

[1445]

We went through some of them last Thursday — 286 fewer teacher-librarians, 120 fewer counsellors, 770 fewer special education teachers, 342 fewer English-language-learning teachers, fewer educational teachers, all of those things. That's how they meet the law to run a surplus or a balanced budget year in and year out — unlike the law that allows the ultimate in flexibility provincially.

The question to the minister really is: with this budget does he expect to preside, as it has been characterized by the school board officials organization, over a growing structural funding gap in the province of British Columbia? If he could give a direct answer there.

He talked about his meetings with the B.C. School Trustees Association. I'm talking about the school board officials, the professional managers that work for these organizations. They have done the fiscal analysis. Does he agree with their view that shows there's a growing structural funding gap in education in British Columbia today?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The challenge always is, in the fiscal environment that we operate in, that all of us would like to have more money to invest in things that we think are very important. The reality is that there is no more money. School districts recognize that. They've worked hard to balance their budgets and, in many cases, have surpluses so that they can protect the future for their districts and have resources to invest as issues come up.

This government has invested in all-day kindergarten, as an example, with well over $400 million, operating dollars, put into an all-day kindergarten program. The capital dollars in that are significant as well. But I think, more importantly, what we have done in working with school districts, and intend to continue, is to say: "How can we collectively find efficiencies within the system?" There are times where everyone says: "Well, you can just solve all our problems by just giving us more money." We have recognized that there is no more money.

We are in a fiscally challenging environment throughout the world. British Columbia, because of our fiscal planning and prudence, had been able to withstand some of the downturns in other markets. Yes, costs for everything do go up. That means that at times there may be a gap if you just look at the numbers.

What we've done is we've worked with the school districts, and we'll continue to look at programs like shared services. Where can we find more efficiency with the dollars that we have to ensure that we help each other to be prudent in our fiscal planning? There are a number of programs like that. We have increased the investment. I've talked about that a couple of times already in terms of the investment.

[1450]

I think the member needs to remember, as do school districts, that enrolment has gone down 72,000 students. We have put more money in. We have invested more in new, innovative programs like the learning improvement fund, like all-day kindergarten, like working on shared services initiatives. While enrolment has gone down, our investment has gone up.

I think we are at the place where we are willing, in a co-governance role with the school districts, to continue to challenge each other to find some of those innovative ways where we can find the resources to put against priorities. I again go back to the priorities that the school districts determine. We'll work with them and continue to do that, to find those innovative programs.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about superintendents of achievement, or the various superintendents that the ministry has added or reorganized its ministry organization to retitle or to reposition. There was a mention about a recent hiring of a superintendent of trades and transitions. Earlier this year, or maybe it was the year prior, there was a superintendent of reading that was hired. I'm aware of at least one other new superintendent of achievement being hired in the past several months as well.

I'm not questioning the value of these positions or the individuals that have successfully won competitions to get these jobs. My question is really about how all of these new senior staff additions fit into the ministry's budget during these times and how they were justified to what the minister has described as his partners in co-governance, the boards of education. How did he explain these positions to the boards of education at a time when there is supposed to be a hiring freeze provincewide?

[1455]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I really appreciate the question, because it gives me a chance to talk about a good-news story. The question, of course, revolved around the school districts' reaction to us putting people into place.

Before I get into that, I do want to say that, No. 1, it is not a net increase in staffing. It is within our staffing envelope. In saying that, I think it is important to put on the record that we have three, as you indicated, and I'm going to go through them. I think each of them brings, again, a perspective on how we're working with school districts and meeting the needs as they have identified them.

The first is the early reading superintendent, Maureen Dockendorf, better known as Dock, I think, from what staff told me. When I learned about this and got some of the details, I found it interesting, because the school districts have responded and said: "Thank you for doing this." Early literacy issues, the foundational skills, are a
[ Page 481 ]
huge priority for all of the school districts and for this ministry. They have told us that this program and what she is doing is giving them, again, significant benefits in the classrooms with the students that need it so that we can lay those foundational skills.

The second one is the superintendent of trades and transition. Larry Espe, who fills that position, comes from one of the most successful school districts in Fort St. John doing what we've heard from the public we should be doing, and that is working with industry to ensure that we have a partnership that provides the adequate training to students in areas where trades and their transition into trades become a priority.

They have, again, found that there are significant benefits that are coming out of it, where students are learning in heavy-equipment operation and a number of those kinds of things, that the programs that Larry has brought into the province through that. It's not just in the north, but that's where some of the priorities are in terms of job opportunities, as the member knows.

The third one is DeDe DeRose, who is our aboriginal education superintendent. She's currently travelling the province working with FNESC and a number of other aboriginal communities to find out what we can do to help aboriginal students in their communities feel comfortable and safe within the school environment. Their safety and their feeling of safety within their schools is a critically important issue. She is doing a tremendous job in working with all of those.

Again, just to reinforce, no net increase; three very important areas of cooperation and collaboration between the ministry and local school districts; and probably more important, results that are sending feedback to us from the school districts that they're delighted we have instituted these programs and that they are seeing the results in the classroom with their students.

R. Fleming: It's wonderful to hear about results even before the positions have started, or barely started. I'm really pleased to hear the minister report that.

[1500]

I wanted to ask him…. He's sort of given, I think, a partial answer. I'm not quite sure that three is the total number of superintendents now in the employment of his ministry, so if you could give an accurate answer to that question that I asked earlier, that would be appreciated.

I'm wondering if he can also, in detailing that answer, describe not only how many provincial superintendents the ministry now employs, but how many of them are based in Victoria as opposed to their homes elsewhere in B.C.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In total, there are six throughout the ministry. I mentioned Mike Roberts, who is…. No, I didn't mention him. I went through Maureen Dockendorf, who, I mentioned, is based in Coquitlam. DeDe DeRose is in Kamloops. Larry Espe is in Fort St. John. Rick Davis is here in Victoria, sitting here at the table with me. Then Sherri Mohoruk is in Vancouver. She's responsible for safe schools. Mike Roberts is responsible for liaison with the school district. The rest I had mentioned already.

So in terms of where they operate from, they operate throughout the province. But they are indeed spread out throughout the province, as you've just heard, from where I said they've been located. Those that work out of Vancouver, of course, are responsible to travel throughout the province as required. The only one that is based here in Victoria is Rick Davis.

R. Fleming: Is the ministry anticipating an increase in travel costs due to the higher number of provincial superintendents and their dispersal around the province, as you just described?

[1505]

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member, no, we don't anticipate travel costs being higher. Travel is only used when it's necessary. I was impressed when I was appointed minister that in some of the briefing meetings I had, we did it by video conference, where I was able to have presentations made to me. I think one of the beauties of our world today is that technology provides significant opportunity to have people in meetings together using technology very effectively.

I also wanted to tell the member that our actual FTE count throughout the ministry has been reduced. It currently sits at 319.6, and that is a reduction from the 2012-13 estimates. The actual is 319; the estimates were 352. We continue to look for creative and innovative ways to ensure that we do what's necessary in supporting school districts but doing it in a fiscally prudent fashion as well.

R. Fleming: Could the minister give us the travel budget for senior ministry staff and also compare it, this year in the budget, to the actuals last year?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We don't break out the travel budget by individual. We have a travel budget within our estimates for the entire ministry, so I can't tell you what it is for senior staff versus other staff. They're all together within the allocation. We can take a look at that and provide the member with that information — as close as we can. The difficulty is the way that it's accounted for. It isn't broken out by individual senior staff as opposed to other staff.

R. Fleming: The reason I ask is that there are public accounts that are published around individual employee expenses, and in 2011 it was the Ministry of Education that sort of held the record for the highest executive
[ Page 482 ]
travel expenses that year. This may mean that they're the hardest-working civil servants in the province of British Columbia, but at $77,000, it was a considerable expense.

The reason I'm asking these questions is to see if that trend is levelling off. The minister has described some of the more remote parts of B.C. and the dispersed parts of B.C. that the superintendents live and work in. Video conferencing aside, given what we have seen in just the past couple of fiscal years, travel is a reality in this ministry. There are 60 boards of education, and there are many parts of British Columbia that need to be visited to begin programs or to work with those boards.

My question is really, to the minister…. If he could get us those numbers, I think we're interested in senior ministry staff travel. We have a provincewide order inside ministries to ration travel severely, to the greatest extent possible. But given that these positions now exist…. You've gone with a dispersed model, rather than requiring these superintendents to live and work in Victoria. If the minister could give figures on what executive travel is expected to be in the coming fiscal year versus the previous year or the 2011 year.

[1510]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question because it gives me a chance to further reinforce a couple of really important things. First off is that the ministry has significantly reduced out-of-province travel, attending conferences and those kinds of things.

While on one hand for some of those conferences the value is there, wherever possible, we do connect either web-based…. And that's happening much more, as the member probably knows. When there is something that is of value to us, we try and connect through those before we would consider sending someone out of province. We've looked at that very carefully.

I mentioned earlier my significant delight when I was told I was going to have a briefing and we went into a video conferencing room. People didn't have to travel from Victoria, I was able to see them on the screen, and they were able to brief me, including material that they wanted to show me. I found it a very worthwhile experience, good interaction.

I didn't feel any difference, other than the warmth of a room when you've got too many people in it. So I was feeling quite good about that. I saw how that worked for me, and I know it's being used significantly throughout the province when that opportunity exists and the equipment is available at both ends of it.

The other thing is the regionally based superintendents we have. When Larry Espe is doing something in the north, he's travelling from Fort St. John to some of those other markets. I'm sure the member knows, as he's probably travelled the province, that travelling in this province is very expensive, especially when you travel to some of the communities in the north and so on. So having them regionally based, whether it's Kamloops or Fort St. John, is of benefit in reducing those costs. We're looking very hard to do that so that we can ensure that, again, we set the example by using technology, by having regionally based people who are travelling when they need to.

Our friend sitting beside me here, Rick, is probably the most prolific traveller, because that's his job: to visit every single school district and to provide the support that they need and that they want. He stays in some of the finest motels that, I'm sure, our province has to offer and also has gourmet dinners at Wendy's or Burger King and those kinds of things.

Again, I think what we're trying to do is to be fiscally responsible, and while his travel costs may be large — the investment in his travel — the benefits of that are being felt throughout the province as well.

[1515]

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I think what we'll do, then, as the previous time I asked a question around travel costs in the ministry, is just to wait, maybe, for a separate note where you can break down and itemize some things that are in the global budget for the ministry, and that's appreciated.

If I could just talk now a little bit about collective bargaining and education and begin by asking the minister about K-to-12 support staff and teachers in British Columbia. Are they the only public sector employees who have not settled under the cooperative gains mandate?

I keep hearing different figures in the media. Those are two large groups of employees. My question, again, is: are they the only ones at this point in time who have not renewed collective agreements under the cooperative gains mandate?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member opposite is aware that the teachers agreement just expired less than a week ago, or a little over a week ago — June 30, to be exact. We are currently in negotiations with CUPE, and that agreement has lapsed for close to a year, I believe, if I'm not mistaken.

In terms of other bargaining groups, you would have to speak to the minister responsible for PSAC. There have been a number of settlements under the cooperative gains. The exact number, I'm not sure of. I know there have been a number. There is a number still to be done. The exact numbers, I know, would be available, and I could ask our staff to provide you with the detail of that through the minister responsible. Beyond that, all I can say is we're working very hard with both to ensure that we keep the bargaining process moving.

R. Fleming: Fair enough. Let me follow up by asking…. I understand the concept of the cooperative gains mandate, which is to identify savings that then can be put
[ Page 483 ]
on the table for monetary improvements — wages and benefits and those kinds of things.

There are other ministries that have settled with their employee groups, and I would expect that the minister would have been made aware of the process that has generally been used in achieving successful collective agreements in those ministries to identify the funds — in other words, to come up with the cooperative items that are put on the table and then agreed to. I know that reportedly, for some of these agreements, the average rate of settlement has been something like 4 percent over two years, or 2 percent a year — something like that.

I wonder if the minister could just explain the sort of generalized process that has been used to achieve these collective agreements and how that applies to the cooperative gains settlement strategy that he's employing in the Ministry of Education.

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I just wanted to mention that Claire Avison, who's the assistant deputy minister responsible for labour within the Ministry of Education, has joined the table here as well.

The temptation on a question like this, when we're talking about it at the bargaining units, is to say that it's not our responsibility to define what they're doing. In the broad context, within the cooperative gains mandate, I think I can answer part of the question. For more detail, if the member wants, I think he should go to the appropriate minister responsible. But the areas that cooperative gains looks at…. And in every collective agreement there are differences, so I'm going to talk at the 30,000-foot level, or even higher if I can.

The first mandate under cooperative gains is for the unions and the employer group to sit down at the table and to work together, to say: "What can we do, within this framework and this mandate, to find areas in the collective agreement that we can identify?" It's where gains or savings can be found, but under the criteria that it would not result in reduced service — or in a reduction in offering to the public that's being served by that particular employee group and that particular employer group — or that it's service-neutral, that whatever changes are made are service-neutral.

Given that context, it again is — and I think the key word in it is "cooperative": can we find ways to work together, within a fiscally restrained environment, to be able to come up with ideas that we can work on together and that will result in those mandates that I just mentioned?

R. Fleming: My understanding is that the cooperative gains mandate has existed for about two fiscal years and that it's ministry practice to sit down with the boards of education during their annual springtime budget process, where they engage with stakeholders locally in their regions, parents and others.

I'm just wondering if the Ministry of Education followed a process where they identified and began to work with boards of education in the springtime to identify significant savings in their operations to fund the strategy that the province has to settle collective agreements, and if that was done in either of the last two fiscal years during these spring budget consultations for the boards of education.

[1525]

Hon. P. Fassbender: There are a number of levels of communication that happened throughout. One of the realities, of course, for us is that in the case of the teachers, that contract, as I mentioned earlier, has just expired.

What we do, within the cooperative gains mandate, is we work with the employer association — in this case, BCPSEA — and talk about a number of the different levels of savings. One might be at the local, where I talked about shared services. Are there areas where savings can be found within the school districts?

I think the key here is that within the current cooperative governance relationship that we have, the boards set their budgets. We cannot tell the boards how to spend their money, but we can definitely work with them to look for areas where we can work together.

There are levels within contracts where savings can be found — again, looking at things like sick leave provisions and those kinds of things, where districts working at the local level can see if they can reduce sick leave times, which means a net gain to the overall district. We're always looking for ways. Then, within the provincial context, what can we do in supporting some of those efforts and ensuring that there are no barriers, from our perspective, for local school boards to do what they need to do? We're always in communication with them.

R. Fleming: We'll come back to this. The cooperative gains mandate, of course, involves, really, three parties. The minister has talked about co-governance, so it's the ministry, the boards of education and the employee groups at the table. You really have to be sitting down with everybody involved at the same time if this is going to work.

I want to maybe come back to some questions around educational stability in a few minutes and just segue a little bit and ask the minister about a report, which was commissioned by his predecessor, from Deloitte called K-to-12 education service delivery transformation.

I'll just simply begin by asking: what was the cost of that report?

[1530]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We're going to get the exact figure for you. I have asked staff to get that. We didn't have it readily available, in terms of the cost.
[ Page 484 ]

I do want to say that there was an existing contract with Deloitte that we were able to piggyback on. Therefore, it was not a study that was initiated by the ministry on its own, so we took advantage of the potential cost savings that that might have.

What we did is the ministry staff worked with the very people you referred to earlier, the school business officials organization, and looked at the various tiers of potential savings. They identified three of them that came to light.

They went everything from very simple or the easiest ones…. And that was procurement of a variety of different materials and things throughout districts. Those are the ones that you may normally expect you could just go after. I'll pick something. I could be off here a bit, but if we're buying bulk paper, we could buy it together and thereby have the savings that would accrue to all of the districts as a result of that.

The second tier really looked at larger purchases like buses and vans or anything that a school district or all the school districts use. A yellow bus is a yellow bus, no matter where it runs on the street. So buying them from the same supplier, if there are efficiencies — that, of course, is something we would look at.

Then there are some longer-term, larger and perhaps more complex, and that might include some larger capital investments and things like that.

The agreement, after that review was done, in looking at things like shared services, whether it be long-distance providers or telephone service providers beyond just long-distance…. It was agreed to work on those first, to get the experience to have everyone feel a comfort level in doing that and finding shared services where savings could be found. So far, those are working. We're seeing that opportunity for savings.

The other two tiers, I think, will be implemented as we move down the road and look at what might be seen as a little bit more complex in doing but not something that is impossible.

R. Fleming: Maybe I could ask about the status of this report, then. I appreciate that the minister has committed to getting the actual cost of the report. I know Deloitte has a name and probably some fees that were attached to the delivery of that report.

There are some pretty radical recommendations in the report, including alternative service delivery, privatization of transport and all kinds of functions around administrative support that support staff currently do. There is a new recommendation around private school buildings for public education, P3 schools. There was a recommendation to follow the model of Alberta on bundling school projects together for procurement, which has not been a success in Alberta, in the estimation of many.

[1535]

There are some obvious things that I think the minister talked about that would meet the nod test about coordination and reducing costs, and there were some other ideas that have been tried and failed in Nova Scotia, and to be charitable, you could say the jury is still out in Alberta. Nevertheless, quite radical items.

I'm aware that there's still an implementation committee that was formed around this report. I believe it's chaired by a woman from school district 63 in my area.

I guess my question, then, is…. He'll give me the cost of the report later, but are there any ongoing consultants or other contractual costs associated with this report? You have an implementation committee whose work is ongoing that's associated with that report.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely, the work is ongoing. I think the comment that the member made about other experiences…. Our team, and Renate Butterfield, who is the assistant deputy minister, has joined us here as well…. We are looking at experiences in other jurisdictions to see what's worked and what hasn't worked.

We have an ongoing committee. Last year we spent $59,000 on the ongoing work, and this year we are projected to spend about $80,000. That said, one of the things that happened under previous Minister Abbott….

[1540]

After the report was done, and the depth of information that came out of it, as I mentioned earlier, there were three basic tiers that were identified. The first tier was the most simple. The next complex was tier 2, and then tier 3 was the most complex.

The minister sent out the letter saying, "We do not feel we should jump into the second two tiers but focus on the first tier" — so issues, you know, in terms of outsourcing and things like that. It was not felt that that was appropriate to start there. They're identified as potential opportunities in the future, but the beauty of focusing on the tier 1 levels…. A lot of those things are what you might not see as being huge, but they are huge in some ways.

As an example, we in the province probably produce 250 million pages of copying of material — 250 million pages. It seems to everyone that there is the potential for significant savings in that and also looking at future opportunities where technology might help us to even reduce the amount of paper that we use, period, through technology and using that. That's part of the thinking behind the report and the work that's ongoing with school districts.

The other thing is that cell phone and voice services through this work and through the reports and the tier 1 analysis that Renate has been working with school districts…. We have 48 districts that are ready to sign on to a single procurement. We know, and it has been identified, that there will be potential savings in that area. So in looking at it, it was felt that by focusing on tier 1….

I think underlying it is, is there a concern, when you move into shared services and those things, that there are
[ Page 485 ]
going to be some challenges, as you've indicated? In some districts or some other jurisdictions it has not worked.

We wanted to do some of the simple ones first. They may not seem to be hugely sexy in terms of their scope, but they prove we can make this work if we work together, if the ongoing work of the committee continues to focus on those areas.

We're very optimistic that with some of the successes we've already had, and the districts coming on board, the culture of shared services as a result of the report and the ongoing excellent work is going to lay the foundation for us moving forward into some of the more complex areas in the future.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that update and description from the minister around tier 1 savings. My question would be…. The savings that have been identified — basically, have they been built into this budget? And if so, what is the amount of money that has been achieved or that the government expects to be achieved and that has been built into the budget?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The actual savings that are projected have not been booked because a lot of them are being realized. What we're really doing with the school districts is encouraging them to look at those areas where the services can be shared.

Let me give you another example. There is a feeling that on HR and payroll, there may be savings. So what we're doing, rather than booking it into the budget, is we're saying to districts: "This provides you the opportunity to find those savings and then to use those in other areas of priority within the districts."

For example, I do know that Vancouver is looking at the whole HR-payroll side of it currently and is going to be moving into that. If they can find that they can save some money, that frees that money up for them to invest it at a district level into things that are important and a priority for them.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the answer. With no savings booked at this point in time, maybe we can go back to the cost savings as part of the cooperative gains mandate that boards of education are going to have to find, and it's staring them in the face.

[1545]

Just on the level of support staff, I wonder if the minister could quantify what a 4 percent lift, as we've seen with other employee groups that have concluded bargaining with the province have achieved…. How much money would that require on a provincewide basis?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm wanting to be short and to the point. A 1 percent increase at the support staff level would be $9.5 million provincewide.

R. Fleming: In the current budget has the ministry set aside funds to pay for support-staff bargaining — again, dealing with that group of support staff employees?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No. In the current fiscal plan there is no provision for any increase to salaries in the member's question.

R. Fleming: The question was actually about the cost of collective bargaining. We've got a contract that expired a year ago for this group of employees. Bargaining may be ramping up right now. We had a strike vote just recently. September is ticking along.

This could become a very detailed, involved, intensive process over the summer months, or maybe it could be solved quickly. We simply don't know what the future holds, but there are going to be costs associated with it. I'm just wondering if the ministry has budgeted for those.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm sure the member has these statistics, but I would like to reinforce them, then. We have approximately 32,000 kindergarten-to-grade-12 support staff in the province. They're represented by 12 different unions and professional associations across 69 separate collective agreements. CUPE represents the majority of these employees, and all of the agreements expired on June 30, 2012.

[1550]

That said, what we do is fund the employer bargaining group, but we do not fund the actual negotiating process. They do that within their fiscal environment. They're responsible for budgeting for bargaining. I'm sure that they're much better at it in terms of their fiscal environment, so we do not budget for that ourselves.

R. Fleming: Does the ministry ask boards to set aside funds during their budgeting process? They've all passed their budgets, as required, just recently, in June. I'm just wondering if they were asked specifically to set aside funds to support the cost of collective bargaining with this employee group.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm sure the member does know that those collective agreements are local district collective agreements. We don't tell them to put money aside, but fiscal prudence says that every board knows that when their contracts are coming up, they will have to have bargaining. Within their fiscal planning, they put aside whatever they need to, in their estimation, to ensure that they have the budget that they require for the collective bargaining process at the district level.

R. Fleming: I'd just ask the minister, just to be clear: are the teachers under the cooperative gains mandate of government?
[ Page 486 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is well aware that in the election and in the lead-up to the election and post-election the government has been very clear that we are working and want to do it in a cooperative and consultative fashion with the teachers to find a ten-year agreement. In doing that, it then will fall out of the cooperative gains mandate because of the potential length of that agreement.

We are hopeful that in our discussions we will find a road map that ensures stability for students, for teachers, for school boards and for communities in finding that collective agreement. In doing that, it is our work right now…. One of the things we did, clearly….

When I came on as minister, I asked for a pause in the bargaining with teachers at the table. I made it very clear at the time that, on any of the gains that were made at the table on items — and I've had a bit of a briefing on which things had been discussed and were close to resolution — none of those would be put aside. But we were asking for a pause so that we could develop a new road map with the BCTF, with the trustees as our partner in co-governance and with BCPSEA, as a result, to define a road map moving forward.

In saying that, when you're looking for a longer-term agreement and that stability, within the current framework of the cooperative gains, we recognize that we need to have discussion as to what that looks like, where that agreement could go, what opportunities it would present for long-term stability and what the implications are to ensure that all the parties' interests — teachers' and the government's and everyone else who is a partner in education — are looked after in whatever agreement we are able to come to.

That's the work that's going on by the government right now over this summer in working with the trustees and BCPSEA, who are still at the table with us in developing that road map. As soon as the teachers come back from their well-deserved summer break, then we will be sitting down with them, with the elements of the road map that we've looked at, without it being prescriptive but simply saying to them: "Here are the elements that we've put together. We hope we can sit down now and look at a way to move that forward in a cooperative and collaborative fashion with the teachers as well."

[1555]

R. Fleming: What I think I heard the minister say there…. To the question, which was, "Are teachers under the cooperative gains mandate?" the answer was no, although he has described that elements of what has been going on under cooperative gains bargaining with other employee groups will, he hopes, be part of a feature of bargaining with teachers when it resumes in September. We have this ten-year anomaly which takes it outside of the cooperative gains mandate as it has been interpreted with other bargaining happening provincially.

I guess my question for the minister is: having interrupted one process that was beginning, just weeks ago, adjourning bargaining now until September and beginning to assemble what he calls a road map, does this mean that formally there is going to be a mandate in place prior to bargaining resuming with the province's teachers in September?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to make something really clear. We did not adjourn bargaining. We asked for a pause because we have a framework and a mandate that we were given prior to the election and after the election to look at a ten-year opportunity.

That said, if we were to come to an agreement that was a two-year agreement, it would fall within the cooperative gains mandate. That's very clear. However, we have a very clear objective to have a longer-term agreement. That's why we need to sit down cooperatively and collaboratively with the teachers.

They were the ones that adjourned the bargaining for the summer. We were prepared to work through the summer. I'm not being critical here. I understand clearly why they chose to do that. What we are prepared to do, as soon as they are ready, is sit down and resume our discussions and bargaining once we have a road map that we've worked on together.

We're prepared to bargain within the realities of cooperative gains and with a new mandate and a new framework that is a ten-year framework. We have already given some indications of what's included in that in terms of the opportunities for teachers to be a part of the future and to have a meaningful role at the table with the province within that kind of a framework.

R. Fleming: I struggle with this analogy about the road map, because to get to the ten-year goal there is a blank page on the road map in between. Maybe what I can ask the minister about very quickly, and he can give a very quick answer to, is a similar question we asked about the cost to settlement.

Assuming that teachers may want at least a 2 percent raise, like their public sector counterparts, I'm wondering if he can describe what the costs would be if the cooperative gains mandate applied to teachers for that kind of a two-year settlement.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To give you a very quick answer — but then I'm going to have a little longer answer on the road map for you, just because I can — 1 percent for the teachers represents $30 million to the province. That is the answer I mentioned to you. The 1 percent for support staff is $9.5 million.

[1600]

When you talk about road map and this open-ended thing, I want to just make it very clear that our intent is to achieve long-term stability within our schools in the
[ Page 487 ]
best interests of students, teachers, parents, communities, school trustees. That's the destination. Like any destination, you may know where you want to go, but you need to sit down and plan the trip — how you are going to get there, what is involved, what exit points you need on certain aspects, and so on.

What we did in spirit — as a minister who came in new to the portfolio, working with the great team we have within the ministry — is to say: if that's our goal, how can we get all the parties who are part of that journey to work with us and develop a road map of what that may look like? I have to tell you that I make no apology for saying that we didn't go in with a prescriptive road map that says: "Here is what we have got to do to get to the destination."

We said: "That's our goal. Do you agree philosophically with the goal as a first statement? If you don't agree with long-term stability in schools and for students and teachers, then let us know, because that would be a point where we don't have the same destination in mind." What I've heard from teachers, from school trustees, from parents even before I became part of the provincial government is that that stability is absolutely critical.

What we did say is, "Can we take a pause from the bargaining process and from a framework that it was currently operating in?" — opening our minds to the possibility of long-term stability. If we went in with a prescriptive road map without the cooperation and collaboration of the teachers union and of the school trustees and BCPSEA, we would be saying that we're going to mandate this.

We're not there. We want to work together, we want to develop that road map, and we want to find a solution that ultimately will serve the students, the teachers, the communities and all of our interests in ensuring that we continue to build on this great education system that we have.

R. Fleming: Let me try and understand better the road map concept, because we have had to read the minister's thoughts about that in the media. It seems it can be all things to all people, or anything at any different time.

It can be ten years or it can be long term, undefined. How long? It can be a short-term agreement, which I think the minister has even contemplated publicly. Why ten years? Is it 2½ electoral cycles? Is it two economic cycles? There is no rationale other than it makes a good slogan, and it is a nice round number.

I think people in British Columbia would agree that the most important thing in K-to-12 education — whether they're parents; or trustees, who work as employers and elected officials in our schools; or administrators; or teachers themselves, who have mortgages to pay and need economic stability — is to get an agreement.

The history of negotiations between this government and educators in B.C. is not a good one. It has often ended in legislative fiat in this place. It has been the subject of Supreme Court interpretations, generally speaking with the government on the losing side and being forced by the courts to go back and fix legislation that was flawed and illegal.

That's the history. That's why I think that so far, when the minister says a ten-year agreement…. I appreciate it is not the minister. He has to. It's in his mandate letter that the Premier sent him. He has inherited this. I know it doesn't originate from him.

The reason why teachers, understandably, are reluctant to consider ten years and why I think the public is scratching their heads at why government would set a strange road map of ambition is because they haven't even learned how to walk before they can run. This ten-year framework comes on the heels of failure after failure after failure to amicably and consensually achieve a collective agreement and stability itself.

The minister has got his work cut out for him to get an agreement — period. So far nobody, other than himself and the Premier, seems to be clinging onto the ten-year deal, and even the minister has started to significantly try to control expectations on that slogan.

[1605]

He's put the ten years out there. That could be a real barrier in negotiations — I mean, if there's just not the interest there in the parties that are negotiating this. I guess my question to him this afternoon is: what is the most important outcome? The mandate letter says ten years, pretty much. Ten years — that's the goal. But is the goal really to achieve educational stability and give parents and everybody involved who interfaces with the education system the peace of mind that school service isn't going to be interrupted, that education service will be provided in British Columbia? Or is it about the slogan "ten years"?

If the minister could comment on what the goal is, achieving a deal or only a ten-year deal, and then reflect on his predecessor, George Abbott, who said on a program recently that if you want to look at the cards that government has to play here, it would be unconstitutional, in his view, for a government to impose a collective agreement for longer than two years.

Between a ten-year mandate letter, constitutional constraints and the baggage of history that he has to take in to negotiating in September, what is the goal that this minister has — to achieve an agreement — period — similar to what the rest of the public sector has been able to achieve? Or is it to cling to this "ten years" political slogan that was hashed out of the Premier's office and now falls to him to try and implement?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to thank the member for asking the question because it really gives me an opportunity, as a new minister, to speak about the issues.

Very clearly, from my own personal background as
[ Page 488 ]
a community person who spent a lot of time working in community, there is no question in my mind, having watched the bargaining process between governments…. And I will say governments because, even prior to this administration's place in government, the member's own party and the challenges they had when they were in government…. It spans 25 years of challenging bargaining with teachers in this province.

I firmly believe that it has transcended political boundaries, that the issue is: can we move beyond the acrimony we've seen over 25 years and come to a place where we really look at the goal? And the member said it. What is the goal?

[1610]

The goal is absolutely long-term stability. I believe that teachers are fed up with the uncertainty and with the challenges that we've had. Parents are fed up with it. They want to see a different climate. I know that government wants to see a different way of doing business. I believe the B.C. Teachers Federation wants to move beyond those challenges that we've had — be they constitutional, be they legal, be they at the bargaining table. I think we all are desiring moving beyond that kind of level of acrimony, to move to something.

The member asked: why ten years? Where did that magic number come from? I don't think it was a magic number. Premier Clark, prior to the election and prior to the consultation that we did with teachers, with other stakeholders, trustees…. The framework that came out last January clearly talked about wanting to change the climate and the process we're in.

The Premier said ten years because she said: "Wouldn't it be amazing if a child in grade 2, after a result of these negotiations, could see their journey through education to completion being without any disruption, with having a stable environment, without any acrimony between the parties and our focus being on the quality of education in the classrooms."

In order to get there, I think one of the things that happens is…. When the Premier said long-term stability…. I remember the speeches I heard where she said: "I would like to see long-term stability in our education system." Someone said: "Well, what would that look like?" She said ten years. Why did she say ten years? Clearly, in her mind, she saw that grade 2 student be able to complete their graduation with stability.

If she would have said, "Well, I don't know what long-term stability means," she would have been criticized for not having an answer to the question. So she said ten years. Is that the right number? That's part of the journey we're on with our partners, to see what long-term stability could look like.

I can tell you, personally, I sat at a table and helped to negotiate a 20-year RCMP contract, and many of my colleagues at the municipal level said: "That's crazy. Twenty years is too long. It's undoable. What if the world changes?" There were enough provisions in that contract that if the world changed drastically, there were mechanisms in place to open up parts of the agreement, to change practices in how we implement the agreement as a result.

What happened was that we have a 20-year agreement with significant provisions to allow for off-ramps to certain aspects of it — if, indeed, the world tells us that we need to do that.

What did we do in this case? When the framework came out, we said to teachers, to the B.C. Teachers Federation, that one of the guarantees in a new framework is an indexed wage so that you will get the benefit of other public sector settlements. Quite honestly, if we would have done that ten years ago, they would have been better off today than they may be today.

You can do the calculations, but the bottom line is putting — to your point — significant benefits into any agreement to assure teachers that they have stability in their wages, that they know what they can expect, that they can plan their futures and pay their mortgages and all of the things that all of us worry about in our lives every day.

We also made provision in the framework that they would have a significant role at a policy table. Someone said to me: "What is there for the B.C. Teachers Federation to do if we sign a long-term agreement?" I said: "Lots." Their interest, as they have told me — and I accept it at what they say — is about the quality of education in our classrooms for students and to ensure that we deliver the quality of education as we're in transition in our economy so that we can ensure that students, whatever they choose to do post–K to 12, have those opportunities, and we prepared it for them.

So a seat at that policy table — and a significant seat at it — is an important dimension. On top of that, we said that we're going to invest $100 million in that policy table and that, with the elements that come out of it, we can invest in the quality of education.

I keep hearing from teachers who I know, from parents and from students who I have a chance to talk to that what they're concerned about is: "What is my future going to be when it comes to my education and the journey that I'm on?" In that, everyone, I believe, without any hesitation….

[1615]

Yes, I have inherited something. But you know what? It's an inheritance that I'm glad to accept, because I think the long-term stability, the quality of education is what we're all in this business to do. It is in the interests of the students. It is not in the interests of us; it is in their interests that we're all working to find that road map — and working together collaboratively and cooperatively.

I don't want to be finger-pointing, saying, "This is your fault" or whatever. I think we need to focus on that goal and to keep that goal in mind.
[ Page 489 ]

R. Fleming: I want to just come back to have a little bit of a discussion here with the minister about whether he is open to a shorter contract term. I think most people would agree in B.C. that anything longer than four years is a long-term agreement, with any employee group.

I can think of a couple of private-sector examples — one of them in my backyard here, in the shipyard sector — where a seven-year collective agreement was achieved a few years ago. But that seven-year agreement was something like a 35 percent wage increase. I mean, there was a premium that the employers were willing to pay to, instead of having a four-year deal, have a seven-year deal.

When this government wanted an agreement to have labour peace to get it through the Olympics in 2010, they had a signing bonus that was on the table — significant money that was over and above the wage escalations that were negotiated in each of the four years.

I have an interview here where the minister is quoted on CBC, and he says: "Teachers have said to me, 'How can I sign something that locks me in for ten years?'" So this is the feedback he's getting. "My answer"— quoting the minister again —"without negotiating with them, was that that's what negotiations are about. There need to be checks and balances." Fair enough. The question really is, to the minister this afternoon: what's the price that's going to be paid to have a ten-year agreement?

In every other long-term agreement negotiation that I have ever heard of in the economy, part of the check followed by the balance is that it costs more to have something for ten years.

If the government thinks that it can have it both ways — in other words, checks without balances — and have a long-term deal with a fairly austerity-type bare cost of living and treading water–type rate of settlement, where is the incentive here? Where is the balance to the government's check?

I think if they're setting the table this way — granted, they don't even have a mandate together completed to pick up where negotiations have ceased for the time being in September — that's going to be the biggest problem.

I would ask the minister: given that he may not have authority or have success and put some carrots to dangle for this long-term deal onto the table, is he open to a shorter-term contract?

I think what would be absolutely unforgivable for parents and teachers and all of those watching this process is to see, for the sake of a political slogan — which the minister described as something that the Premier just rattled off the top of her head; a ten-year deal, grade 2 to grade 12 — for the sake of trying to fulfil that, which may well be a square peg in a round hole, we have the opposite of what he said he's interested in. We have labour instability. We have an education system that continues on its poisoned past into the future.

Again, I would ask the minister: is he open to having an agreement — really, not of any kind, but of a reasonable…? Following the pattern that has been established in other parts of the public sector, is he willing to have a deal that puts our kids, our teachers and everybody's interest ahead, which is to get a deal — period?

Or is he committed to trying to have a ten-year agreement no matter what happens? So far, he hasn't even identified any of the things that might entice the other bargaining party to sign on for such a long period of time.

[1620]

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the dangers in this estimates debate that we're in is — when we talk about something like this, which is all about labour negotiations and relationships — that it sounds like the member opposite and I are bargaining, and we're not. Therefore, I'm not going to stand here and put parameters around the collaborative, cooperative discussions that we want to have with the B.C. Teachers Federation and the School Trustees Association and BCPSEA and all of those things.

What I will say is that eight-to-ten-year agreements are not unheard of. B.C. Ferries and their staff…. Crown counsel signed an eight-to ten-year agreement. There are precedents. I think what's important within that framework is that we have seen how volatile the world economy can be. So whatever we do has to be affordable. It has to be bathed in the context of affordability for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

I hear very often from taxpayers: "We can't afford to keep pouring more money into it." They are at a breaking point in what it costs them through taxes to afford the things. Yet all of us, as I said earlier in these debates…. It's the issue of people wanting more, but how do you pay for that?

I think what we have to do is to recognize that I'm not going to put a framework around this. The Premier did, and I'll tell you…. I say this without any hesitation. The Premier's heart, in saying what she did when she put that out there, was based on long-term stability for students in the classrooms. It has been a passion of hers ever since I've watched her, in her time, even as Minister of Education.

What she said, I believe, was that we need to find a way, because parents are tired, students are tired, and teachers are tired. Can we do something? Because of the context of other settlements and other opportunities, she didn't pick it out of thin air. She had a good rationale as to why she felt ten years was a term that could be put on the table as the goal.

Now, I did also say, and very clearly, that there are significant benefits in the framework that was released in January that the Premier stood up and talked about. I mentioned that indexed wages, if teachers had had that ten years ago…. They would be slightly better off financially today if we would have had indexed salaries. So I think to suggest that there's nothing in this discussion
[ Page 490 ]
for them…. There is significant potential benefit in stability for them, both in their wages and in ensuring that they are protected within the overall fiscal environment. Based on the average of other public sector settlements, that's a significant benefit.

[1625]

The seat at the policy table, which has $100 million dedicated to it to help the quality of education in the classrooms…. I say without any hesitation whatsoever that teachers I have talked to, what they care about is teaching. They care about teaching and being able to have the stability, to assure their students that they have the stability.

Yes, they are concerned about their salaries, as they should be. We're giving them an opportunity to see how that can be protected within the context of other settlements throughout the province.

I think at the end of the day the challenge for us is to take off the blinders based on past experience — and saying because we have always been in this confrontational mindset, we can't take a blank page — with a goal in mind, recognizing the realities of our fiscal environment and all of that. Talk about how we can achieve the goal of long-term stability. I think that's a tremendous goal.

I took on this responsibility when the Premier asked me because I believe when good people sit down with the right objective and the right attitude…. All I can bring is my willingness, in working with staff and with our negotiating team. The same with the new president of the BCTF, who I have met and who also has said: "We're prepared to look at a longer-term agreement." He didn't say how long. He said what he didn't like was ten years, but he said: "We're prepared to look at it if, indeed, the interests of teachers can be protected in that process."

All I'm saying in this, on behalf of the Premier and our government and in my mandate letter: can we sit down and see if we can find that road map to the future? I think that's a great goal. I make no apologies for it.

The difficulty for a lot of teachers who I've talked to since I have come into this position is…. They said to me, "Well, what's in the ten-year deal?" and I said, "I can't tell you that yet, because I'm not going to tell you the government's going to mandate it. We want to sit down with your bargaining unit, the B.C. Teachers Federation, and talk about what that could be." We want them as part of the process in defining the details of that.

The response I've received to that is: "Well, I guess that makes sense, because if I don't know what the deal is, then how can I make a comment on whether it's good or bad?" I'm saying, "Exactly, that's all we want to do," to sit down and say: "Can we talk about what that could be so that you can then communicate that to your members?"

We will be communicating it to the public. Here's what is involved in a long-term, stable agreement. Here is what the provisions and the protections and the off-ramps and the opportunities to look for being able to discuss items…. If things change drastically in our environment, we're prepared to build that into an agreement. But let's sit down in the spirit of cooperation with the goal of stability in mind.

R. Fleming: I do appreciate the minister's sense of optimism. I think it's the right approach to have as a minister. I also think what I heard in that answer was a sense of realism, that he doesn't feel particularly bound by the terminology that has been put in his mandate letter by the Premier — which is very specific, very ironclad about ten years — but that he's open to getting an agreement. That was what that line of questioning was about.

I think that if he wants to be, and we hope he will be, a successful Minister of Education, then he needs to do what he thinks needs to be done to get an agreement. We have seen the Premier's record when she was the Minister of Education. It wasn't successful, because it was confrontational and because she had all the answers and wasn't prepared to bargain in this manner, where I think the minister has laid out an open-mindedness this afternoon, which is good — an extreme flexibility.

I think I heard, on a calendar basis, that ten years be elasticized into, really, anything of any duration. So there it goes again. It just expanded.

Let me just switch a little bit and ask the minister a different question about the importance of achieving agreements here, and that is around the lead agency. The government has changed things up rather quickly on the fly since his election. I wanted to ask him about what could potentially be the awkward situation. I don't know what it's like on the inside.

[1630]

Government has a lead negotiator in the B.C. Public School Employers Association, which represents both the government and boards of education — again, that co-governance that he has spoken of this afternoon. It is the accredited bargaining agency, by legislation.

I want to ask the minister this question. This is a short one, and to the point, unlike…. Can the B.C. Public School Employers Association assign its bargaining authority over to the lead negotiator? Can they do that, and have they done that?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Hon. Chair, you've changed.

To the member: sometimes simple answers to complex questions can't be short, so bear with me while I build context, because I think it's important to understand the process we're in. I think the member said himself that you don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and part of that is the process that we're in with all of the parties.
[ Page 491 ]

First of all, under the framework that was developed and that was announced, one of the clear things in it was a different bargaining process within provincial and local bargaining, within the school system. When the consultation was done prior to the framework being released, we had consultation with school trustees and with BCTF.

One of the clear messages I've seen in a number of the documents that I've had a chance to read since I've been briefing myself on the actual history — not just the anecdotal that I've, as a member of the public, heard — was that the B.C. Teachers Federation said: "When it comes to the provincial cost drivers, we would like to bargain directly with the provincial government."

That was a clear message. I have correspondence that I've read, from the B.C. Teachers Federation to the provincial government, asking for that.

[1635]

So in the development of the framework, we made it very clear: "We're prepared to accept that that is something you want to do." I'm also very clear that, under the current legislation and under the mandate that has been given to BCPSEA, bargaining had started.

We also had an election cycle in there, and the people of British Columbia said to us, "We are prepared to renew your mandate as government to achieve the goals in all of the platform," and teaching and education and all of those things were a significant element in that. There are a variety of options that we can look at, moving forward.

But I want to make it very clear that in the meetings that I've had…. The second day after I was sworn in as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and as the Minister of Education — actually, the first day — I picked up the phone, and I called the BCTF. I had a discussion with them about moving forward. I then asked for a personal meeting. I did the same with the president of the school trustees. I did the same thing with the chair of the BCPSEA. I said I'd like to meet face to face to talk about where we go, moving forward.

In doing that, when we sat down face to face, I talked about the framework, the provisions in the framework, the goal that we have for long-term stability, about pausing the current round of bargaining so that we could develop a new road map and that we would want to do that as quickly as possible.

One of the concerns that came back from both BCPSEA and the BCTF was I had asked for them to pause bargaining immediately. They said: "Can we finish a couple of the items that are on the table, but we will identify the last day of bargaining that was on the calendar prior to the teachers wanting to take their summer break?" I said: "Absolutely. Finish off the few things, but if we can sit down before we break for the summer and talk about the process moving forward, we are desirous of doing that."

There are a number of mechanisms that can be put into place. To answer directly your question: do we have the mandate to move in that direction…? We're going to look at all of those mechanisms and then make collective and cooperative decisions as to how we achieve that. At the end of the day, the government is desirous of moving in that direction. The BCTF has said that they want to bargain directly.

One of the other elements that I think is really critical here in my discussions with the B.C. Teachers Federation and then with the B.C. School Trustees Association and the chair of BCPSEA is we see a significant, strong role for BCPSEA moving forward as well.

If we bargain the provincial cost drivers directly with teachers, as the provincial government, we see a significant role for BCPSEA working on behalf of local school districts, which need that support. I recognize that clearly, because they don't individually have the resources to do what needs to be done in that regard. So figuring all of that out is what the road map is all about.

R. Fleming: I think that maybe this could be a shorter answer coming up. The province has appointed a lead negotiator, and the Public School Employers Association remains, under legislation, the bargaining agent. It's my understanding that the province has appointed a negotiator that, effectively, has a relationship to the BCPSEA. So my question, really, is about the chain of command. Does the province's lead negotiator report to this entity, BCPSEA, or do they report directly to the minister and to cabinet?

[1640]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member opposite is hopeful that it'll be a short answer. The answer will be somewhat compressed, but some of the same points that I made are…. Our lead negotiator, Peter Cameron, reports to the province. He was engaged by the province to sit down with the parties to work on the road map to a new relationship. That is his mandate. He reports to us.

The mechanisms that may be available to achieve that goal are part of what we want to be in consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation, with BCPSEA and with the B.C. School Trustees Association. That is our goal. That is his job. He reports through the ministry to the government. His job is to facilitate.

Because of his tremendous experience, and when I looked at his credentials and where he comes from in terms of experience…. If there is anybody that I know that has the ability to understand all of the dynamics of all of the parties — he has served virtually all of them in his history — he is a man who can help to define where that might go, what the mechanisms might look like and how we get there. That is his mandate. But he definitely reports through to the ministry.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister to table, in the interest of time, some of the costs associat-
[ Page 492 ]
ed with the appointment of a provincial lead bargainer. I would also ask him to commit to detailing, for the opposition, the costs of a facilitator in the earlier collective bargaining process, which was interrupted. There was a facilitator that was quite central in that process.

My understanding is that the facilitator may still be involved in this new template of bargaining. I guess the question is really around what the costs of that facilitator are and are they included in this budget, along with the costs of the lead negotiator — whatever details can be provided. I appreciate that they may not be at hand, but whether it's a contracted value or whether it's an hourly basis that has been committed to. Anything that the minister could provide would be appreciated, along the avenues I've just asked for.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member: we'll get you the detail on the costs for Peter Cameron and his engagement. I don't have it at hand. What I can tell you is that Mark Brown, who was jointly engaged by BCPSEA and the BCTF — his mandate ended at June 30, because that was the end of the contract.

Where that goes in the future and whether a third party with BCPSEA and so on will be involved moving forward — part of the work that we're doing on the new road map will identify that and what needs might be there. Again, once the definition of the various roles is very clear and the role for BCPSEA and so on moving forward, then that is a decision again that would be made by BCPSEA, the B.C. School Trustees Association and the BCTF.

R. Fleming: Yeah, I understand that the minister has announced the B.C. School Trustees Association will be given a more prominent role in the bargaining process. We have talked a little bit about that this afternoon.

I wanted to ask if the provincial government currently directly funds the B.C. School Trustees Association, or if they solely rely on individual boards of education for their annual revenue.

[1645]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Currently we do not fund the school districts for negotiations. We fund BCPSEA. They fund their activities through their membership dues that they charge. All of the districts are a part of that, so they're all members of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

In defining the new roles and responsibilities, we are very cognizant of the fact that if we bargain directly with the BCTF on the major provincial cost-driver issues and there is a new role and a significant one for BCPSEA, we'd look at what the implications of that are. We're absolutely, as part of the discussions, going to be looking at how that is resourced to ensure that it provides the service.

But we clearly recognize that if we're bargaining directly with the BCTF, the government is going to be responsible for the costs of that bargaining and anything that might be inherent in that. And in a new, defined role for BCPSEA, we will be working with the School Trustees Association to make sure that the appropriate level of support for those services is there and what that means. You'd be asking me to define it without having the road map, so I'm not in a position to do that.

R. Fleming: I won't ask the minister to define it, but the description that he just gave sounds like he's contemplating, and there may well be, a transfer of funds to the B.C. School Trustees Association for the considerable time, energy and direct role that they're now going to play in the bargaining process. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. P. Fassbender: What I am saying is that we're going to work with all the parties to define the roles, the responsibilities, what the implications of those are, any shift in responsibilities. We're willing to ensure that at the end of the day the process is one that's robust and works for all of the parties.

In terms of funding, again, you know, we are going to work with them. We're going to define what the needs are. If there is a need to look at some shifting of funding, of course, we're going to be open to having that discussion.

R. Fleming: Just moving on to another section in the budget here, I want to ask the minister about property disposal and, just quite simply, if properties that are owned by boards of education in the province are considered to be property assets in the provincial budget.

[1650]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Very clearly, when a property is disposed, it's reported in the provincial items because it is part of the provincial budget in the context of that asset. However, what's really important is that as a reporting entity, it is reported within our budget, but the money stays in the school district and is part of their plans, moving forward. So the province doesn't claw that money back. It stays in the individual school district.

R. Fleming: If I could ask the minister, then, if any boards of education property is included in the approximately $700 million worth of funding to balance the overall budget of government. Is any of that revenue…? The $700 million over the next three years is a very ambitious target and will require a lot of disposal of property throughout government. I'm just trying to get an idea whether the boards of education and the minister's ministry are expected to play a role in achieving that fiscal target.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the member is well aware that the detail of the asset sales and where those dollars
[ Page 493 ]
are coming from is really within the Ministry of Finance's responsibility, and we're not privy to the breakdown on those.

I think what's important, from the Ministry of Education point of view, is that many times throughout any given year local school districts will come to the ministry and ask if they can dispose of a piece of property that is surplus to their needs, in terms of a school that may have closed or whatever they may have had. There may be shifts in their communities. That happens all the time. Again, the value of that and the proceeds of that stay within that school district.

R. Fleming: I understand that school districts need to come to the ministry before disposing of assets. I guess my question really is: is the ministry, in this budget, going to school districts and saying to them, "We'd like you to dispose of some assets," and suggesting that revenue either be shared or…? Is that in any way part of the global figure that government has provided to really underpin the so-called balanced part of the overall budget, which is to achieve a lot of asset sales in B.C. in a hurry?

Is there anything that's being asked, by boards of education, by this ministry, in furtherance of that overall governmental role?

[1655]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Our policy over the last couple of years has not changed. We have clearly said to school districts: "If you bring a business case to us…." I just had a meeting with a school board the other day where they have some plans because their community has changed. The growth figures that they have experienced are different than they were five years ago. They asked about a particular initiative, and I said, "I know that if you bring the business case forward to the ministry, we will consider that, and we will look at that business case in the light of your needs in the community" — and so on.

Our policy has not changed. It is consistent. We're saying to them: "You come to us. Let us know what you want to do."

Ultimately, I mean, what we want to see are the proceeds of that reinvested in that community, whether it's two years from now or five years or ten years from now, because all of us know that enrolments can change and needs can change in various communities.

In terms of the balanced budget, I am sure that the member's colleagues will be asking the Minister of Finance, if they haven't already, the detailed questions on the disposal of assets. I think that's where that answer should reside.

R. Fleming: If I could just switch to a different topic, around what's called in the ministry holdback funds, and ask what's happening with holdback funding in this budget. This is where, typically, every year the province reserves a portion of the operating grants to school districts so that when the final enrolments are known, they can be reconciled, and the district-by-district funding adjustments can be made based on enrolment. This is what's known as the holdback fund.

My understanding is that this year the fund has $26.3 million in it. The minister can confirm if I'm right on that number. Traditionally, boards get this holdback money later, when the accounts are reconciled at year-end, and they can keep it for school programs.

My understanding, based on a March 14 letter from one of the ADMs in the ministry…. It notified boards of education that "an additional $26.3 million became available in the operating grants holdback," so it acknowledged that number. Then it went on to say: "The ministry will be providing $15.6 million of this holdback fund as a prepayment of the 2013-14 annual facility grant allocation later this month."

Essentially, the holdback fund is being used for an entirely different purpose, which is to lower the commitments government had already made to the annual facilities grant. So in a sense, this is money that went to the province's deficit and went out of the Education Ministry.

Can the minister confirm that of the $26.3 million that was part of the holdback fund, the majority of it, $15.6 million approximately, has been used to replace funding that was committed to another program in government?

[1700]

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member, I'm learning a lot about fiscal management and budgets and holdbacks and all of those things. I'm having a good time, but I'm going to try and keep it really simple so that we all understand it.

As you know, school districts are funded based on enrolment. Every year we ask the school districts to let us know what their projected enrolment figures are. We fund according to that. The figures you're referring to were last year, not this year. They were last year.

What was announced in the preliminary was $51,260,521. We funded that to the school districts. When the actual numbers came in, there were about 5,000 less students than what had been projected and what had been funded. So what we said for this year's budget is that we're not taking the money back. We're not asking them to send the money back. We've asked them to apply that $15.6 million to their maintenance budget in the next year, so they are building that into their budget.

Of course, they would have liked it if we would have said: "Well, they didn't show up. You can use that money in other places." We've simply said, as part of our fiscal responsibility, that you apply that to next year's maintenance budget.

R. Fleming: Well, I guess what happens is the Ministry of Education has enrolment-based funding, and they get
[ Page 494 ]
an appropriation. Then the boards of education, which expect block funding, do their enrolment basis, and they hold back some, which is a good thing because it encourages conservative budgeting practices.

Historically what has happened is that these holdback funds collectively held by government have been reconciled year-end. So even when enrolment…. Enrolment is never bang on, but the historic practice has been to hold back the funds and then advance them to the districts at the end of the year.

My understanding is that the money that was held back last year, the money that was not returned immediately in the number that the minister just gave, has been moved forward to this year's annual facilities grant program.

[1705]

The budget before the election had $110 million in annual facilities grants funding. It continues to have $110 million now, but the holdback funds from the last fiscal year have been used, or the $15 million of it, to help government to reduce their deficit, but that's at the expense of historic practice — which is to help districts, which anticipate holdback funding every year.

Can the minister comment that this is a departure from what happened in 2011 and what happened in 2010 for this budget year, by holding back and keeping the holdback funds and pushing it into the next fiscal year to essentially replace costs that they had already budgeted for?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the important point here is that this last year was an unprecedented situation, where enrolment figures were significantly lower than what had been projected. There are always variances, as the member has said. What is clear is that the block funds are released to school districts three times a year — November, February and June for the results at the end of May. So, when the actual enrolment figures come in, we are monitoring that. We distribute those funds three times a year.

This last year was, as I said, unprecedented. And we would not be in a position where we would say: "Well, we've…." I think what's important here is that all the funds were distributed. Not a penny was held back. It was distributed. What is held back is the allocation of those funds — in this case, of $15.6 million — which, we have said, needs to be applied into the next year's maintenance budget.

Because that money was identified for the districts, it needs to be used in the districts. We didn't get the enrolment; we didn't get the students. Therefore, that money needs to be applied against the next year's budget. I'm sure that the Auditor General would hold us to task if we said there was no requirement on us to tell the school districts where to apply those funds.

[1710]

R. Fleming: I'll just try one more time on this holdback fund. It's fascinating, I know.

I think where I can identify with some of the frustrations of school trustees is that they were sent a letter from one of the assistant deputy ministers that said: "An additional $26.3 million has become available in the operating grants holdback. Hooray!" This was in March. "The ministry will be providing $15.6 million of this as a prepayment on the 2013-14 annual facility grant." In other words: "We'll be giving you the money by pushing it into the next fiscal year to have it cover something that was already budgeted for."

In a sense, the funding from the current school fiscal year, or the last fiscal year, was being transferred into the next fiscal year, which is this year. It allowed the ministry to, essentially, lower the facility grant commitments in 2013-14 by a commensurate amount. I see the deputy nodding.

So it was announced that the holdback money would be returned, and then it was announced in the exact same letter that more than half of it would be actually kept and put towards ministry commitments for facility grants in the next fiscal year. I'm just asking the minister if he can confirm that this is what happened. That's what I'm reading from the letter, and that is certainly what I'm hearing from boards of education that has happened. It's unprecedented, and it wasn't appreciated at all, to say the least.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Let me walk through the sequence of the numbers. The holdback from the spring 2012 estimate was $51.26 million. From there the drawdown that came right down to the $26.33 million that you refer to is absolutely…. You're correct all the way down to that number.

What we then did is…. The letter was definitely saying that the $15.6 million, because of the lack of students that showed up, needed to be applied to the facilities in the next year. It could not be applied against surpluses because, again, as I said, we would be held to account by the Auditor General. Those funds needed to be applied.

The remaining $10.73 million of that $26.33 million was then available, and it was drawn down to the point where the holdback as of June 2013 is zero, and we had a number of other points where there were further drawdowns because of students that didn't show up and so on.

So at the end of the day, you were correct up to that point. The letter did go out and say exactly what you said, and that money was being applied against the facilities for the next budget year.

[1715]

R. Fleming: I'll just move now to ask about the Pacific Carbon Trust and the carbon-neutral government requirements that have been put on boards of education to purchase offsets for their emissions portfolios.
[ Page 495 ]

Now, the opposition has asked about this, really since 2012, since those carbon-neutral government requirements came in. I think we managed in this ministry to get some important concessions, working with the School Trustees Association and others. It made no sense to take money out of classrooms or money that should be there to get rid of portables or improve education, essentially to take money from cash-starved school districts and give it to offsets for Fortune 500 companies — EnCana, companies like that.

Eventually, government realized that they were, politically, having a hard time defending that. In this ministry — not others — public schools received a concession. My understanding is they're still required to quantify the carbon footprint and contribute $25 per tonne of CO₂, but it now remains within a fund that this ministry tracks but I think the Ministry of Finance holds, if I'm not mistaken. That money is accumulating, and it's so school districts can actually bid back on those carbon payments they're required to make to green their own operations.

I want the minister to confirm if what I've just described is correct. I certainly remember the announcement by government.

Then if he could provide any information on how much money is currently held in that account, if they've got a process up and running for schools to bid in, and whether any of those funds to green public schools are being released and coordinated with the facilities grant, with the seismic grant so that you can open up the building envelope once, not three times, and maximize the efficiency of government grants and the environmental benefits and performance of our schools.

Hon. P. Fassbender: A couple of very quick things. The first thing is that since July of 2008 school districts have been reimbursed a total of $15 million for carbon tax expenditures, so they get every penny back that they paid.

[1720]

The second thing that's really important is from 2010 to 2012 they paid in $13.9 million, and then under the various programs that we have within the ministry and within the districts, they've received $28.2 million back. When I say back, I shouldn't say back because they didn't pay it. They've received $28.2 million, so we've made further investments of $14.5 million in projects that helped them to reduce their CO₂ footprint and a number of other things.

The key here is that, wherever possible, they're not tied to seismic upgrades. But if they can be done in coordination with seismic upgrades so we don't have to go into the school two or three times to do some of these things, of course, the efficiency of that is obvious, and the ministry works with the school district to do it.

Indeed, they've received, as I said, $14.5 million more than has been paid in, in the offsets, to invest in upgrades of a nature that will help their carbon footprint as well.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for that answer. If I could just ask one more question on this section.

I think the model that the Minister of Education actually is using is vastly preferable, then, to the ones that colleges, hospitals, universities and other public sector organizations are being forced to participate in through the Pacific Carbon Trust. So my question really is about how this different model….

Within "carbon-neutral government" you've actually got two models. The Education Ministry model, which allows schools to invest in greening their buildings and their environmental performance and achieve energy savings that accrue to the taxpayer, is one. The other, which any health authority CEO would dearly like to have….

I guess my question is this. The fund goes on, this different type of model goes on, and school districts contribute to it. I'm just wondering, operationally, if you've figured out how that fund is administered. Obviously, everybody contributes but can't expect to receive grants for energy upgrades every year. Some projects will be large and require a significant investment, and they'll be in the south of the province. Some projects will be in the north.

I'm wondering: is the minister aware of how this has been worked out? Is it like a ten-year rolling fund and everybody, by and large, will get an equitable share of what they contribute? Or have rules and policy and procedure like that not been established yet?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The analysis on this, of course, is first an analysis of what their footprint is and where the opportunities are. The goal is to distribute the funds equitably across the province.

[1725]

Then, of course, the other key to it and the analysis of the process at this point is that the majority of school districts have participated. Over a three-year period we're looking at the distribution of those funds to the various districts, but over a five- to six-year period they would be held whole, every school district in the province.

The reason for that, of course, is we didn't want to see a significant benefit to one particular region over some of the other regions. We wanted to make sure that the policy and the implementation over that five- to six-year period was equitable across the province to all school districts and not concentrated in one region over another.

R. Fleming: I want to ask about the seismic rebuilds and upgrades part of the budget. There is a section of the service plan where the minister's message mentions that $600 million is the requirement to replace the remaining 102 high-seismic-risk schools across British Columbia. I'm just wondering how much of that $600 million is be-
[ Page 496 ]
ing allocated in this budget. Is there a new target date? It has moved several times, as it has not been met in the past. Is there a new target date of when this work is set to be accomplished by?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm sure the member is well aware that since 2001 our government has spent or committed $2.2 billion to seismically upgrade or replace 213 high-risk schools in the province.

[1730]

In doing that there are 213 projects that are already underway, and there are another 102 that are remaining to be addressed. When I say underway, some are completed, and some are in the process of moving towards completion. There are another 102 schools remaining to be addressed.

In March of 2013 the previous minister received a letter from the Minister of Finance and the chair of Treasury Board where another $584.2 million was committed. That particular $584.2 million was dedicated as follows: ten seismic projects, starting in this fiscal year, 2013-14, of $111.8 million; 14 in fiscal year 2014-15 of $177 million; and 21 in 2015-16 of $295.4 million.

Now, in launching those out, again, the business case for each one of those seismic upgrades and their priorities is what the ministry works with the districts on, and the scheduling for that. As I'm sure you can appreciate, from the time a project is identified to the time we work with the engineering consultants to ensure that we do the best we can the most efficient way, it's about a four- or five-year period from the time a project is on the list to the time that we can anticipate it's completed.

That process is ongoing, as I said, based on that schedule that I've just given you.

R. Fleming: I'll just leave the seismic topic for now. I think when we get back to estimates on Thursday — which is the next day, I understand — a number of members may have questions about seismic upgrades in their own areas, in their own constituencies.

If I could move to early learning and just ask a couple questions. A couple of years ago the Ministry of Education embarked on a study that led to the expansion of kindergarten to full-day, which was fantastic and was implemented.

It also contemplated offering junior kindergarten to four-year-olds, which is offered in many other jurisdictions in Canada. It would not make B.C. unique; it would make it join those other provinces that are leading by providing junior kindergarten.

I wanted to ask the minister…. That's really the last time we've heard of this — the early learning document a few years ago from government. Is there a possibility that this is still being contemplated within this budget and service plan in the ministry?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No, we're not contemplating renewing that discussion, and not because it's something that hasn't been considered. The member referred to the Ontario experience, and from our research and what we've learned, it received mixed reviews from parents themselves in terms of the value. I think what is important is not that we're not concerned about early learning, because we are…. We're investing in that in a number of ways.

[1735]

You have spoken about what we've done through full-day kindergarten, for which we are getting positive reviews from the parents and the outcomes that come out of that for children when they move into the other part of their educational journey.

Right now in the province of British Columbia where we see really strong support and effect is the over 400 StrongStart centres that we have throughout the province. Again, the feedback we're getting from teachers and from parents is that the StrongStart program is really a significant benefit, at no cost to families, for the parents and the caregivers to learn ways to support their children's learning as they get ready to make that transition into full-day kindergarten.

Then of course, Ready, Set, Learn for families and their three-year-olds provides that play-based opportunity and learning opportunities for those children. So at this stage we have no plans of revisiting the four-year-olds' situation.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister to ask his deputy if he remembers what the estimated cost was of the initiative that government announced on junior kindergarten for four-year-olds. I appreciate what the minister has just said in terms of there being no plans for that at this time, after his government had sort of made a lot of fanfare about it. I'm just wondering if there was a cost associated with that and what the approximate amount was.

Hon. P. Fassbender: My deputy, as learned as he is and as a wealth of information as he is, doesn't recall and is not prepared to give a figure that could be wrong — but more than willing to prepare it.

I think, more importantly, the issue on that is: the cost that was ballparked at the time was based on an idea. On analysis, the idea did not make sense, and the ministry chose not to go down that road but invested in a number of other programs — which, of course, are very obvious, as to the kind of investment that has been made to support those programs.

R. Fleming: Are there any funds in the current budget to expand StrongStart centres in B.C.? The minister spoke about them a minute ago, and I just wanted to ask if there's funding in the current budget to expand that
[ Page 497 ]
program in the centres where they physically are located.

Hon. P. Fassbender: What we have found with the StrongStart programs…. Like everything, when a new program comes in, you project what the takeup would be, what the need is and whether or not you've achieved that. We're finding that we're not getting pressure from school districts. It looks like we've got the balance appropriate for that program.

Suffice it to say that if a school district comes to us and they need some support because they've found that there is a need, we will work with them, as we will in a number of other areas. Right now we're feeling very much, by the lack of pressure for more support, that we probably, with the school districts, have got it right.

[1740]

R. Fleming: Well, let me ask more generally, then, if there is contained in this budget any new funding in support of early learning.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Sorry, I….

R. Fleming: Let me repeat the question. You expected a longer question, I know.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yeah, I did.

R. Fleming: The question was, quite simply, if there is any new funding in this budget for early learning, in support of it, and the emphasis on early learning to achieve successful outcomes, which is part of the education plan.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think this is what the member may be referring to. There was an announcement of a $76 million investment in an early-years strategy, which is not isolated in our budget, the Ministry of Education, but it is an overall government commitment on early-years services that will increase.

The number that was in the recent release was $32 million to support the creation of new child care spaces; $37 million in support of improving the overall quality of early-years services, including child care; and $7 million to strengthen the coordination of early childhood development programs and child care services.

As the member, I'm sure, is well aware, we work very closely with the Ministry of Children on a number of those initiatives and provide that support. That is an investment announcement that the government has made in the early-years strategy.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the community connections program. This has been used by communities, both rural and urban, across B.C. It encouraged boards to partner with local governments, where it made sense, to allow community use of school properties, school facilities; to plan together with recreation departments — all of those things, including things like continuing education programs and neighbourhood learning centres.

That was the description of the community connections program. I'm wondering if funding for it continues in this budget.

[1745]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Currently our plan is…. That particular program has morphed into what we now call neighbourhood learning centres.

As a former municipal individual who worked closely with the school district in my community, which I happened to have been mayor of, I've seen a lot of things and discussions at UBCM and other places around this. We've actually got it right, I think, in terms of where we go.

In communities like Port Alberni, Revelstoke, Powell River, Burnaby and Langley district the school district sits down, as part of their strategic planning process, with the local community and talks about: what are our community needs? The reality is that every community has a different set of needs. One community may have more of a particular service that's provided through other civic facilities, and there isn't a need for the same thing between Burnaby and Port Alberni.

What we do in any new project — and there are a number in the works, one I'm very familiar with, in Langley, on Willoughby Slope — is the discussion of what the need is. It may not be the same as what Port Alberni or Burnaby needs, because within a stone's throw there is a huge recreational facility, so to build extra recreational space may not be appropriate.

We provide that 15 percent of additional space in the planning process for community engagement. Again, I think the key to that is the cooperation between the local school district, the local government and other agencies that are providing services to say: "What is the need in our community? How can we meet that? If we are investing in a new facility, how can we take best advantage of what the community need is by providing the space for that?"

G. Holman: Mr. Minister, it's a pleasure to be able to ask you a couple of questions today about aboriginal education issues.

The federal Budget Officer just released a report, which was requested by NDP Aboriginal Affairs critic Jean Crowder, that showed that more than 500 reserve schools in Canada are underfunded, that the lack of funding is part of the reason for about a 58 percent graduation rate for aboriginal students — about 20 percent behind non-aboriginal students.

My question on that is: are you aware of the report? What was your reaction? And do you see an opportunity,
[ Page 498 ]
within your ministry, to work with your federal counterpart to try and address this issue?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely. I did read the report and the media releases that came out of it. We're acutely aware of some of the challenges. As the member knows, the province of British Columbia is part of a tripartite group, along with First Nations and the federal government, to talk about learning outcomes for aboriginal students and the needs in that area.

[1750]

We're very aware that this report referred specifically to band schools, which are the purview of the federal government. We do not fund on-reserve band schools, so we're not involved in that from a funding point of view, but the outcomes are probably the most important thing.

On that committee we work closely with them in terms of the future. We've just had discussions in recent days about future opportunities for transitions and barriers to First Nations students when it comes to the reality of them being able to find skills training and so on, so that they can be gainfully employed. We are engaged in those discussions, and we will continue to work with our partners at that table to look at outcomes

I think the other thing that's important to mention is the reciprocal tuition policy that we have. If we have students from band schools who come into other schools and vice versa, their tuition is covered on the same basis as any other student is in the province.

G. Holman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Just a quote from an article about the report: "Some of these schools don't have computers and have gyms that look like they're falling apart." This is really a serious issue.

I'm curious, though: does the Minister of Education and the province not provide any funding at all for First Nation schools or band schools? I'm seeing the deputy minister shake his head.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The simple answer is, no, we do not fund on-reserve band schools. That is the responsibility of the federal government — full stop.

G. Holman: Just one last question, specifically about First Nations knowledge of their own language. Of course, we're in a situation that's resulted from a historical attempt by federal and provincial governments to essentially prevent First Nations from using their own language.

There is some very interesting research done by Chris Lalonde at the University of Victoria about the link and the relationship about First Nations communities that have at least a conversational level in their own language. There's a striking correlation between that and suicide rates among First Nations youth. That's something I'm going to be speaking to in the House this coming Wednesday.

The research that Lalonde did indicated that out of 150 communities in B.C. the strongest correlation between First Nation suicide rates and a range of factors was their conversational language capability within those communities. Apparently, suicide…. His research shows that suicide rates drop to zero in communities in which at least half the members reported a conversational knowledge of their language.

Again, not to be partisan here, but in our platform in 2013 we did promise some additional funding to try to protect, preserve and enhance First Nations' knowledge of their own language. Pretty modest in the context of a provincial budget.

That issue specifically…. Given the striking relationship between language within First Nations and suicide rates, do you think that's an issue that your ministry could consider supporting, even to a modest degree?

[1755]

Hon. P. Fassbender: There is no question, and I agree that this is not a partisan issue. The issue of suicide rates, for whatever the reason, concerns all of us. I empathize with that and whatever facts do provide.

I have not seen the report. The ministry staff have indicated that they have not seen that particular study. We would be more than happy to take a look at it and to look at that in the context of what we can do.

I think what is important is that in 2012-2013 we have invested $63 million — that's $1,160 per student who self-identifies as aboriginal ancestry — into aboriginal education. That is over and above the normal per-student allocation, and that is to recognize the importance of First Nations heritage and culture as part of their future.

I think what we are doing is working very closely with First Nations communities. So far there is a total of 63 of them that have submitted letters of intent to become interested First Nations in that process. What we are seeing from the First Nations leadership is the importance of investing in that, and we have recognized that by that significant commitment.

We also recognize that the band schools are the federal government's responsibility. But the students become members of our communities, so we're prepared to support them in the way that I have just identified.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for asking those questions. I maybe would add one on the subject of First Nations education. His questions jogged my mind about the B.C. school trustees' disposition of motions, which I read through. One of them urged the ministry to instruct the curriculum review of the province to essentially look at how the residential school experience is taught in British Columbia, if at all. There are probably huge inconsistencies.

This flows from recommendations from the truth and
[ Page 499 ]
reconciliation work that was done in Canada. Some of the core recommendations were that this needed to be confronted and taught to young Canadians in the school system — to bridge understanding and to be inclusive of aboriginal young people.

I know that New Brunswick had to do this very delicately a decade or more ago when the curriculum was expanded to talk about how the French were dispersed and Acadian villages were burned down and all those horrible things that happened historically in that province.

I'm just wondering if the minister has had time to respond to the School Trustees Association — whether there is a history of looking at adding this to the curriculum and where that's at.

[1800]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, I had the opportunity just a couple of days ago to talk to the incoming chair of CMEC, who was in Iqaluit. I wasn't able to go to the Canadian Ministers of Education because of the duties that we have at the moment — getting ready to answer your questions being one of them. I'm not trying to trivialize this at all.

There was agreement at that meeting, and we support that as the province of British Columbia, that we do everything we can to integrate into our curriculum.

We're in the process of looking at revising curriculum — that will be posted probably by the end of this summer — and weaving into that a consistent approach to First Nations culture and history and the historical context of which, indeed, the residential school challenge and experience is part of that.

The reason we're doing it that way is that we don't believe that a module that focuses on that alone is the answer. It is truly taking a holistic approach to First Nations culture and history and challenges and all of the things that come out through the truth and reconciliation process — that we teach that as part of our curriculum to honour that heritage, both the positive and the negative, so that we help our young people understand that history.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I want to just shift gears a little bit and go into the teacher regulation branch, which is a relatively new entity in his ministry.

I guess, basically, I want to ask very simple questions around the cost of the teacher regulation branch. How many staff members, or FTEs, are employed by this branch? I think maybe to make that answer useful, if there is any way he can compare these numbers — cost, FTEs — to the numbers of the former College of Teachers organization.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Currently the FTEs in the 2012-13 are 42.30. That is down somewhat from 50 that the college was previously. Because this particular function is self-funded, we also were able, through the process, to reduce the fees from $120 to $80. So we have reduced the number and actually reduced the fees.

[1805]

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask about legal costs. The government will be back in court soon, in front of the Supreme Court defending Bill 22. That, of course, costs money and external legal counsel. I wanted to ask the minister what the budget is for external legal counsel, and how does this compare to previous years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member may or may not be aware that the budget for legal fees for the ministry is handled under the Ministry of Attorney General. They handle that budget within their purview. If they choose to bring in external counsel, that's a decision that they make. We don't make that decision, so it's not a line item in our budget.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask the minister about a statement that struck me as a bit odd in the service plan. It's attributed to him. I don't know if the letter is personally written by him, but the statement says: "Our education system was designed in an earlier century and cannot meet the challenges students are facing now or those that they will face in the future."

I thought this was a strong statement, a bizarre statement, a bit of self-condemnation on the part of the ministry because, of course, one would expect the minister to say that the ministry does an incredibly good job and is meeting the needs of students. But there it is. That's the language that was used.

We've talked about co-governance this afternoon. I think the minister has admirably talked about the boards of education and how they jointly administer with the province this education system that we have.

How does this statement — that the system designed in an earlier century doesn't meet the challenges that students are facing now or will face in the future — that is in the service plan square with the boards of education? Does that extend to say that the boards of education and the service delivery that they provide are stuck in another century and that they have not been adapting to the changing needs of students over the years, including the current years?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you for the question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about something that, again, I am very passionate about. I believe our Premier has indicated her passion about where we need to go in the future.

What I clearly recognize is that ten years ago, if you had said to me that I'm going to be wearing an iPhone on one hip and a BlackBerry on the other, I would have said: "What?" The world has changed. What we have
[ Page 500 ]
learned is that the way we used to do business a decade ago, even three years ago, changes so fast, and technology is changing so quickly.

That statement I absolutely would be happy to underline as the Minister of Education, not as a criticism of the past or what people are currently doing but a recognition of the path to the future and why we need to be creative and innovative. We need to look at our B.C. education plan that we're working on. It's saying: "Let's think outside the box."

When I was appointed minister and met with the deputy and staff, I said: "The one thing that you will find from me, as one member of this great team that we have, is a clear recognition that we have some of the highest outcomes in the world in terms of our educational performance. But we're not happy with the status quo. We're definitely not happy with the way we might have done things ten years ago."

[1810]

That's not criticizing either former governments or former Ministers of Education or former staff within ministries or at local school districts. I was a school trustee in the '70s. I can tell you that what I have learned since then has changed my attitude about education significantly.

I had certain opinions when I was on the school board, the first time I was elected. When I look back at that today, I go: "What was I thinking at the time?" Well, what I was thinking was in the context of that environment.

The world is moving so quickly. Future opportunities for employment, skills training, preparing students for a new way of delivering education from the way we have traditionally done it…. There are some opportunities.

I really believe in the discussions I've had so far. I'm excited about the out-of-the-box thinking that we are bringing to the table to look at new and innovative ways to deliver a higher and better quality of education than we currently are.

As I said, we're one of the world leaders currently, and that is attributed to the quality of our teachers in our classrooms. We want to look for ways to give teachers more tools so that they can individualize a student's achievement and their learning to their needs and their context and their community.

We're going to continue to work with school districts in that co-governance and, in that cooperation lens, work with teachers. That's why we want a new framework for the way that we deal with even our labour negotiations — so that we can develop the stability in this day and age that we need, not only for now but in the future as well.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that I have awakened some passion in the minister here at the tail end of our day. I thought the quote was weird because, as he mentioned partly in his answer, B.C. stacks up very well internationally. If that statement is true — that our education system is failing us, essentially — then what's the point of the education plan?

What I think we've heard this afternoon, and we'll get to continue estimates later on…. We've heard several times that it would be nice to do lots of different things in the education system, but there's no money.

We've heard that a barrier to labour peace in the education sector is the fact that there's no money. We have heard that some of the specialized learning assistance that should be available in the budget to support individualized learning and the new emphasis that the education plan contains…. There's no money for that. We're losing positions. There's less individualized learning going on.

In other words, in light of what the minister has just said about driving innovation and making change and keeping up with the ever-current pace of change, there's nothing transformative in this budget to support what he has just said. This is a status quo budget, the same as the one that was passed before the election.

It is not an innovation budget. It's about doing more with less, to quote an old cliché that I keep hearing from this government. It's about patching over problems that we hear from the boards of education are recurring — structural funding shortfalls. It's not about being on the cutting edge and ahead of the curve in international education.

The good news is that B.C.'s education system is in a fairly strong place despite all of the challenges that we face. We have excellent teachers. We have excellent administrators. They do know how to do a lot with less, and they have been getting a lot less from this government. And that makes us competitive.

The minister, I think, has put it quite starkly by saying that the challenges students are facing now are the ones that they will face in the future and cannot be met.

I'm just wondering if the minister, again, can explain his comment in light of international assessments that say that B.C. does pretty well. Yes, we've slipped a couple of places, but I think that's a very pessimistic view that clashes with the optimism the minister has shown at other stages of the estimates this afternoon.

How can we meet the individualized learning plan and the goals that are part of the education plan that this minister has signed onto if that's the preamble to where we're today, which I don't think is accurate?

[1815]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Noting the hour, I will answer the question, and then I will do my obligatory duty so that we can move to the main House.

I absolutely am passionate about my role in working with the team that I have around me. That statement, if you pull it out of context of the reality of where we are…. If you look around the world at Finland, Australia, Great Britain and other leading countries in the world when it comes to their educational performance, we rank up there with all of them. I would never say anything that
[ Page 501 ]
would be disparaging to our system or the people who are in it. That's not in my DNA, because I think we do a tremendous job.

The day and age we live in today and the one that we're moving into is moving so quickly. The way we used to plan education programs, the way we used to do things is so totally different.

What you can do on Google today in a split second used to take you hours of research by going to a library, either in a school or in a public library, getting out an Encyclopaedia Britannica and flipping through it. You couldn't underline it if you went to the library, because you were destroying the book. But you had to do that kind of work. Students of today and tomorrow have got so many tools available to them, and I can't even imagine what those tools will be in the future.

What we are saying is that the status quo is not appropriate. We need to be innovative. But I do challenge the assertion that more money is the answer to everything, because I do not believe that. Our government does not believe that.

Looking at the resources we have, $5.3 billion invested in education — how effectively we use every dollar of that is the critical question that we're asking ourselves. We welcome the opposition in challenging those assumptions, because that's what you're there to do. I can assure you that, ultimately, our objective is the future of every single child from every culture that exists in our province.

Our First Nations communities and their success rate — we have done tremendously well in helping them move from a graduation rate of 42 percent to over 57 percent. You look at that kind of performance, and it's because we're willing to be innovative and not allow the status quo to hold us back and not assume that we need more money all the time to make things better, because I'm not sure that that's a fair or an appropriate assumption.

Madam Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); G. Hogg in the chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $171,265,000.

Hon. C. Oakes: Well, thank you very much for attending today. I'm incredibly delighted to have distinguished members of our professional public service here today to support us in the estimates — and my colleagues, as well, for coming today.

Some faces from our table: thank you very much for coming, for your support today. I'm pleased to introduce our deputy minister, Becky Denlinger, and our assistant deputy ministers. Julian Paine is from local government; David Galbraith from arts, culture, sport, gaming grants; and George Farkas from management services.

Other key staff will be with me today, including some people from our Crown corporations. I'm very pleased to have had some of the ministry senior staff available to meet with members of the opposition to brief them in advance of the estimates. I trust that this will help us achieve a constructive exchange, as I know many of the members opposite are experiencing estimates for the first time, as am I. So please bear with us.

[1435]

The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development is responsible for working with local governments throughout the province to ensure that British Columbia communities can provide the services needed to support strong local economies with an outstanding quality of life for all citizens — supporting B.C.'s amazing artists, dynamic art groups and strong cultural organizations in communities across British Columbia and helping communities to create opportunities for British Columbians to enjoy and participate in sports and to support sports as an important part of our social and economic life in British Columbia communities.

At this point I'm happy to open up and to invite questions today.

S. Robinson: I'm so pleased to hear the minister refer to the value of local government and to building the local economy, because I come from the very same place. I, too, have spent five years in local government and have absolutely loved it. It has been an honour to represent my local constituents at the local level and really come to appreciate how valuable that level of government is in terms of connecting with people and building the local community.

I really do appreciate the opportunity to ask a whole lot of questions. I am new at this, so of course, what you come with is lots of questions. I have prepared a whole bunch.

I thought it would be really helpful for the ministry staff to understand a little bit about how I'm going to organize them. I've done my best to organize them in a way that is, I hope, reasonable for the ministry staff so
[ Page 502 ]
that they can go about doing their business depending on when I ask the questions.

I thought we would start this afternoon with asking questions about local government in particular. I have some colleagues who are going to come in towards the end of the day, also about local government.

I thought that for tomorrow morning, because I know we have two hours tomorrow morning, we would talk about sports, B.C. Assessment Authority and the arts. If there are ministry staff who are responsible for those areas, I don't intend on asking any of those questions this afternoon. So they can get back to work as the good public servants that they are.

So if I can ask my first set of questions.

The Chair: Please proceed.

S. Robinson: I have some general questions, because again, I'm new at this. I'm interested to find out from the minister if she can identify all the areas of the ministry budget where planned spending in this budget has been reduced. And can the minister explain how these reductions were achieved?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. The ministry's budget decreased by $126.7 million from last year's stated budget.

I'll do this in twofold. The first piece is that the ministry accelerated some of the payments from the last fiscal year, so in local governments we had asked for…. Sometimes it was difficult, so we asked if you could put things forward more often, more frequently. So what we have are the small community grants of $30 million, the traffic-fine revenue of $30 million and then the Peace River Fair Share agreement of $79.2 million.

Now, there's a corresponding reduction in our budget for those three items. However, the net change is actually zero, and the local governments are well aware of the changes and support receiving the money sooner. We paid them out earlier in that so they could move forward on some critical projects that they had asked to move forward.

There were also administrative reductions to the RBCM of $300,000, and then the ministry also reduced our operating budgets by $260,000.

[1440]

S. Robinson: Thank you for that information. I'm also curious about the number of full-time-equivalents that work in this ministry and also the total number of employees and if that has changed over the last couple of years.

Hon. C. Oakes: Corporately, we don't put out the FTEs. Centrally, we no longer report to that. And one of the other changes that has happened is film has now moved out of this ministry into a new ministry. There have been some changes with FTE because of that. But there is no plan to return to detailed FTE reporting within the budget documents.

We have accountability to balance the budget to the bottom-line dollar, and the number of FTEs that can be accommodated within our budget depends on many factors, including the staff mix throughout the year and different projects that come up. Right now we're working on some specific projects that increase or decrease that staffing.

S. Robinson: I'm curious. If there's no reporting out of FTEs, it's really hard to assess whether or not the ministry is growing or shrinking, so I'd really like to have a sense of how many people are employed in this ministry and if it has changed over time.

While I appreciate the minister's response that a portion has moved, I'd still like to know, sort of, the rest of the ministry staff — if that has stayed relatively stable over the last couple of years.

[1445]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for your patience. We are consistent with last year's FTE numbers. It is stable, and we range from 220 to 240.

S. Robinson: Thank you very much for that answer of somewhere between 220 and 240 FTEs. I appreciate that. And that it's stable is helpful.

At this point I'm curious about how many vacancies currently exist in that ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: The vacancies right now range at around 20. It's around the low end. If we've got the 220 to 240 FTEs, we're looking at 20, and that varies from week to week depending on the projects and different things that are happening within the ministry.

S. Robinson: I'm grateful for the forthcoming of these answers. This is fabulous.

I'm also curious about how much money was spent on contractors to this ministry in the last fiscal year. Is that also sort of within the realm of what's gone on historically? I'll just add in the same thing with consultants. What are the patterns of hiring consultants and the value of work, regarding both consultants and contractors?

[1450]

Hon. C. Oakes: I'll give you a number, and then I'll explain the information I've found that, from a local government perspective, will kind of work within our wheelhouse. In the 2013-2014 budget the operational contract is $2.069 million, and it represents a $73,000 decrease — so a 3.4-percent decrease from the previous budget.
[ Page 503 ]

Now, there are two components. First of all, of course, we've transferred some of that from Creative B.C. to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. That was a percentage of that. The other percentage of that was government-mandated savings. Those were the two components.

What I found, because I asked the question, was of that money the two most significant numbers were…. The local government information system was a significant cost to contract out. That was the first thing. Then the second thing was the University Endowment Lands. We have block F, and we're responsible for that. Part of those professional services for that particular one was the…. That was $500,000, which we did put through B.C. Bid so that people could go out and bid for that particular contract.

S. Robinson: Thank you very much for that information.

I'll move on a little bit from that. How much money was spent on travel for the minister and the minister's staff last year? Is this higher or lower than previous years? And how much is budgeted for the coming year?

[1455]

Hon. C. Oakes: This year my budget for travel is $95,000, which is a decrease from last year at $98,000. That's part of that targeted-reduction savings that we've been mandated to look at.

Public accounts will be coming forward shortly with the previous minister's expenses.

S. Robinson: I just want to clarify. I don't know if I heard right. So $95,000 is the budget, and it was reduced by $9,800?

Hon. C. Oakes: $98,000.

S. Robinson: It was reduced by $98,000?

Hon. C. Oakes: That's right. The previous year was $98,000. I'm sorry. My budget is $95,000 this year.

S. Robinson: So it's a reduction of $3,000?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes.

S. Robinson: I just wanted to make sure I understood that.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thanks for the correction.

S. Robinson: I'm curious: are there any cuts to any discretionary spending at all in this budget, besides the ones that we've already identified?

Hon. C. Oakes: There is $261,000 of reduction effected in a broad range of categories this year. Some of those include $12,000 for travel; contracts we're reducing by $47,000; and office and business expenses we're reducing by $27,000.

S. Robinson: It's interesting — the $261,000 reduction — to sort of see how things play out over the year. I'm interested in finding out what impact the core review will have on this ministry.

Hon. C. Oakes: To date we have not received a letter of instruction on the parameters of the core review. We understand that this will be coming in September. There's always an opportunity in our ministry or any ministry to perhaps deliver services and programs in a better manner, and we understand that.

At this time these questions may be better canvassed with the Minister Responsible for Core Review when his ministry is up for estimates.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's encouragement to take that question perhaps where it might belong, and I just may take her up on that.

I'd like to move on from some of those general questions. I have a number of questions about the Local Government Elections Task Force. In May 2010 — that's three years ago — then Premier Campbell and UBCM Chair Nyce delivered the report of the Local Government Elections Task Force with 31 recommendations.

In July 2010 the ministry issued a news release saying that they expected the legislation to be introduced the following spring, in time for the local elections in November 2011. Then, in April 2011, the government announced it would proceed with implementing those changes for the 2014 local elections.

It's now almost 38 months later, and I want to know what the delay has been to develop this necessary legislation.

[1500]

Hon. C. Oakes: As we know, this is the most significant piece of legislation that has been brought forward in two decades. For local governments, it's the most complex piece of legislation that has been introduced since the Community Charter, so we want to make sure of a number of things.

First of all, we want to make sure that we have a system that's fair and accessible for all participants. It's worth really taking that time to make sure that we get it right. Legislation is complex, especially when it comes to campaign finance. It's really important that we strike a balance between workability and accountability.

The system needs to be easily understood so that everyone, from a large local government to a small community local government, can understand and be easily transparent and be able to make sure that it works for them.
[ Page 504 ]

We want to make sure that this piece of legislation does not constitute a barrier to running for office or supporting a candidate. I can say, coming from a small community, that I take that incredibly seriously — that we need to make sure that this piece of legislation works for everyone, including small communities.

At the same time, we need to ensure that election participants are accountable for the contributions they receive and the funds they are spending.

Really, it is worth the time that we've taken to walk through these very serious challenges and make sure, after two decades, that we get this piece of legislation right.

Local elections are particularly challenging, with over 1,600 representatives being elected and over 250 bodies — municipalities, regional districts, island trusts, parks boards, boards of education. Multiple elections occur at the same time for several offices within the same jurisdictions. You have mayors, councillors, school trustees, as we well know in this room.

The system must work on the ground and in communities that range from 200 people to over 600,000 people. I can assure you that we've spent a considerable amount of time in briefings to make sure that this piece of legislation that we bring forward is the right piece of legislation.

S. Robinson: I'm in full agreement. I think it's important that this piece of legislation is fully thought out. My understanding was that it was going to be completely ready for 2011. I'm assuming, then, that it wasn't and that some things needed to be done.

We are now in 2013. The next election is just few months away, actually.

I want to know: will this legislation be ready in time for the 2014 election, and when will it be brought forward into the House?

[1505]

Hon. C. Oakes: Our government is committed. It's in my mandate letter to make sure that we introduce legislation for the local elections task force by 2014.

S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate that that's in the mandate letter. I had a chance to take a look at it.

Well, I'm worried that there may not be sufficient time for municipalities to come up to speed with the new legislation. Certainly, in April 2011 there was a decision made that there would not be enough time for municipalities to come up to speed. Certainly in my community I've had the pleasure of speaking with a number of folks who are very interested in running in the 2014 election who are already starting to ask questions and starting, actually, to fundraise.

Given that we're 16 months away, I'd really like to know and be able to tell people when this new legislation will be coming forward for debate.

Hon. C. Oakes: We're currently working with UBCM. We have set up several meetings with them, and we will make sure that local election participants will have advance notice of the new rules so that they can plan and conduct their campaigns accordingly.

S. Robinson: I'm going to belabour the point, only because I have some serious concerns that there may not be enough time to make sure that everyone is prepared in time for the 2014 election. So I want to ask the minister: if the legislation is planned for a fall 2013 session, and if there is no fall session, will it be happening in the early part of a spring 2014 session in time for municipalities and those interested in running for local office?

Typically, they are first-time politicians who really are on a very steep learning curve, and they need to have lots of lead time and lots of training. When I take a look at the recommendations that are in this, that the task force made, there was a lot of education material being proposed. That takes time, to get people to develop it and for people to get up and running.

I would hope that the minister will have, in her wisdom, the commitment and opportunity to bring it up, bring it in sooner than later.

So is it fall session, or is it going to be happening in the spring?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. I can honestly say: when I first got involved in local government…. I absolutely share that desire to ensure that our local government participants have that level of education so that when they're going forward they have the information.

I am committed to making sure that that education happens, that we are moving forward with legislation for the elections task force for 2014 and that we have a plan to make sure that we are educating local governments to ensure that the democratic process is as open and available as possible for everyone.

S. Robinson: Well, I didn't get a response to whether or not this legislation will be coming in the fall or the spring. I will check. I'd like to ask the minister what I should tell some folks who've already approached me and said they're interested in running, who've started fundraising. I don't know if I can tell them, at this point, what they ought to be doing, because they are asking me for some information that is the responsibility of this ministry — to educate people on what they need to do in order to do things by the book.

[1510]

People don't want to find themselves outside of the legislation. Yet I don't feel comfortable telling them anything because we don't have the legislation. I'm worried that there's going to be some confusion. There are folks who are starting to fundraise.
[ Page 505 ]

They're probably accepting anonymous donations, only to find themselves perhaps not being able to accept anonymous donations. I'm actually quite concerned, so I'd like to be able to tell people when they can expect this legislation so they have some clarity.

The Chair: I'd like to read to the member a statement out of the standing orders which says: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislations cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain high public servants." So just with respect to the Committee of Supply and the debates contained within this, matters technically of legislation and the introduction of legislation are not in the purview of this committee.

I've allowed there to be some flexibility with respect to the discussion. If the minister wishes to respond to one more question, I'm open to that. However, it is beyond the purview of this committee to be too deeply involved with respect to legislation. This is with respect to Committee of Supply for the ministry.

S. Robinson: Thank you. I appreciate the explanation.

I do want to point out that my understanding is that this is taking a lot of staff time in order to prepare for this task force and to prepare for massive change in some legislation. I want to understand how much work there is still left to do, and I'd like to understand who will be doing it and how it will be costed.

On page 31 of the report it talks about implementing expense limits, developing expense limits — explore establishing some automatic administrative penalties. It's not clear who will be doing this and how much it will cost to make these things happen. I'd like to really understand how much work is still left to do.

I understand that that would be appropriate in the Committee of Supply. I'm just trying to understand: how close are we to getting this done, or was this already done and there's just a little bit to do? I'm just trying to get a sense of how much staff time will be taken up bringing this through legislation.

[1515]

Hon. C. Oakes: We have people that work on policy and legislation within our ministry, and currently they are funded all within the divisional budget. There is no extra money that has been put into that.

This is not the only piece of policy and legislation that we're working on, so it varies depending on issues that are currently under consideration.

S. Robinson: I'm curious. Given that there has been a three-year time lag between when these recommendations came forward and when they're likely to be brought forward, is there any new work that needs to be done in terms of recommendations that might need to be revisited given the time lag?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, I think it's important we note that it's really important we strike an appropriate balance between workability and accountability on this piece. It's not a matter of revisiting this. It's a matter of how we start looking at the details as we move forward and translating the recommendations that came forward from the UBCM and the elections task force into legislation.

S. Robinson: One of the recommendations out of the task force was to evolve a new role for Elections B.C. in relation to local government, to strengthen compliance and enforcement of some of the rules. What are the additional costs for this expanded role for Elections B.C.?

Hon. C. Oakes: Elections B.C. is actually an independent office of the Legislature, which I'm not responsible for.

S. Robinson: I'll have to take that question elsewhere, it sounds like.

I don't know if, perhaps, this minister will be able to answer this question. There is a list in the report of the recommended role for Elections B.C., most of which would have to happen before the November 2014 election. In order for me to prepare to ask that question, I would need information from this minister to find out if, in fact, all of the recommendations are going to be incorporated so that we could find out if that budget is appropriate, given the new tasks for Elections B.C.

[1520]

Hon. C. Oakes: We don't know the impact of implementing the changes to the Elections B.C. budget as yet, but Elections B.C.'s process, if they have a requirement to look for additional funds, is that they would approach the select standing committee.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that helpful information.

Part one of the recommendations that came out of this task force — and we talked briefly about it before — was the value of education on existing and new rules and working with the UBCM, the Ministry of Education, the B.C. School Trustees Association, the Local Government Leadership Academy, municipal lawyers and Elections B.C.

That's a lot of partners. I'm wanting to know who will take the lead to pull all these groups together, and how will that be funded?

Hon. C. Oakes: Our ministry is taking a lead with all the stakeholder groups, and we're currently in dialogue. It will be funded from our ministry's base funding.
[ Page 506 ]

S. Robinson: Thank you for that.

I have one final question about the task force work. I know that Vancouver requested to have their own election changes regarding campaign financing and banning corporate and union as well as foreign donations.

Will this government consider election changes that address their particular concerns? Will there be some funds put in that direction to take a look to see if that would be a possibility?

[1525]

Hon. C. Oakes: The elections task force recommendation that did get brought forward was that we needed to have…. The provincial elections framework needed to be consistent across all of the province. But we will be making sure that we have stakeholder consultations and are talking with people.

S. Robinson: I wanted to ask the minister if she could just sort of clarify the timing of this. I'm trying to understand how much more time needs to be spent on this elections task force. If there are going to be stakeholder conversations, how much staff time is going to be spent doing this, given that the intention is to get this legislation through in time for the 2014 election?

Hon. C. Oakes: Staff is meeting July 18. I'm meeting with UBCM on July 19. So stakeholder relations and meetings have been happening and will continue to happen throughout this summer. Again, we want to go back to the comment that it's really worth spending the time to make sure that we look at these very challenging, complex issues, and we want to ensure that we get this right. We will be allocating the staff time that is necessary to ensure that that does happen.

S. Robinson: Well, I certainly appreciate hearing how hard the minister is working to get this legislation up and ready for the 2014 election. I would ask if the minister can guarantee that it will be ready for the 2014 election.

Hon. C. Oakes: We can guarantee that we will be ready.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to hear that. I look forward to letting my colleagues who are in local government or who have intentions to run for local government know that there will be some new legislation and that there will be ample time for them to learn the new rules.

I have a couple of other questions I'd like to ask the minister that are related, actually, to some UBCM resolutions that are historical in nature. Some of them are a little bit older than others, and I'd be interested to hear a little bit in terms of funding for local governments and how staff time is being used.

[1530]

In the 2012 UBCM resolution A1, the UBCM asked for a wider range of eligible projects under new federal-provincial funding agreements with the permanent gas tax fund program. The response from this ministry is that they would check with the federal government. I'd like to know what the status is of this request.

Hon. C. Oakes: The gas tax negotiations are currently happening right now between the province, UBCM and the federal government. It's anticipated to come out this fall. At this point the message that we have received from the federal government, because we have been lobbying, is that there will be more flexibility and a wider range of projects available under the gas tax.

S. Robinson: Thank you for that information. That's useful, and I look forward to hearing the details of that.

Resolution A2 from 2012 talked about the municipal revenue sources review that was completed. It was about that. When I read up on what it was about, I'm curious how much this exercise cost, if the minister wouldn't mind sharing that information about the municipal revenue sources review.

[1535]

Hon. C. Oakes: The municipal revenue review's work was actually completed last year. It was all done in-house, is available on our website and was within our budget.

S. Robinson: Thank you very much for that information. I have seen it on the website. It was done in-house, but it still certainly cost the government money, because our staff time is worth something. I'm curious to know if it was ten hours or 100 hours of staff time.

Given that it was an exercise in information-gathering and there were no expectations of any recommendations, I want to know what we're going to be doing with that information and how it's going to be used, given that we dedicated a whole bunch of staff time to complete this exercise.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is valuable material that will be used by us in the province and by local governments and the public to build a better local government finance system. As to the detail of the budget items, it's not germane to this budget. It was last year's budget.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response, and I appreciate that it was in last year's budget, but I would have imagined that folks this year might do something with it. It's not clear to me what one would do with a report that just sort of amasses information but doesn't make any recommendations.

It doesn't sound like there is anything, at this point, on the minister's agenda to do anything with this report. At this point, it's just there. I've seen some of those reports. They're usually covered in dust. They sit on a shelf.
[ Page 507 ]
That's fine.

I have some other questions about some other resolutions that came out of UBCM. I want to understand if it's on the agenda and if there's going to be any money put towards any of these.

Resolution B12 from last year's UBCM called for support to be "expressed to the provincial government for the reactivation of the Towns for Tomorrow funding program and the community recreation program." We want to know if that is something that we will be putting some energy into in the coming year, to help some of these smaller towns.

[1540]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing forward those programs. As we talked about on the gas tax, we are currently in the middle of negotiating with the federal government on both the gas tax and Building Canada.

At this point we're focused on the programs that will bring money to local governments. We're making sure, and it's within my mandate letter as well, that we negotiate a great deal for British Columbians and local governments.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to hear that this ministry will be working hard to negotiate with the federal government to make sure that our local governments have the resources they need to sustain their infrastructure and their commitment to build great communities.

Along that vein, B13 is one of the resolutions from last year that talks about the infrastructure funding criteria and, particularly, the matching funds that are very difficult for some of our smaller communities to come up with. They're certainly challenged when they have to meet these kinds of criteria.

I want to know if this ministry will be taking a look at the cost-share formula in the development of these programs going forward so that our smaller communities can access the resources and the funds they need in order to build their communities.

[1545]

Hon. C. Oakes: Currently we are under negotiations with the federal government on what that formula for development is looking like. We don’t determine the federal funding formula, but one thing I can say is that from the provincial scope, we take this very seriously. That's why we have the small community grants and the regional district grants, which allow a different formula for smaller communities.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that answer.

I have another UBCM resolution. They're a busy group, that UBCM.

Flood protection infrastructure was another issue that came up at the UBCM last year. In particular, there was a request to ask the provincial government to amend the Local Government Act, section 935, to include flood protection as a DCC, a development cost charge.

I want to know if this minister will direct some staff time to take a look at that, recognizing that we do have climate change. Flooding has been sort of the Canadian theme of the spring. I want to know, given that flood protection infrastructure has been off-loaded now onto local governments, if this ministry is prepared to take a look at how to help those communities that have flood protection now under their purview and don't always necessarily have the resources needed to make sure that they're safe from floods.

[1550]

Hon. C. Oakes: There are always pressures on development cost charges within local governments to fund new things. We have a finance review committee that consists of the ministry, UBCM, individual local governments and the development industry, and many of these issues come forward. If they were to bring this forward…. We sit on that, as do those stakeholders, and we would listen.

S. Robinson: I want to make sure I understand what the minister was saying. This is a question sort of confirming what I heard — that if there was appetite at the local level to pursue this further, this ministry would be willing to meet with those who are interested in pursuing this and have some more discussions about incorporating flood mitigation, flood protection as part of the DCC program.

Hon. C. Oakes: Absolutely. There is a form in place so that they can bring that information forward. That has all of the relevant stakeholders at that table. That would be the location of where to bring that forward to.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister very much for that information. I will be sure to let some of my colleagues know that there is a place for them to take that and that the minister is eager to hear all about flood protection, flood mitigation and is prepared to hear what they have to say and, hopefully, act on some of their concerns.

B53 is another resolution that asks the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to adopt legislation "to amend the Community Charter to provide for the exemption of obtaining electoral approval for necessary waterworks projects if the projects have been previously approved by the inspector of municipalities through a master water management plan."

The response from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development in 2012 to that resolution was that "there is no current legislation that provides for an exemption from obtaining electoral approval for necessary waterworks projects" and that "the Ministry is interested in further discussions on how the development
[ Page 508 ]
of a master water management plan could be utilized analogous to the development of a liquid waste management plan."

It goes on to point out that discussions would also have to include the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health.

I'd like to ask if this would be on the work plan and if staff time would be dedicated to addressing this resolution.

[1555]

Hon. C. Oakes: We're currently in discussion with the Ministry of Health. They actually contain the legislation that identifies the Drinking Water Protection Act. That would be the piece of legislation, not the Community Charter, and we are currently in discussion.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that there's been some follow-up on that resolution. It's always helpful to hear what happens to resolutions once they're passed and that something actually happens with them. So I really appreciate and relish hearing just a little bit about what happens with that.

I do have one last piece, resolution B67, "Cell service payments in lieu of taxes," where it was asked that the "UBCM lobby the provincial government to implement a funding formula for cell phone providers to pay to local governments in lieu of taxes." The Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development responded that it will discuss and review with the Ministry of Finance, which has the responsibility for tax policy.

The application of the 1 percent tax in section 353 of the Local Government Act to cell phone companies hadn't been previously considered by government, but it sounded like it would be. I just want to know if there is going to be any commitment in this coming year — some staff time to take a look at that.

Hon. C. Oakes: Currently this file is being managed by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance. But thank you.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for helping to clarify that and where I need to be directing my questions. I appreciate that.

I do have one more resolution to ask about, and that's a 2010 resolution. It's an older resolution, and it's relevant to this conversation because we were just talking about the local elections task force. This is from 2010, resolution A3. It's a resolution that asks the province to consider moving a local government election date from the third Saturday in November to the third Saturday in October. The response from the government was a commitment to move the date of the 2014 election.

Given the commitment to ensure that anyone interested in running for local government has a full understanding of these substantial changes to these elections and that these recommended campaign finance rules that are being proposed by the local government elections task force, it looks like they're going to be…. You know, there's been a commitment made to bring them forward.

[1600]

I think it would be helpful to know if we've got 16 months or 15 months in order to get all of this work done and what that means in terms of staff implications. Can the minister confirm whether or not there are 15 months or 16 months to the next local election?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for bringing that question forward. I think it's something that we certainly need to be clear on, as we're educating, to our local government colleagues. To be very clear, UBCM has come forward to us and has put in a request. For 2014, we'll be looking at the second Saturday of November for local elections.

S. Robinson: That certainly helps clarify. That's useful information to know.

I have several questions about grants and funding in general. I've put the resolution book away. It's always a good read. I'm looking at the budget for local government grants between 2013 and '16. There are these wild swings. In 2012-13 we had $249 million. Then we go to $103 million, which is a drop of 58 percent. Then we go back up to $143 million, which is an increase of, I guess, 39 percent. Then we go up again, to $183 million.

I'm just trying to understand how this provides consistency and stability, or predictability, that local governments have been asking for. I want to make sure I understand what those numbers mean.

[1605]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. What we heard back from our local government colleagues was that they wanted to ensure, on this funding, that there is again that flexibility and that ability to look at the acceleration of both the small community grants, traffic-fine revenue-sharing grants and the Peace River Fair Share agreement so that they could have the funding sooner, and they could create greater certainty and improve financial flexibility, encourage growth, create jobs and promote accelerated economic recovery. So they requested to us that they look at that flexibility, and that's what you see demonstrated in the budget numbers.

S. Robinson: If I understand, when local governments say they wanted more flexibility, instead of giving them, let's say, all three years at one time, it's sort of: "We'll give you a bump here and a little bit here in dribs and drabs." I'm not sure how that provides predictability, whereas if you say, "Over the next few years you're going to get X number of dollars over each of these three years…."
[ Page 509 ]

My understanding of predictability was just knowing ahead of time that we're going to get X number of dollars over the next three years, this amount each year — not these wild swings, which I don't think provide predictability and stability year after year.

I'm not quite sure what the logic is in terms of how this provides stability, and if the minister wouldn't mind giving it one more shot, so I know that I understand what is meant by stability and predictability, that would be helpful.

Hon. C. Oakes: The letters were sent out to the local governments, so that they knew what their funding would be three years in advance. They signed off on that. I just asked staff, and we haven't had any complaints. They've actually appreciated the fact that they have a little of flexibility on what that three-year funding window looks like, and a little bit of movement within that.

S. Robinson: I want to thank the minister for that response. It's interesting, because I think it also helps with their own budget challenges, so I think it's interesting, creative financing. It sounds like the municipalities aren't complaining about it, but it's a funny way of budgeting that comes across when you just take a look at the numbers. It's not quite self-explanatory.

I have a couple more questions, and then I have my colleague here who wants to ask a question.

I was reviewing the website for resources and grant opportunities to assist local governments to deliver services to their communities. I noticed that there are about ten grant opportunities for local government. All of them were closed. The moneys were already allocated, except for…. Infrastructure planning grants for up to $10,000 are available to assist with infrastructure planning.

So if, say, Prince Rupert has already been through a planning process and they need to upgrade a sewer system, when would they be able to access some funds that would help them with this project? Right now all we have, in bold letters, is: "Money has already been allocated."

[1610]

Hon. C. Oakes: The infrastructure planning grant program provides a solid foundation for larger capital projects to help ensure successful implementation. It is an open-ended grant of up to $10,000 that is available to improve or develop long-term, comprehensive plans that include but are not limited to capital asset management plans, community energy plans, integrated stormwater management plans, water master plans and liquid waste master plans.

Grants are based on a formula that provides 100 percent of the first $5,000 and 50 percent of the next $10,000. In past years there were several rounds of approval that you could apply for this.

As far as the actual capital projects at the next step, again, we are in the middle of negotiating with the federal government for both the gas tax and the Building Canada. That next round of funding — we'll know when that negotiation is completed. But the $10,000 planning grant program is open, and communities are available to apply.

S. Robinson: Just a follow-up on that. I do appreciate — and it's pretty clear on the website — that these planning grants are open, and that's great.

Do we have a timeline on when these funds would be available for a community, say, like Prince Rupert, if they were going to be upgrading a sewer system after they've done this planning process?

Hon. C. Oakes: On the gas tax funds, the federal government has come forward and said that they are looking at completing that and having funding ready for the next fiscal year. So it will be April of 2014.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that. I have one last question, and then my colleague here would like to ask a question.

P3 projects. The government has pledged to continue the requirement that any municipal projects with a provincial contribution over $50 million must go through Partnerships B.C. to have a business case developed. I want to know if there will be any staff time dedicated to revisiting the P3 requirement and perhaps allowing municipalities to apply for exemptions.

[1615]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. Projects that are funded or partially funded by the province, that are over the $50 million — an assessment is required. Whether it's a P3, it makes sense. And the actual policy around P3s is the purview of the Ministry of Finance.

M. Mungall: My question…. [Applause.] Applause already. Wonderful. I haven't even started.

My question is about staff time allotted to the Jumbo municipality and the development of that municipality. I'm just curious, and I know that the public in my area is curious, about how much of government staff time has been dedicated to facilitating the establishment of the Jumbo municipality.

Hon. C. Oakes: Welcome to the estimates. No money is coming out of this budget.

M. Mungall: My question was actually about staff time. While it might not be coming out of the 2013 budget, my question can pertain to previous budgets. So if it didn't come out of the 2013-2014 budget, did it come out of last year's budget, then?
[ Page 510 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. Again, it was last fiscal year. And just the way that it was all done in-house…. We don't track specific staff hours per project. We were able to manage it within our last fiscal year with the staffing that we had.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering, then. The total amount of funding that has gone to the Jumbo Glacier resort municipality…. Sorry, Chair, I don't have the name of the municipality. I call it "the fake municipality," since nobody lives there.

Anyhow, for the Jumbo municipality, I'm just wondering: what has been the funding level to that municipality from this ministry from last year's budget, and what is allotted from this year's budget?

Hon. C. Oakes: So $200,000 last year, and zero percent in our budget for this year.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering, then. If there is no funding being allotted to this municipality for this year, and the municipality has no ability to collect taxes since nobody lives there, how is it getting funding for this year? Because they are meeting within this fiscal year.

[1620]

Hon. C. Oakes: Municipalities operate within a calendar year. So the $200,000 actually takes them in to the end of this year, and they're currently in the planning stage.

M. Mungall: So there's no plan to continue funding beyond the 2013 calendar year, then, as currently budgeted?

Hon. C. Oakes: That is correct.

S. Robinson: I have a couple of other questions related to funding. We'll go back to that.

A number of municipalities received funding in 2012-2013 for anniversary celebrations. A total of $800,000 was set aside from the sport and arts legacy fund. I know that we were going to talk about that last time, but it's more about process than it is about the money. I want to know how the milestones were chosen. Was this initiative of the ministry, or did the municipalities request the money?

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for your patience.

We received, through the ministry, a number of requests from different municipalities and local governments, letting us know that they had milestone events in their communities — communities such as Esquimalt. Out of that, we did a review of that, and that's where that program came from.

S. Robinson: I understand Mission received $75,000 from the province last year for their 120th anniversary, but they didn't actually apply for it. It just sort of appeared. I'm just wanting to find out if we can let municipalities know if there is money available for this coming year for their milestones so that they can properly prepare and make sure that they can make use of those funds.

[1625]

Hon. C. Oakes: Currently this year we are focusing on the B.C. arts fund, which is at the highest level ever. There is a $7 million increase, so it's $24 million. The milestone event funding program we will not be continuing, and we'll be focusing on the B.C. arts fund.

S. Robinson: I appreciate getting that information as well, because from year to year it's hard to plan when you're a local government and you see something one year and then it disappears the following year. It so happens that my community will be celebrating a milestone, so I'm a bit disappointed to hear that.

Another question I have…. There is some history to this. In my research I learned that there are five municipalities that still have flat property taxes. Is the ministry working with these towns — there are five of them — to transition away from the flat tax, and is the door open if municipalities need assistance?

By way of background, there was a brief window in 1990-91 when municipalities could adopt a flat tax, and only ten did. Since the law changed in '92, no municipalities have been able to adopt the flat tax, but there were those that were grandfathered. Right now those that are left are Dawson Creek, Kimberley, Kitimat, Powell River and Trail. I just want to know if that's something that's available to municipalities.

Hon. C. Oakes: Our government would be happy to work with anyone to provide advice and support if they asked to transition off of the flat tax.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to hear that there are some resources that will be dedicated from this ministry to help these municipalities transition. That's great.

I have a number of questions about the Auditor General for Local Government. I thought I would move along to learn a little more about this part of the portfolio that you have.

It's come to my attention that some municipalities have hired KPMG to do core reviews of their programs. It's my understanding that the Auditor General's office has contracted KPMG to do their audits. Vernon is an example of a town where KPMG may now perform an audit on behalf of this office, and KPMG had previously done a core review. I just want to find out if the ministry is concerned about a potential conflict of KPMG auditing cities that it previously did core reviews for.
[ Page 511 ]

[1630]

Hon. C. Oakes: On this particular one we don't have staff here. It's deferred to the estimates debate on the AGLG, which is Vote 52.

S. Robinson: I'm still trying to sort out exactly which votes count for what, so I have a whole series of questions. I will put those off to that vote. I appreciate that. I will just turn the page, because I have a whole bunch of questions, and I will ask some questions again about the service plan.

I appreciate that the ministry has a service plan that will sort of dictate where resources will be allocated over the coming year as the ministry does its work. I have some questions about some of the performance measures that are being identified in terms of how we measure return on investment.

Staff time, certainly, is a budget item. If our staff are going to be doing certain things, I have some questions about how we're going to be acknowledging whether or not staff time is used effectively. We know how easy it is to be busy, but it's something else to be effective.

I wanted to ask a few questions about some of the strategies that are being proposed, particularly around goal 1: "Communities and regions are effectively governed." The strategies talk about encouraging citizen–local government engagement in decision-making. I want to understand a little bit about what the plan is for how to do that and how much staff time is going to be dedicated to that, what those sorts of activities might look like.

[1635]

Hon. C. Oakes: Encouraging citizen–local government engagement in decision-making is extremely important for our government. This includes providing advice and problem-solving on governance, finance, land use and other matters of interest to citizens; developing public information; and furthering education with partnering organizations.

We have three different branches that support this. We have the intergovernmental relations and planning branch. This provides community and regional land use planning, development and management support to local governments and the Islands Trust. It supports intergovernmental agreements, the prevention and resolution of intergovernmental conflict, and offers dispute resolution services. In 2013-2014 that budget is $1.67 million.

We also have the infrastructure and finance branch, which provides infrastructure and operating support to local governments and improvement districts. That's $2.09 million.

Then we have the governance and structure branch, which supports the work of local governments in three main areas: advising and problem-solving on complex local and regional governance issues; overseeing the restructure of local governments, including municipal incorporations and boundary expansions; and supporting the building of productive relations between local governments and First Nations. That's $1.69 million as well.

S. Robinson: I appreciate getting the breakdown and the amount of money that each of these branches spends in order to deliver service. It's helpful to have that, and I really appreciate getting the overarching view.

I'm curious what the performance measures are for these activities. What's the return on investment, and is it paying off to spend this kind of money on these sorts of activities?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. Currently we track the letters and the phone calls. I think when you're dealing with local governments and you're dealing with citizenships, it's very complex, and it's diverse across the province. I guess the feedback we take is that when we're listening to our local government counterparts, they think that they're satisfied with the work we're doing.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that it is very complex and there are many layers here. I think it's important to measure something that sort of says that we are, in fact, getting better citizen–local government engagement in decision-making. I would certainly encourage the minister to take a look at better ways to track and monitor some of these outcomes. If we're investing money into it, I think it's important that we understand exactly the impact we're having.

[1640]

I have some other questions sort of related to that, which come out of the service plan. One of the other bullet points talks about assisting local governments "in building respectful relationships with First Nations by supporting the community-to-community forum program. "If the minister can tell me a little bit about the program, how much that costs and how we measure the outcomes of that program, that would be very helpful.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the feedback provided throughout this process. You know, we are all trying to make sure that we improve and do the best for our citizens, and so I thank you for that feedback.

The community-to-community forums. I'll kind of go through what the program is, and then, if you'll allow me, I have a personal experience that I hope to be able to share.

We provide $60,000 to UBCM, and we work with the federal government, which also provides $60,000. UBCM works with the First Nations Summit to sponsor different events that bring local governments and First Nations events together.

My personal experience — and it was an incredibly
[ Page 512 ]
positive one when I had the great privilege to sit on local government in my community — was that I participated in one of these community-to-community forums. It really developed a strong relationship with one of our First Nations groups in our community.

Out of the years, what has come forward is that the First Nations have now come to us in our community and agreements have been formed and community protocols have been moved forward. From my personal experience, I cannot say enough about the success of this program and how proud I was as somebody in local government to be able to participate in this and see the significant outcomes of these kinds of programs.

S. Robinson: Really, I appreciate hearing the personal story. It's always very helpful when people have direct experience with these kinds of programs.

I'd like to know if that same amount of money is available in this coming budget. How many of these occur through the year? How many do you expect? While I recognize that there is an allotted $60,000, does it get spent every year? What if it's oversubscribed? I'd like to know a little bit more about how this program is managed.

[1645]

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to stand corrected. It's actually $50,000 per year that the province puts forward, and the $50,000 that the federal government…. So I stand corrected on my amount.

Over the past ten years there have been 400 regional forums and three regional forums. The province has certainly committed our $50,000 for this going forward with that. We are waiting to hear back from the federal government. This is part of the federal government negotiations.

Again, this is the funding we provide to UBCM and the First Nations Summit, which actually manages the funding. If all of the money isn't allocated in the direct year, they can move that funding to the next year. It looks like it has not been oversubscribed, because a lot of the events might be a small amount — to host a dinner meeting or such types of events.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I heard correctly. I'm assuming that means 400 local meetings and three regional. I wasn't sure. I thought I heard "regional" for both, and I just want to make sure I understand. Is it 400 local meetings and three regional meetings? I want to make sure I understand the difference.

Hon. C. Oakes: There have actually been 400 local government–types of events and three provincial in scope.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that clarification. It now makes a little bit more sense. That's very helpful. It sounds like this has been a well-subscribed program over the years. I would hope that it will continue. It sounds like the minister's own experience was that it had some value.

Moving along through this document, there are some other questions I have around some of the grants and how their outcomes are measured, in particular. One of the strategies for objective 1.2…. The objective is: "Local governments are able to meet the service needs of their residents." One of the strategies is: "Enable local governments to have core human resource capacity by providing stable, predictable and timely funding through the administration of the small community and regional district grants."

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit about how much money is available and how they provide stable, predictable and timely funding.

[1650]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing this program forward. As you are well aware, I do come from a small community, so I am absolutely passionate to make sure that when we look at local governments, we're ensuring that we've got the services or the funding available to help support small communities with their infrastructure needs.

If I may, I'm just going to read into the record a little bit about this program because, again, I'm passionate about this. I want to make sure that it gets delivered into the record that the strategic community investment fund is really the combination of community and regional district grants and the traffic-fine revenues available to applicable communities in — what we had talked about a little bit earlier — an accelerated payment scheme.

This was announced in early 2009, and again, that was from a lot of small communities across the province of British Columbia saying we need to be looking at things that are more directed towards small communities.

Then we looked at a second iteration of the program for 2011-2012–2013-2014 fiscal years. The formula that we used to calculate the grants really remains unchanged, but the timing of the payments was adjusted to meet the needs of local governments today and in the coming years. By adjusting the timing, local governments have that greater certainty to improve that financial flexibility that they had requested from us.

We have $45.1 million in small community and regional grants and $51.1 million from the traffic-fine revenue-sharing program. Really, the program objective is clearly defined to ensure that small municipalities and regional districts have the fiscal capacity to provide the services and support for their governance structure.

Again, I'm very passionate about this. It is an annual program, and I'll make sure…. Please continue to raise this in the future.

S. Robinson: It's great to see a minister who's passion-
[ Page 513 ]
ate about local government, because you have on this side a critic who's also very passionate about it. I think it will be very interesting to see how things play out.

I'm curious about the traffic-fine revenues. It's one of those really bizarre sorts of funding models in terms of stable, predictable funding. If people behave properly and don't get a whole lot of traffic fines, that will have some impact.

I want to know what the minister's plans are in terms of encouraging people to obey the laws and to not run red lights or stop signs or anything like that and to not get fines. How would the ministry handle that?

[1655]

Hon. C. Oakes: Traffic-fine revenue has been consistently stable. You know, the unfortunate thing I would like to be able to say that…. Because with that, policing costs go down, and it would help local governments on that.

Of course, safety and ensuring people are following the rules are always our first and foremost. Of course, that doesn't cover within this ministry, but as a statement of citizenship, I think that's something that we all stand behind. But the financing on the traffic-fine revenue has been consistently stable.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that information. Yes, it is sort of an interesting state of affairs when we rely on these fines with the idea that we encourage policing and education so that we don't have to fine people, and yet that stays pretty stable. I can't say I'm happy to hear that it's a stable source, but if there is some history that indicates it is a stable source, then I guess it meets the criteria for helping local government have the core human resource capacity. So I appreciate the response.

I have another question about how the ministry supports local governments in making effective service provision choices by encouraging regionwide and subregional services. One of the strategies it talks about is providing advice on a variety of ways to deliver local service and advising and providing tools to assist in resolving differences.

I'm curious about how that support is given and how you monitor effectiveness of this particular strategy. How is that monitored, as well, so that we know that we're actually getting, once again, a good return on our investment?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. I kind of revert back to the dialogue that we had a little bit earlier about the three different levels of branches that we have.

[1700]

Again, I think it's important, in trying to support local governments, if you look at regional districts and their service review bylaws. We do have annual forums. We support the growth strategy and development in that. Again, the intergovernmental relations and planning branch does provide the community and regional land use planning, development and management support to local governments and the island trusts. It supports intergovernmental agreements, the prevention and resolution of intergovernmental conflict, and it offers dispute resolution services, which is important.

Again, the infrastructure and finance branch provides infrastructure and operating support to local governments and improvement districts. And finally, the governance and structure branch supports the work of local governments in the three main areas of advising and problem-solving on complex local and regional governance issues; overseeing the restructuring of local governments, including municipal and corporations, boundary extensions; and supporting and building the procedural productive relationships between local governments and First Nations.

So really, those are three branches. But if there is ever a local government or regional district that needs support, we're always willing to listen and to provide that support. We have great staff here.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's response. It's reminded me again how the three branches sort of work together to do a whole bunch of things — and a lot of, it sounds like, really good things. The question for me, though, remains: how do we know that there are effective service provisions? It can be a lot of busywork, but is it effective work? It's in that perspective that I'm coming at that question.

I'll just move along to the next set of questions that I have that have to do with objective 1.3 in the service plan. "Local governments support a positive environment for business and economic development."

There are a number of strategies listed in the service plan, and they sound like great strategies.

"Work with local government, the UBCM and the business sector to ensure property tax on industrial and business properties promotes competitiveness and investment while maintaining local government capacity. Encourage local governments to engage with the business sector and other stakeholders to create policies, processes and actions to enable economic growth. Promote the refinement of regulatory requirements across B.C. communities and regions to reduce the regulatory burden on citizens and business."

So lots of strategies in terms of what we're going to do. But I'm curious about what the performance measures are for this one in terms of how this ministry will know that the time and energy invested by our staff and by our tax dollars are actually going to produce a positive environment for business and economic development.

[1705]

Hon. C. Oakes: I'm delighted to talk about the positive economic impacts that this government has done around the business sector, making sure that we're open with those performance measurements.

The first thing I would like to point to is that this gov-
[ Page 514 ]
ernment has done an outstanding job around tackling regulatory red tape and the reduction of that. We've reduced our red tape in this provincial government by 42 percent. We've received an A-plus report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Other things that I think that we stand very high on how we move and how we work with the small business community is that we're very proud of the work that has been done around the small business accord.

There are other things that we've put forward, like the mobile business licence. That is an opportunity. If you're a contractor in, say, Williams Lake, you can go and you can work in Williams Lake or you can work in other areas. This has been very, very successful in the Okanagan, Victoria and other jurisdictions throughout British Columbia. I think that's a real performance measurement of success. It's reduced money. It's helped local governments actually do more effective jobs with their small business.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the BizPaL program. I was a huge champion of BizPaL years ago. What it really did is it brought all of the different regulations and requirements….

If you're starting a small business and you want to know where to start with the provincial, local and federal governments, you can actually go into a website, and it will tell you everything that is required for you to get your business off the ground. When you're looking at a small business…. Here's a performance measurement that's more of a business objective.

If you take work that might have traditionally taken four days…. You're going to the provincial office, then you're going to your municipal office and maybe you have to go to a regional district office, and you're running around. If you can get this work done on a technology platform and get that work done in two hours, that's significant cost savings to the business sector. It's a great measurement that I think we stand firmly behind with the province, and we're very proud of those performance measurements.

S. Robinson: It certainly sounds like there has been lots of busy activity, but I'm not convinced that these would be what I would consider performance measures. Usually when you have an objective that local government support a positive environment for business and economic development, you'd have some economic numbers that would demonstrate that the business and the activity level have actually played out.

I am quite familiar with the licencing, the multi-jurisdictional licencing from the Tri-Cities, and we have yet to see any uptake in my community on it. So we're waiting to see if that actually has the impact that other communities have had. It hasn't as of yet.

Moving along in the service plan, with goal 2 it talks about communities and regions that are vibrant and sustainable. In particular, the first objective talks about communities that have effective water and waste management. It talks about: "Provide targeted funding." There's a whole range of ways that the province and this government help local governments achieve provincial water and waste management objectives. It lists a whole bunch of them there. I'm not going to get into how much in each. I'm sure I can find how much money is available in each.

[1710]

I do have a question about the actual performance measures that are listed here, because it is one of the few goals or objectives that actually has a performance measure attached to it. I think there should be more, but I'll start with this one.

The performance measure is the percentage of British Columbians served by drinking water systems that receive provincial funding to meet emerging treatment standards for the protection of drinking water quality. It notes that the target for 2013-14 is 57.6 percent and that for 2014-15, it goes to 59.3 percent. So that's the percentage of our communities that are served by drinking water systems that receive provincial funding.

I'm curious about how this was chosen as a performance measure and how many will still have water quality that does not meet standards. This is only for those who receive funding. I'm really interested in: should there be some funds available for those who…? Why aren't the others receiving funding? I get curious, of course, around their ability to raise funds in order to do any matching grants.

Perhaps the minister could take a look at that performance measure for me.

Hon. C. Oakes: The matrix is a little bit difficult or challenging, because a portion of it is through the Ministry of Health. There's a great percentage of people that are served on private wells. Where I come from, a good majority of the people have private wells, so it wouldn't be necessarily captured within this performance matrix.

[1715]

What I can tell you — and again, it's around the small communities — is that our focus currently is on small communities around what we can do. There is a challenge, though, that we all know. When you look at economies of scale, that's just not been there. The cost per person increases substantially. But we certainly recognize that this is a focus currently of this government — to look at small communities.

A. Weaver: In last week's session with the Ministry of Environment I posed the question as to the availability of funds before, during or after the completion of construction of the Victoria sewage plant. The reason why I raise the question, of course, was during the election campaign it was alluded to — the possibility that funds
[ Page 515 ]
would only be made available at the end of the construction phase. So my question to the minister: will funds be available before, during or after the construction of the sewage treatment plant in Victoria?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for coming forward to estimates and posing this question. The province has committed to contributing one-third of the eligible cost, to a maximum of $248 million, dependent on the completion of all project components. This represents approximately one-third of the eligible capital cost as determined by the CRD in 2010.

To ensure that this project meets its goals and its objectives and to protect the provincial interest and the taxpayers of British Columbia, the provincial contribution will be made at substantial completion and after final commissioning of the entire wastewater system.

A. Weaver: As alluded to by the Minister of Environment, there's some flexibility as to the December 31 deadline for completion towards the federal mandated date of 2020. Will the funds still be available at the said level, or will there be additional funds in light of the fact that costs will arise after that time?

Hon. C. Oakes: Our funding currently is capped on this particular project, but we welcome that the CRD can come forward and request an extension of this money, and we would address that at such time.

A. Weaver: If the federal government were to grant an exemption of the 2020 deadline, would funds be available post-2020 were there to be put forward a plan by the CRD to develop a tertiary treatment in the years ahead?

[1720]

Hon. C. Oakes: At this point the federal government hasn't indicated there is any change to this, so the expectation at this point for this project is that $248 million, looking at occurring in fiscal 2017-2018 and fiscal 2018-2019. Again, if the CRD wishes to come forward and make a request, we are open to that. But then, of course, that's a financial treasury decision as well.

S. Robinson: I'm going to go back to the service plan. It's very rich with activities that this ministry is undertaking, and I want to make sure I understand exactly what the tasks are at hand and how we're going to measure effectiveness.

On objective 2.2, "Local governments are implementing strategies to improve community sustainability." One of the strategies which is near and dear to my heart — we've been trying to address this in Coquitlam-Maillardville — is to encourage local governments to develop effective approaches to increase the supply of affordable entry-level market housing near transit.

I'd really like to hear a little bit about how ministry resources are going to be used to address that and how that is going to be measured in terms of how those investments get used for local governments.

Hon. C. Oakes: We're currently encouraging local governments to develop effective approaches to increase the supply of affordable entry-level market housing near transit, and I applaud your community for the work that they have been doing. Currently there is work that is happening with the Canadian Home Builders Association, the Urban Development Institute and the real estate industry.

Because you're passionate about this, one of the things that I would draw attention back to is that the Development Finance Review Committee is currently looking at this as well. It really is that opportunity of how, if we really want to…. This committee — I'm really interested in how it can…. You know, you've got the province and local governments, and all of these groups can start looking at how to present changes to move forward. I'm excited to see what comes out of this group and encourage you to maybe look into that committee.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the information. It sounds like, really, there is sort of a committee that's looking at this. It's interesting because certainly in my community, when I was on local government, that was the exact thing that our local government was doing — trying to bring together different stakeholders to try to influence and educate about ways to supply affordable entry-level market housing near transit.

[1725]

I'd be very fascinated to hear what this group does, but I'm still not clear what the province's role is in this. I would like some clarity on that and how much we're prepared to spend to make this happen. What kinds of investments are we making to bring this issue to the forefront?

It's certainly a tremendous issue in the Lower Mainland. I would love to see the provincial government really put its energy behind this and help bring some things to fruition.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. This ministry is an advocate of good planning and governance. But what I would suggest is that Minister Coleman through the Ministry for Housing is currently looking at the renewal of the provincial housing strategy, which I think will answer more specifically the question that you have raised.

The Chair: Just a reminder, if I could, to everyone that we are not supposed to use first names and reference people by name. If I could just caution members.
[ Page 516 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: My apologies.

The Chair: Thank you.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the direction given by the minister. I'll be sure to follow up and see what we can do about increasing the supply of affordable entry-level-market housing near transit.

I will work hard to find a way, whichever ministry I have to talk to, to bring that forward and, ideally, to track it and to make sure that we're accountable to the taxpayer — that when we say that we're going to do something, it's not just busy activity but we actually can demonstrate with some hard numbers that we've been effective.

I have another question under this objective. It says: "Update ministry infrastructure funding programs to encourage local government to innovate, integrate and prioritize those projects that deliver environmental, economic and/or social benefits."

There's a range. It talks about: "These could range from reducing greenhouse gas emissions or improving water and air quality to energy conservation or using alternative energy sources."

So I'm not sure what this is: "To update ministry infrastructure funding programs." Does that mean that there's going to be new funding envelopes available to local government, or is that something else? Some clarity around this would be very helpful.

[1730]

Hon. C. Oakes: What we were talking about is the gas tax funding. One of the things under the current program that we've negotiated with the province is that 5 percent of the gas tax funds goes towards innovative community funds that have that green component that you were talking about. Our role as a signatory on this agreement is to make sure that we're addressing climate change with infrastructure, having green components, developing those innovation best practice pieces.

The province is really looking — because we're, again, in negotiations with the gas tax — at enhancing that portion to make sure that we are addressing and having that innovative, green approach to the gas tax funds.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for the information. I just want, again, clarity around "enhancing." Does enhancing mean give more money? Or is enhancing just a broader scope, or both? If the minister could please just sort of elaborate a little bit about what enhancing means, that would be great.

[1735]

Hon. C. Oakes: Well, we're very supportive of trying to enhance that triple bottom line. That triple bottom line, of course, is delivering the economic, environmental and social benefits. Currently we have criteria established within the program, and when we talk about the enhancement of that, we're enhancing the criteria of how that funding is being awarded. There is a competitive nature to that, but that criteria will become more important, and then we expect that more money will be channelled to reach those triple-bottom-line goals.

Again, we're in negotiations with that, but that's certainly what we mean by enhancement of that.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister's response. That's really helpful to understand what enhancement means.

I have one last question on this service plan, and that has to do with performance measure 3 in the plan. I think it's performance measure 3. It talks about: "Percentage of local governments taking action to reduce their carbon footprint and create more complete, compact communities." It talks about the actual measure. It's: "Percentage of local governments taking action to reduce their carbon footprint." It's not clear in the document, with this performance measure. Is it simply tracking commitments? Or is it actually tracking monitored reductions, which I think has different implications?

[1740]

Hon. C. Oakes: Under the climate act, we have the revenue incentive program. Local governments currently get a rebate on the emissions rebate that they have achieved. There is a performance measurement to that, and there's that financial rebate to that.

S. Robinson: Again, I just want to clarify. I understand that part. I'm just looking at the performance measure here in the document that talks about percentage of local governments taking action to reduce their carbon footprint. The 2013-14 target is 93 percent, and the 2014-15 target is 95 percent. Does that mean that those are the governments that are actually reducing their carbon footprint, or are those the governments that have said that they would take action to reduce their carbon footprints?

Hon. C. Oakes: Just to be clear, the percentage that we're looking at are the local governments that have signed on to the climate action charter. But the measurement really is that there is a rebate that local governments now access. It was a twofold parcel. We know that when we signed on to the climate action program, the benefit to local governments…. Yes, you sign your name, but if you do the work and you measure and you have that performance sheet, you actually receive money back. It's a pretty large-incentive performance measurement for local governments to receive money back for emissions that they've been able to rebate.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that distinction. I just want to make sure that I understood what was in this docu-
[ Page 517 ]
ment in terms of what the 93 percent and 95 percent represented.

Are there requirements to participate? I'm just going to check with the minister. Any requirements to participate in the carbon trust when they make these commitments?

Hon. C. Oakes: No.

S. Robinson: Well, I appreciate the quick answer. That was great. I barely had time to sit down.

I'm finished with that document. I have just a couple of questions that I neglected to ask earlier, and then I have some colleagues here who have a series of questions.

This has to do with the joint emergency preparedness program. I'd like to ask the minister…. It's on all our minds, given Calgary's experience and, certainly, Toronto's experience, and I think we all ought to be paying attention, because the truth is those two provinces, Alberta and Ontario, have to help local governments because of their capacity to respond to these climate change issues. Local government capacity to respond is pretty minimal.

I just wanted to get some information about what our joint emergency preparedness program budget entails for 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, just to sort of get a sense of what that budget has been doing over the past few years and where it might be headed in the coming few years.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing that question forward. It actually is not in our ministry. Sorry. It went through Justice.

[1745]

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for helping to clarify that. I'm getting information from a bunch of different sources. Some of it feels like it should be local government, but I will take that to the appropriate places. I appreciate the minister's time and effort to help clarify some of these questions.

Now I've got some colleagues who will carry on.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and his staff. I was hoping to spend more time in here today, but with the three Houses and the briefings, it's difficult. I see familiar faces. I did serve as critic for a short while — just over a year on this file. I do also, like the minister, come from local government, so I have great respect for that entity.

If I could close a loop with a quick question that was previously raised by the critic. It was around the emergency preparedness — the PEP program. I just learned it. I thought it would be here.

There was a substantial amount of money designated from the Japanese government to go to local governments on the west coast of Vancouver Island — especially, I think, or exclusively — and to First Nations governments to deal with the tsunami debris. I know all local governments have been wondering where that money is. Do you have any knowledge or wisdom that you can bestow on me on that issue?

Hon. C. Oakes: It's in the Ministry of Environment's portfolio.

S. Fraser: That would be a written question, then. I think we've done that one already.

I'll go to — I still call it the Municipal Act — the Local Government Act. Are there any anticipated changes, amendments? I'm not sure of the timeline or when these things are reviewed and renewed — if there's anything in the hopper, any plan for doing that in the near future. Or if there are amendments, is there something that can be just introduced and they could be done piecemeal?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. History has demonstrated that we have upgraded the Local Government Act as solutions presented themselves. We're always responding to the needs of our stakeholders, and therefore, there have been changes to the Local Government Act.

[1750]

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

I've got a local issue. I see it as a flaw or a loophole in the Local Government Act that currently stands. In the town of Qualicum Beach…. You know, in all governments everyone who goes to get elected runs for — if it's a town, a city or a municipality — mayor and councillors. There are a certain number of councillors, and that's decided locally, and then the mayor is elected as a different role, more of a figurehead, an ambassador-type role, as we all sort of know. That's just a different position that's served there, and that's reflected to some extent in the act.

In Qualicum Beach the long-time mayor there, Teunis Westbroek, was re-elected — I can't remember which time now, but a very popular local mayor. The close majority on the new council — their first move was to remove him from his role on the regional district board. Now, I'm not going to fault them on that. It is allowed under the act.

However, where I've heard…. And this is not my constituency any longer. I did do Qualicum before, but I still get the calls, people saying: "Hey, we elected him as the mayor. He's supposed to represent us in the bigger world." And that is what most expectations are by the electorate when they're electing their mayor.

Can the minister comment? Again, not with any disrespect for those members of council, it seems to be doing an end run around the electorate and their will to put one person as the figurehead, the ambassador for their community.
[ Page 518 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing that opportunity forward that we can look at. What I would recommend…. Because it's a particular community, as opposed to a wide provincial scope, may I provide a recommendation or a suggestion that perhaps we'd talk to the governance and structure branch?

That particular branch supports the work of local government in three main areas. They advise on problem-solving, on complex local and regional governance issues, which, I think, is what this sounds like. They oversee the restructuring of local governments, including municipal incorporations and boundary expansions, and they support the building of productive relationships between local governments and First Nations.

Perhaps they can provide some support that you're looking for. Please come forward. Come to our office, and we'd be happy to provide support on moving forward on this.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. As I say, I'm a bit stumped with this one. I didn't know how to answer questions around it, so I appreciate your willingness to have the branch look at this and see if there's some way to mitigate that. Many people that voted for a mayor feel that somehow the system betrayed them, that that's not what they voted for. They wanted something different.

I would note that my colleague from Abbotsford-Mission has commented that he's seen a similar thing, so it's…

Interjection.

S. Fraser: …not totally unique. Apparently, it's happened in Surrey.

And I've heard of it happening at least one other time. It's a very unusual occurrence. But it would be one I'd like to get some clarification on and see if we could….

[1755]

Hon. C. Oakes: We'll look into it. Thank you for bringing that up.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for being willing to look at this. I'll contact her after estimates, and maybe we can follow up on this.

The last thing, because there are a lot of other questions here, is pesticide legislation. I was on the Cosmetic Pesticide Committee. The Premier did, early on, make a commitment towards bringing in tougher…. She actually committed to doing cosmetic pesticide bans like Ontario and, actually, many other provinces have done.

We're not doing that. We're not following what I thought we heard through the committee's role. That's a political issue. I won't get into that right now.

The problem that I see is that many local governments, over 40 local governments, have tried to implement their own attempts at banning cosmetic pesticides because of the risks to children, to the environment, to bees, to all kinds of things — like other provinces have. They wanted that level of protection for their community members. They were hoping for….

It's almost impossible to do these bans as one-offs. The provincial body has some roles that just supersede the local governments. I'm wondering. Since there was a commitment made by the Premier to bring in this kind of legislation and it's not going to happen….

It's very, very weak legislation being brought in. It's not what any of the municipal governments have brought in, or tried to. Are there any tools going to be offered to local government to maybe help them strengthen their ability to have the rules and enforce them?

Hon. C. Oakes: The governance and structure branch seems to be a really important department here. They seem to be extremely helpful with some of these questions that we have had. It's certainly a great learning opportunity for me as well.

There is regulation. You asked for a tool, or you said: is there a tool that we could possibly look at to help support local governments around this step of regulating cosmetic pesticides? There actually is regulation, pursuant to the Community Charter, that allows local governments to regulate cosmetic pesticides.

[1800]

So we have a branch that can support you on moving that forward.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a few questions in regards to a couple of the mandates that are in the minister's mandate letter from the Premier. I'm here, really, asking them on behalf of my colleagues to the west of me from North Coast and to the east of me from Stikine, because this matter is very important to all three of us who represent the northwest part of British Columbia.

In the mandate letter the second of the minister's great goals is to "create the framework for the rural dividend for communities in the northwest that will be impacted by the opportunities and challenges that will arise from the LNG opportunity."

It's interesting that the Chair here is formerly the mayor of Dawson Creek. A few years ago he graciously came up to the northwest, as the mayor, and told us what things were like at one end of the pipe in the gas industry for those of us who were at the other end of the pipe. He extolled the virtues of the Fair Share program many, many times during that presentation.

That program was, of course, enacted by the NDP in the 1990s, along with one of the other great regional redistribution or revenue-generating systems, which was the Columbia River Basin trust — two great revenue-sharing programs for rural British Columbia, created during that very hard decade for rural British Columbians.
[ Page 519 ]

That being the case, that being your mandate, my first question is a very simple one. Can the minister tell us what has been accomplished thus far? I realize that it's very early in your mandate, but what have you accomplished thus far in working towards the goal of creating a northwest regional revenue Fair Share program that emulates the one in the northeast?

Hon. C. Oakes: Welcome, and thank you for your question today. I, too, share your commitment to making sure that communities in the northwest are served as we move forward. Coming from a small community, I understand. I know the individuals that are up in the northwest. That's my opening remark.

[1805]

I would like to clarify what is in my mandate letter, for the record. It says that I'm to "create the framework for a rural dividend for communities in the northwest that will be impacted by the opportunities and challenges that will arise from the LNG opportunity." That is what is within the mandate letter.

We all know that what might work in the Northern Rockies or in the Peace River may not work in the northwest. My commitment…. I'm starting to do the listening tour. I'm heading up to your area in the beginning part of September to make sure that I'm listening to the citizens to understand exactly what the needs are. We're gathering information so that when we move forward, it is the best framework for the northwest.

R. Austin: The city of Terrace, which has been, obviously, advocating for this for quite some time, commissioned a report entitled Revenue Sharing in Northwest British Columbia. Has the minister and/or her staff seen this report?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Our staff have reviewed it, and we will be making sure that that document becomes part of the dialogue that we have with the community of Terrace as we move forward on looking at what is in the best interests of the northwest and all of the communities, the regional district. We often forget about regional districts when we talk about local governments. I want to make sure that I am capturing that when I go and visit and listen to all the folks up in the northwest.

R. Austin: Given that the LNG opportunity is happening right now in the sense that one of the biggest…. Apache and Chevron have actually spent, you know, tens of millions of dollars moving land already — moving soil, preparing for their site. It's upon us right now, yet your mandate sort of speaks about you doing this in the years to come.

Given what's happening right now in the northwest, can the minister inform us as to what the timelines are in terms of accomplishing this particular goal of her mandate letter?

Hon. C. Oakes: Our government is committed to…. This is a top priority, LNG. I assure you, as the minister, that the framework is a top priority for me because I believe in the communities in the northwest. I'm passionate about that area and will commit to you that we move this forward and that they have that level of confidence that we will be there for them.

R. Austin: Not exactly any kind of specifics for the timeline, but hey.

The minister mentioned speaking to the communities and to regional districts. Is the minister also going to recognize that in the northwest it is considerably more complicated than the northeast and the Kootenays, to the extent that in the Kootenays there are very few First Nations people living down there, very few recognized bands down there?

[1810]

In the northeast they have treaty 8, so a lot of the First Nations in the northeast are under treaty and have been under treaty for some time. In the northwest, of course, with the exception of the Nisga'a all of that is unceded territory with multiple different First Nations, and it is very complicated.

Is the minister, as part of her consultation with everybody in the northwest, planning on going and meeting with all of the individual First Nations groups up there so that they are part of any revenue-sharing program that happens?

Hon. C. Oakes: When the Premier put our mandate letters together, each of our ministries have clear direction on LNG. In the particular instance of the First Nations, Minister Rustad and I will be working on this. I think it's very, very important, and I absolutely understand the communities and the relationships and what we need to do moving forward.

That's why I'm extremely confident that I can rely on my colleagues to be supportive on this. When we're doing the visits, we are going up in teams to make sure that we are successfully having the opportunity to meet with all the different groups that you have identified.

R. Austin: Could the minister tell us who in her ministry, from the point of view of staff, is going to take the lead on this particular file of regional revenue-sharing?

Secondly, I'd like to add onto that: what is the process for reporting out on the progress on this? As I say, this is very timely. It's time-sensitive. If this is going to happen, we need to do it fairly quickly.

What's the process for reporting out, and if we want to contact somebody in the minister's office, who is going to take the lead on this file?
[ Page 520 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: In response, twofold. If you're looking at who is responsible on the framework side as we move forward, it is the deputy. You can contact Becky, and we'll be happy to support you on that.

[1815]

If you're looking for the reporting-out piece, we have the ministry that's responsible for natural gas development which is the lead on that. The reporting out will go through that. And if you need support on the framework, that will be through the deputy minister.

R. Austin: I have several more questions, but we don't have enough time. I'm just going to get to one question. I don't want to sound facetious on this. I don't want the staff to burst a blood vessel.

Bearing in mind that the government and the opposition are in favour of regional revenue-sharing for the northwest and bearing in mind that it's part of your mandate, is there any way — and the three northwest MLAs are all in the hands of the opposition — that we can assist you in achieving this goal?

Hon. C. Oakes: I would be happy to engage on how we find solutions on this. If you can support me and the region in being successful, absolutely. Thank you.

D. Eby: I'm very pleased to hear the minister's comments, certainly, about cooperation and also about good planning and governance. That's the subject matter of my question.

In the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey are a number of neighbourhoods and the University of British Columbia, for which the minister is responsible, known as electoral area A, governed by the University Neighbourhoods Association in a small part and an advisory council on the University Endowment Lands in a small part.

Given that the province acts as a municipal government in many functions around UBC, can the minister advise whether there are any specific plans for consultation of the people who live in that riding over the coming year, as well as any budgetary amounts that have been set aside for those consultations — in particular, consultations around how the province can better serve the residents there, consultations on proposed infrastructure like roads and roundabouts and consultation on zoning and land use planning?

Then, just to put it all in one series of questions, with an eye on the clock, are there plans to consult on governance as well — whether there is desire among the residents there for increased powers for the University Neighbourhoods Association or other governance bodies there and increased representation?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for your question. I remain interested in hearing about how discussions are evolving on the peninsula, and we are always open to consultation of stakeholders on this one.

The challenge on this particular issue with the UEL, the residents and UBC is that there has not been consensus around the change in governance. If there was that element of consensus that could be brought forward, we'd be more than willing to look at what governance the stakeholders agree to in consensus.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada