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)
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 3, Number 3
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Orders of the Day | |
Committee of Supply | 521 |
Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) | |
C. James | |
Hon. S. Cadieux | |
M. Karagianis | |
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
Committee of Supply | 528 |
Estimates: Ministry of International Trade | |
Hon. T. Wat | |
B. Ralston | |
Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
Committee of Supply | 535 |
Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (continued) | |
D. Eby | |
Hon. C. Oakes | |
G. Holman | |
S. Robinson | |
J. Kwan | |
K. Corrigan | |
R. Fleming | |
L. Popham | |
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Lake: I call for estimates debates. This chamber, Section B, would be the Ministry of Children and Family Development; Section A, the Ministry of International Trade; and Section C, the estimates for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 10:05 a.m.
On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,345,039,000 (continued).
C. James: We were discussing ICM, the integrated case management system, when we finished up yesterday. Just a couple of other questions in that area, and then I'll turn it over to my colleague to discuss early childhood development and child care.
We were talking about the emergency shutdowns that have occurred with ICM. I wonder whether the minister could tell us if there's a backup when the system is down or if the system is broken.
Hon. S. Cadieux: Good morning. The ICM system is within government's technical environment as a whole, so it's important to note that not all technical issues that ICM experiences are actually an ICM problem. Sometimes there could be a broader system issue. But yes, we do have a backup, and in fact, it is a better backup system than we had using our old computer systems.
C. James: Just a follow-up question on that. With the backup system, then, is there a specific area for children at risk — in other words, sensitive files and those kinds of things? That was an issue raised with the problems with ICM, that if there were issues around children at risk, that may not be flagged if social workers were looking at placements when the system is down — those kinds of things. Are there those checks and balances in place?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, absolutely. There are special provisions, actually, for our after-hours staff. If we are taking the system down for maintenance of any kind, we provide an electronic copy of the files in ICM to the staff.
C. James: When the ministry was putting ICM in place, one of the areas that was talked about were the performance measures, or metrics, that were going to be part of ICM. They were going to come out of ICM.
There are a number of areas that were identified in the 2010 contract with Deloitte that talked about specifics — for example, number of clients served per social worker, per month; average time to service a single client; the number of complaints from clients and service providers.
Those were actually outlined in the contract. Could the minister tell us if those metrics are in place yet?
Hon. S. Cadieux: ICM itself does not produce performance measures, as I'm sure you are aware, but the data that ICM houses is much richer. The way it is housed allows us to build stronger measures, as we go forward, from that data. There's more complete information available, and therefore, we can develop stronger measures as we go forward.
As we've mentioned in earlier discussions, performance measures that are listed in the service plan, for example, are not the only things we measure. In fact, we measure other things in the performance management report. The first one that we issued is going to be built upon and have additional things built in, now that we're able to track data in a much better way.
C. James: Maybe it's the wording of the question, because as the minister says, ICM is supposed to provide data that is then used to develop performance measures, etc.
Are these data collection areas that were mentioned in the contract with Deloitte, between the ministry and Deloitte — number of clients served by social workers, the average time to serve a single client, the number of complaints from clients and service providers…? Are those data sets now being given to MCFD through ICM?
Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer to the member's question is yes. They are all tracked now.
C. James: I'll turn it over to my colleague for Esquimalt–Royal Roads to cover a couple of areas in MCFD.
M. Karagianis: I have a series of questions. I'll start off with child care and early learning or early childhood development. Then some questions later on about domestic
[ Page 522 ]
violence programming.
Great. I see that we've got your support staff here. I'm very happy to see them. I will say that we had a very thorough briefing with staff a few days ago, and I thank you very much for that and for the great amount of information that your staff provided to us. I will confess I made notes throughout that. Some of them appear to me to be a bit hard to understand at this point, so I'm probably going to have to go back and ask a few questions based on that. I've made all kinds of notes, but I realized in reviewing them afterwards that I wasn't even sure what I was writing down or what I had meant by that.
Let me first just go to the opening page, page 11, of the service plan, where you outline the service plan for early years. There were a couple of things here that caught my attention. It does state here that the government intends to build "a strong network of coordinated, family-centred, culturally relevant and responsive early childhood development and child care services." I'd like to explore that a little bit.
In the following paragraph there was something that caught my eye, where the service plan talks about: "Secure and stable social relationships with caring adults are critical to development with the 'serve-and-return' communications relationship between parents and children."
Can the minister explain to me exactly what's meant by this "serve-and-return communications relationship"? It's a new term that I am not familiar with. I've worked as a critic with this ministry before, but this seemed to be new language that caught my attention. I'm just wondering what that means and what the implications are in that for service delivery.
Hon. S. Cadieux: So serve-and-return is a figure of speech that is used in research, primarily. It's about the interaction between children and the adult or the primary care giver in their life, particularly in relation to young children, and the causal relationship between that increased serve-and-return — or the rate of the serve-and-return relationship — and brain development.
So it's about relationships and interaction, and it can be with the parent, the primary care giver and, to a lesser extent, the broader community or other people that are involved in the child's life.
Through this strategy, we're going to look to encourage more of this — creating richer environments in our early childhood programs and centres — and looking to address it through improving the quality of ECD learning and provider training as well.
M. Karagianis: Is this a training regime, now, that is going to be implemented? Or how do you actually impart that information to early childhood educators, child care providers?
I know that in the past, when I was at the municipal level working in parks and recreation, there were some new modes of delivering services, of trying to build confidence in young people. There was some methodology on how you could do that and how you could, specifically, as service providers and recreation leaders and that kind of thing, build confidence and how you could measure returns on that.
I'm curious as to whether this has components that are teachable and that the ministry then…. What will be the outreach that the ministry undertakes to ensure that all care providers, in fact, are accepting this, learning this, practising this? How are you going to know, based on some outcomes, whether or not this has been successful?
Hon. S. Cadieux: This is about building on what already exists in terms of the work in the child care sector and with early childhood educators. Part of what we're going to be looking to do is to translate the research that is always evolving in terms of early childhood development, brain development, and translate that with the post-secondary institutions into better and more training for early childhood educators — potentially, a two-year diploma.
We'll be taking the research, as well, and mobilizing that and making it more available to our sector partners, right down through the programs like Building Blocks or Children First, with information about the serve-and-return relationship that's aimed at families, aimed at parents to inform parenting skills, as we work with parents in that way.
As far as measurement and evaluation, the EDI measures school readiness, of course, with the intake at preschool. As well, we have a child care provider survey that is also ongoing.
M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much.
I understand that the education component of it will be for new child care providers or new trainees as they go to school, do post-secondary programs. They will, then, learn this new approach.
For existing providers, though, is this information simply being kind of floated out to them? Or is there going to be an actual outreach to providers to say: "This is the new curriculum that we're now teaching. We want existing providers to also use this style of approach for provision of services"? And are there any educational resources, then, for the existing child care providers or early childhood providers, service providers out there? Is there a component for them that supports them, that makes sure they get those educational pieces?
Then I'm going to probably come back to this a little bit later when we talk about other structures for child care generally. But I just really want to understand what
[ Page 523 ]
kind of work the government is putting into making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity. Those who are being educated in the future, obviously, will be trained with this approach. How about the existing people? How do they get trained up? And are there resources for that education?
Then subsequently, I guess, we'll talk about what implications that has, long term, for those providers on their skill sets, on their remuneration for those. I'll probably address that in a later question.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The answer is yes. We've put in the budget $37 million over three years to improve and enhance quality in our early-years system. Part of what that will include is outreach to service providers. Through the child care resource and referral centres or the early-years hubs as they develop, we will provide ongoing upgrading and training to our early childhood educators, service providers and parents through those hubs on topics such as the research around serve-and-return relationships and so on.
M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much, Minister.
Let me move on, then, in your service plan to the next section, which I had some questions about. That's really where you refer very specifically to child care. It says: "While the majority of child care is targeted at working parents, it is also needed by those who are attending school or participating in an employment-related program. In addition, child care supports parents who, due to a medical condition, are unable to care for their children full-time, and plays a supportive role for vulnerable and at-risk families."
May I ask the minister at this point: what specific information or breakdown do you have on how child care resources are broken down by working families, parents attending school, employment-related programs? Do you track each of those segments of child care provision, and do you have data and statistics on that?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Although those criteria that you just mentioned are things that are considered for eligibility for child care subsidy, they're not something that we currently track. They determine eligibility for subsidy, but the amount of the child care subsidy is actually determined by the amount of income, the size of the family, the age of the children and the type of child care setting that they're in. That's how we determine the child care. What we currently track are the number of children receiving the subsidy per month, per year, and the number of distinct families receiving the subsidy.
M. Karagianis: Can the minister tell me, then, how many spaces are currently being provided for child care, subsidized or otherwise? I know that there were some promises in the B.C. Liberal platform in the recent election to create 2,000 new child care spaces. I'd like to know what the progress of that is. But overall, how many child care spaces are provided currently in the province? That can be both subsidized and non-subsidized — anything that the ministry is aware of as part of the whole child care package.
Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry only tracks the eligible licensed group and family spaces in the province. We only track the spaces that we provide funding to and for through CCOF. That is 104,358 spaces this year. We don't track unlicensed spaces.
M. Karagianis: So 104,350 spaces that the government has some kind of direct connection with.
Do we know how many child care spaces are required in the province? I have some data here that is slightly outdated. It's up to 2010. At that time we had 97,170 regulated child care spaces, but we had 570,900 children from zero to 12 needing child care spaces.
Do you have current stats on what the percentage is of child care spaces that we have versus the need for them? I have an estimate of 20 percent based on this old data, but I want to know: is that still about the same? Are we only providing 20 percent of the spaces that are needed in the province?
[D. Horne in the chair.]
Hon. S. Cadieux: While we know that there are 588,000 children aged zero to 12 in the province at this time, we do not have an accurate number available in relation to what percentage of those children are requiring child care. The most recent number we do have is from 2003, when the research was done. It was determined that 240,000 children in the province were in some form of child care — not all, obviously, government-funded.
One of the reasons we are putting together the office for the early years is to better coordinate this type of information and to have better research and things available. One of the things that we are going to do in the near future is another parent survey that will determine the number of people that are looking for child care or have their children in some form of child care that is not supported by the ministry.
M. Karagianis: The data that I have was provided by the Child Care Advocates of B.C. As I mentioned, it's on their website and was current to 2010. They have extensive data here, but I'm sure the minister can avail herself of that if she needs to.
So let's assume that the data here is reasonably cor-
[ Page 524 ]
rect. Even based on the numbers that the minister has given here, there are considerably fewer children receiving child care than those that need it. If part of the criteria here for success in the future…. I know that the government touts the jobs plan. The way people get back to work is to be able to have child care. If they don't have affordable, accessible child care, they can't go to work. I think that is a crisis that we recognize has not changed considerably.
Now, the government promised to create 2,000 new child care spaces. What is the timeline for that? And what impact will that have on the numbers that we've looked at here? When is that happening? Are these immediate? And is there any discussion — in the process of creating new spaces, analyzing new data, looking at providing more coordinated services and an early-years strategy — around affordability as well?
So there are two components of this. One is finding child care space, and I think all of us know of the crisis that parents face all the time, trying to find child care.
Secondly, that it's affordable. So is this something…? When you look at 2,000 new spaces, are you also analyzing affordability? Is this part of the early-years strategy — trying to determine both how many spaces we need to create and how adequate our current plan is? And how are we analyzing affordability for that as well?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Part of the early-years strategy and the creation of the early-years centres is to build on the existing services that we have but help create hubs for where parents can go to receive information, advice, assessments and referrals. We'll be looking at the introduction of a provincial child care registry, as well, to support parents who are seeking access to child care.
We'll spend $32 million over the next three years on creating 2,000 new licenced child care spaces. They will start next year. The planning for that is happening now, in terms of where they might be, looking at high-demand areas and prioritizing those — but 1,000 new spaces next year and 1,000 the year after. That is the beginning of a plan, over eight years, to develop 13,000 new spaces.
M. Karagianis: So 1,000 spaces this year and 1,000 spaces next year.
The minister talked about a provincial child care registry. It seems to me, first of all, that the minister mentioned that the most recent data the government has on the number of children requiring spaces is from 2003. Why is the information so outdated? And talk to me about the provincial child care registry. Is that something just voluntary?
It seems to me that the government is really behind the times. If the child care advocates have more up-to-date information, Stats Canada has more updated information, why is our data so outdated? How can that, then, in any way inform your decisions on creating spaces?
How did you reach the number of 1,000 per year? How do you know that 13,000 over eight years even begins to remotely meet the need of hundreds of thousands of families who are looking for child care?
Why is the information so outdated? How is the provincial child care registry going to work? I'll just ask those two questions first and see if we can try and get some clarity.
Hon. S. Cadieux: Of course, we have access to those same surveys and information that the member notes, from the broader community, from Stats Canada and such, and we do review all of that information.
Currently within the ministry the information that we have available to us internally is limited to the information about the people currently receiving service, not broader. That is why we want to, through the office of the early years, do more research and do another broad parent survey to determine more accurately what's happening in British Columbia.
The number of spaces we are looking to create over the next three years and, beyond that, eight years…. And I'll correct the member. What I stated was that it is 1,000 spaces to be built next year and 1,000 the year after that. This year is a planning year. Those 2,000 spaces and the 13,000 that we project to build over the eight-year period are based on budget and our ability to afford to build those spaces.
M. Karagianis: Well, I'll confess I'm a bit surprised that the government is only looking at their own internal data when looking at developing this early-years strategy. It would seem to me that the broader data that's available — on population growth, number of children, number of families, working families, number of people sort of eligible to work — would be very critically important.
I mean, the government has touted for some time all about the jobs plan, that the resolution to poverty is the jobs plan. Any question you ask about social services, it's all about the jobs plan — that somehow the great panacea is the jobs plan. Yet if you're not accessing broader population data, how can you possibly be planning an early-years strategy or a child care strategy going forward, based on outdated internal data that seems reasonably irrelevant at this point?
I'm a bit surprised by that. It would seem to me that governments certainly would be accessing Stats Canada data to say: here's the number of people who are expecting to work in the future, the number of child care spaces needed. I mean, it is pivotal to families who are trying to seek jobs, move themselves out of working poverty, seek better jobs, and women going back to work after having children. That child care is fundamental to this.
[ Page 525 ]
Every single report we have on poverty, every poverty reduction strategy that's been put in place across this country, has understood fundamentally that child care is a pretty essential part of that.
I'm really surprised that the government, after 12 years in power, is stumbling around saying, "We have outdated, inadequate data, and our plan is built on affordability, on the amount of money we have," and not on looking realistically forward and saying: "Here's the number of jobs that we are hoping individuals can take advantage of in the future, and we know that they're not going to be able to do that without adequate child care." I'm a bit surprised by that.
Nonetheless, I would like to ask, then, some questions about where some of the other investment is going.
We know that affordability is a huge problem for families. My data says that the last time the subsidy was increased was 2005. If that data is correct, can the minister tell me whether or not there's consideration for increasing the subsidy for families?
We know that child care has become more and more expensive, and many people are taking lower-paying jobs. The loss of good, solid, family-supporting jobs in this province is a matter of record. People are taking lesser-paying jobs, and it's very, very difficult for families to get by. So I'd like to know if there is going to be a consideration of increasing the subsidies.
In addition to that, retention and recruitment for child care is another piece of that — so finding affordable child care, being able to access a subsidy that's more realistic with the cost of living today, and making sure that child care providers are able to attract and retain staff. Certainly, there has been no increase in wages for those providers either.
Those are two sides of the coin that are pretty important in child care provision. Even if you are successful sometime in the future in providing more spaces, we are going to have to make sure that people can afford to access those spaces and that there will be child care providers and staff that are adequately paid to do that.
Can the minister talk about subsidy and about wages, please?
Hon. S. Cadieux: First of all, I'd just like to correct the member. I said that we review all of the data that is available out there, whether it be our own or data that is provided by other groups like the child care advocates. We are constantly reviewing all of that and considering it in the work that we do in the ministry. When I was referencing that we didn't have new data past 2003, that was data that we had ourselves gone out to get, and that is a part of what we are going to be doing with the early-years office.
When it comes to what we take from that and how we translate it into what we do, it all comes down to what we can afford to do. We have to make the best decisions we can based on the information we have and the available dollars that we have.
As it relates to subsidies, the member is correct. The last time it was raised was in 2005. The subsidies are the way we help low-income families. It will always be a strong component of our child care plan. However, child care is certainly an issue for more families in British Columbia, so our decision has been that we can provide support or reach a broader number of families by providing a child tax benefit, which will come into place in '15-16 and be available to approximately 180,000 families.
As your question relates to recruitment and retention and wages in the child care sector, a recent survey called You Bet We Still Care: A Survey of Centre-Based Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada was released in 2012 by the Child Care Human Resources Sector Council. That report suggests that British Columbia's early childhood educators are third in the country in terms of wages.
Certainly, I agree that recruitment and retention and quality is important in this sector, and that's why we're focused on quality improvements. We'll be looking to work with the sector on that as we move forward with the early-years office.
M. Karagianis: The child tax benefit is due to come three years from now, in 2016, so certainly families right now are not benefiting from that, and that's a bit of a concern.
Now, I know that in my briefing the other day, the ministry said that there was going to be a $6 million lift for early childhood development and child care. Now, I do note that the minister has alluded several times to the early-years office. I know that there has also been a…. The minister has alluded to a provincial child care registry. I know that there is a plan for a network of early-years centres to offer one-stop access to services and, of course, stronger links between all the existing programs like StrongStart and Ready, Set, Learn, etc.
How much of the $6 million lift is going to the office, the registry and all of these other system pieces?
Hon. S. Cadieux: There is a $6.1 million lift in our budget this year for the early-years office and its work, and $700,000 of that will go to support the office and the staff that it will take to do the coordination.
We anticipate the provincial registry will cost approximately $4 million. And $1 million this year is budgeted for rolling out the first pilots at the early-years centres, the hubs. The difference of that is work that's at the beginning in the quality improvement area.
M. Karagianis: Of that $6 million lift, no actual dollars are going into child care provision for families. They are all going into things like offices and system supports,
[ Page 526 ]
but no actual money going in.
New child care spaces will be created starting next year. Child tax benefit for families kicks in, in 2016. So in reality, the current state that we are in where we are woefully under-resourced for child care is going to continue for some time.
May I ask a couple more questions here? I am noting the time. I do want to talk a little bit about domestic violence.
I just wanted to ask a question here about what the timeline is, then, in implementing the early-years strategy. I know back in February the minister commented about the necessity for the government to increase services for young children, to implement the early-years strategy, to offer more convenient access to up-to-date child care and early childhood development — and there's a quote.
I'd like to know exactly how long this isgoing to take. It seems that so much of this implementation still pushes real child care spaces and affordable, accessible child care for working families out more years into the future. So how long is the early-years strategy going to take to be implemented?
Hon. S. Cadieux: I would not categorize a $258 million spend on child care this year as nothing. That is our spend on child care this year, plus the $6.1 million of new money in terms of organizing and building the capacity to move forward with the broader early-years strategy.
That strategy is an eight-year, cross-ministry framework, which was announced in February. It's guided by the goals of improving accessibility, quality and affordability of early-years programs and services for children aged zero to 6, and it includes strategies specific to the Ministry of Children and Family Development as well as the Ministries of Education, Health, and Finance.
The strategy that was announced comes along with the additional $76 million over the first three years of the implementation — the $6.1 million this year, $17.7 million in 2014 and $52 million in 2015 — as well as the $146 million tax benefit to families that will come into place in 2015.
M. Karagianis: I'm going to probably, noting the time, move on to a different section. It does strike me that if we are currently meeting less than 20 percent of the need of working families for child care…. The subsidy is completely inadequate for the growing cost of child care. Families are facing a crisis every day.
I am concerned that there does not seem to be, once again, a focus by this government on child care as a significant component of the jobs plan, never mind of children and family services. If we're sincere about creating more jobs in the future, we've got to have more child care space to go with it, and it has got to be affordable.
I don't have any confidence in what I see in this current fiscal plan that dollars are going towards new child care spaces. I see that dollars are going towards offices and registries and things that are all very valuable, but the government is not new at child care provision. Those things should have been an integral part of what government has been providing for a number of years.
The government itself has admitted that their own internal data is inadequate. So it would seem to me that the registry and wait-lists and all of those things that families know about, the government has failed to provide. I see that there is still a crisis in child care for most working families in British Columbia, and I don't see any relief in the near future. Most of these plans are so far out that it doesn't affect families looking for work today.
However, because we only have a short time here, I would like to ask some questions about domestic violence. I know, from the briefing, I was informed that there would be a $1 million lift for domestic violence. I would just like to ask a couple of questions, if I may, about that.
The report that was done by the Representative for Children and Youth on the Christian Lee case called for integrated domestic violence teams. Those, to the best of my knowledge, have not been implemented.
The $1 million that is being put forward at this point — can the minister explain what the $1 million is for? Can she give me an update on the integrated teams and perhaps just inform the House a little bit more on what exactly the plan is for fighting domestic violence here in this service plan?
Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member will be aware, I'm sure, in March of 2012 the provincial office of domestic violence was established to be the permanent lead for government in assuming responsibility for coordination and collaboration across government for an improved systemic approach to domestic violence to strengthen the services and supports for children, women, men and families affected by domestic violence.
It is situated here in MCFD. However, it is the lead for the provincial government in ensuring that all of our provincial policies, programs and services relating to domestic violence are effective and delivered in a comprehensive and unified way. It's responsible for reporting out, monitoring and evaluating the responsiveness and effectiveness of government policies, initiatives and training regarding domestic violence, and is responsible for engaging, consulting and collaborating with the community partners.
As such, there was a budget lift this year of $878,000 to support the office and the eight staff that are in the office doing that work.
The PODV was tasked with creating a comprehensive three-year plan that is inclusive of an aboriginal strategy
[ Page 527 ]
and to address the unique needs of immigrant and refugee women and women with disabilities. That plan, that three-year integrated plan, is scheduled to be available or finished in the fall.
M. Karagianis: Did the minister address my question about the integrated teams not being implemented? Could she please address that?
Hon. S. Cadieux: I was taking notes in too many places. There are four integrated teams in place at this point in time: Vancouver, Victoria, Abbotsford and New Westminster.
M. Karagianis: Are they fully functioning? Are they fully resourced? Is it this ministry that will be tracking and providing information on those teams?
Hon. S. Cadieux: The integrated teams involve police and community-based victim services, and as such, the Ministry of Justice funds those areas and therefore has responsibility for setting up the teams. However, certainly in Victoria the team does include a child welfare representative, which is funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
The role of the provincial office of domestic violence is to work in partnership with Justice to monitor and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of these teams, looking at how many women and children receive services and what the outcomes are.
C. James: Just a question to come back again to an issue with the minister. I know we're getting close to our closing time. But just to come back to a question we talked about on the very first day of estimates…. It was the issue of contracted services and the wage lift — that agencies are now having to find resources. We talked about the amount. The minister said that roughly, it'll be $8.5 million in this ministry that will have to be found and will have to be cut from budgets.
The minister said that the ministry was willing to work with agencies that were having challenges. At that point, we were talking about the agency in Kelowna, the Boys and Girls Club. The minister said that the ministry was going to go in and assist.
We're now seeing the John Howard Society, agencies in Kamloops and agencies in Prince George that are coming forward. I know a central meeting is going to be held, coming up. I just wondered if the minister had taken a look at the pressures that are starting to arise. Is the ministry actually going to meet with every individual association to determine how these savings can be found without any additional reductions in services?
Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, we are. As I mentioned in those discussions we had on the first day of estimates, we don't have a centralized contract management system or the ability to work centrally on that. So we do need to go out and actually talk to our 6,000 contracted service delivery agencies. We are going to work with all of them. We believe there's actually a real opportunity to find savings and secure the ongoing stability and sustainability of the social service sector through this.
We are all trying to get to the same place. We want to deliver the critical services up front. We want to do that in the most efficient way possible. We want the employees to get the wage increases. We know that we can find savings between ministries and agencies to fund the wage increases in the intermediate and longer term.
That said, I completely recognize it wouldn't be productive to fund the wage increases simply by passing that challenge on to the agencies themselves. We believe that the savings can be found between ministries and between ministries and contracted agencies and between the agencies themselves, and we're going to work collaboratively with them to find those savings.
C. James: Just to make a couple of closing remarks. I'm presuming the minister will want to as well. I know there are a couple of areas that we didn't have the opportunity to be able to canvass, so I'll just throw out a couple of questions, and we can get follow-up information later from the ministry and from the minister.
One is youth justice. We see that there's a drop in the youth justice budget related to federal funding, a reduction in federal funding for young offenders. I wondered if I could get information on what impact it will have in British Columbia to see that reduction in funding and how the ministry is going to deal with that loss of funding.
Then there was also a discussion around the number of children in custody — that those numbers have been dropping. I'd also like some information from the ministry about whether they have been considering closures of any of the youth custody centres. I think that would be information to gather.
Then just in summary, I think it's interesting…. I want to say thank you, first, to the minister and to the ministry staff for very thorough estimates. It's a great deal of detail, I know, that I've asked for and a great deal of information. I appreciated the willingness to engage in those questions and in that discussion. As I said at the start, this is certainly a critical ministry and core, in my view, to government and the work that government does.
I think there are some huge challenges ahead. As critic, I look forward to being whatever support I can to provide services for children who need them but to also be that voice when I feel that there are services that are not being provided. I have a great deal of concern, after finishing up our estimates, about the pressures the ministry
[ Page 528 ]
is facing and the lack of resources that are going to be there to address it.
We talked about residential redesign needing new resources. We talked about the ministry saying that they were going to develop five regional sites with four to six youth beds for youth mental health. We talked about increasing pressure in population growth with children; increased caseload for front-line staff that was going to be addressed; autism supports — which is, again, demand-driven, not something that the ministry can put a cap on; new care plans. We talked about work with aboriginal communities.
If you take into account all of those pressures, basically what we have and what we've discussed in estimates is a flatline budget, with a reduction, on top of that, of contracted services of $8.5 million, and then core review on top of that.
I take the minister at her word that she is going to be an advocate for programs and services that need to happen, and I will look forward to being one of those strong voices there to advocate as well.
Thank you, again, to the minister, and thank you to the staff.
Hon. S. Cadieux: As well, I'd like to make some brief closing remarks — firstly, to thank the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and the other members who participated in the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I think there was a lot of ground covered, and certainly lots more that I'm sure could be covered.
I acknowledge fully that these are challenging times. There are lots of challenging issues in this ministry on an ongoing basis and ones that are time-specific. Certainly, I am committed to working very, very collaboratively in making sure that we find the solutions that we need to.
I would like to thank my deputy, Mark Sieben, who has been a great support, and, of course, the entire executive team, who have been here to support me through this process. I know it takes a lot of people behind the scenes, as well, to prepare for these estimates and to do the work on a daily basis. I'd like to thank the rest of the people in the ministry who have had a hand in supporting me through this process.
Lastly, I'd like to thank very much the ministry staff, who work very hard every day to support the vulnerable children in this province. I know the members opposite will support me in that thanks as well. They do a terrific job.
With that, thank you very much.
Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,345,039,000 — approved.
Hon. S. Cadieux: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:59 a.m.
The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, 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. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.
The committee met at 10:06 a.m.
On Vote 29: ministry operations, $36,135,000.
Hon. T. Wat: Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the opposition, Members, and my colleagues in the ministry.
It is my honour to present the 2013-14 spending estimates for the Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism. Before I begin, I would like to introduce my deputy minister, Sandra Carroll, and CFO Murray Jacobs of the management services division.
One of B.C.'s greatest strengths is diversity. Now more than ever that applies to our shared economy as well. The key to stability and shared prosperity over the long term is an economy that is balanced and diversified. That is why we launched the B.C. jobs plan.
The B.C. jobs plan is about building on our advantages — our proximity to the biggest markets on the globe, our diverse population, our sound fiscal fundamentals. That approach forms the foundation of our new ministry.
My ministry is working to support and encourage a
[ Page 529 ]
mix of trading and investment partners so that setbacks in some markets can be offset by gains in others. We must leverage our many family, cultural and business connections to countries across the Pacific and around the world to strengthen our trade relationships, attract new investment and create and protect jobs for British Columbians.
Now is the time to seize the opportunity to market ourselves as never before as a preferred destination for international investment. To increase trade and attract investment, we are establishing a network of deeper relationships in some of the world's fastest-growing economies.
To help cement those relationships, Premier Christy Clark has led two major trade missions to Asia. Last September she took part in the World Economic Forum in China. We are now in the planning stages of a 2013 trade mission to Asia.
We have already met our jobs plan commitment of doubling our international presence. We have doubled the number of trade and investment representatives, mostly in Asia but also in the U.S. and in Europe, as we protect and strengthen our strong relationships with existing trading partners. We recently opened our new offices in Mumbai and Chandigarh in India, and now have a new Hong Kong trade and investment operation.
This enhanced international trade and investment network helps our companies sell their goods and services around the world. Our representatives promote B.C. as a destination for investment and for companies looking for the perfect place to locate their North American headquarters. This strategy will ensure that we meet our goal of securing five new Asian head offices in B.C. by 2020.
Our geographical proximity to the Asia-Pacific is not our only competitive advantage. Our cultural diversity is vitally important in creating a strong and vibrant social and economic future for B.C. We must build on this advantage to strengthen our trade relationships in emerging markets, attract new investment into our economy and create and protect jobs for British Columbians.
Our multicultural community is a competitive advantage and an important bridge across the Pacific. I know if we work together to connect B.C. with the unprecedented opportunities in new and established markets, we will emerge from this decade as winners on the world stage.
I'd be happy to receive comments, remarks and questions from members of the Legislature.
B. Ralston: Perhaps we can just confirm that we're dealing with Vote 29, and there's no other vote in these estimates.
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, that's correct.
B. Ralston: I want to begin first by congratulating the minister on her appointment. I know she brings a background that will assist her in her duties, as will, I think, her work with radio station 1320. This is, as I understand it, a multicultural radio station broadcasting in Mandarin and Cantonese and on the weekends in a variety of European and non-European languages. I want to begin by congratulating the minister on that.
I'm sure the minister will agree that that is her background. Checking the website this morning, the website describes the minister's responsibilities and her biography. I note that the website, which lists brief biographies of cabinet ministers, says she is "the president and CEO of Mainstream Broadcasting CHMB AM 1320." It goes on to talk about some previous experiences.
I know the minister will have met with Mr. Fraser, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. It would appear to me, arguably, that continuing as the CEO and president of the radio station, which is an ethnic radio station, at least on the surface may be an apparent conflict with her role as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism.
Can the minister confirm whether or not Mr. Fraser has cleared her to remain as the president and CEO of Mainstream Broadcasting Corporation?
Hon. T. Wat: I had already resigned from my position as the president and CEO of the multicultural radio station AM 1320 before I took up my position as the MLA and also as the minister.
B. Ralston: Clearly then, the website…. This is a $43 billion operation. She has a director of communications. It seems to me a rather glaring omission in her biography if she's no longer the president. Surely the public is entitled to know that.
Can the minister explain why the public face of her biography on the Premier's website still lists her as president and CEO of Mainstream Broadcasting?
Hon. T. Wat: Thank you to the hon. member for bringing this up. That was the biography I brought to the Liberal party when I was running for the MLA candidacy. Clearly, we have to update the website.
B. Ralston: Well, part of the problem with the previous Minister for Multiculturalism was blurring the line between the Liberal party and government responsibilities. That doesn't appear to have changed here.
I think the minister owes the public an apology. When the website, which one goes to…. Often in these sessions one is referred to the website as the authoritative statement of the government's position. Her biography lists her still as being the president and CEO. So can she tell the House when she resigned her duties and if she retains any residual business interest in the station?
Hon. T. Wat: I took a leave of absence when I was run-
[ Page 530 ]
ning for the candidacy. Then I resigned a few days before I was sworn in as the MLA, but I can't remember the exact date at this stage.
B. Ralston: Does she retain any residual business interests, such as an equity position, with the company?
Hon. T. Wat: No.
B. Ralston: Can the minister advise the House what advice the conflict commissioner gave her to guide her future dealings with radio station CHMB 1320, given that she was the president and CEO of the company and, as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, will doubtlessly have contact with that station in her capacity now as a public figure?
Hon. T. Wat: I just want to make sure, once again, that I have no interest, no equity — nothing. I have no connections with AM 1320 after I resigned from my position.
AM 1320, this multicultural radio station, is just one of the many, many multicultural stakeholders in the community. Since I've been working in the media field in the community for so long, I know particularly many of the stakeholders, including Fairchild radio and television, Omni, Sing Tao, Ming Pao, World Journal and the others like RCCS, SUCCESS, CCC, CBA — a whole lot of other community organizations.
I am fully aware of the conflict between communication, Multiculturalism Minister and my duties, so I'm really clear about the conflict of interest there.
B. Ralston: What advice did the conflict commissioner himself give the minister to guide her future dealings with the radio station that she was formerly the president and CEO of?
Hon. T. Wat: I just want to remind the hon. member that I have resigned from the radio station. I have no interest in the radio station, no equity — nothing. And may I remind the hon. member that we are here today to debate this year's budget.
B. Ralston: We're also here to debate ministry operations and the ongoing relationship between this ministry and a number of media stakeholders. I'm interested in what specific advice the conflict commissioner gave the minister to guide her future dealings with radio station 1320.
As the minister knows, in section 2 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act there's concern not only about an actual conflict of interest but a perceived conflict of interest. Having just left the position as president and CEO may very well be a perceived conflict of interest, particularly if the ministry were, for example, to place advertising — advertising various multicultural programs with this station.
I'm interested in the advice that the minister received from the conflict commissioner to guide her dealings with that radio station in the future.
Hon. T. Wat: As I said before, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is fully aware that I resigned from my position, and he did not raise any concern. He knew that I had resigned from the radio station. I have no further responsibility, no connection, no interests, no equity, no shareholders in the radio station.
B. Ralston: Is the minister, then, saying that the conflict commissioner did not provide the minister with guidance about her future dealings with the radio station or the ministry's future dealings with the radio station, particularly in regard to advertising placed by the ministry?
Given that it's a multicultural station, given that the minister is responsible for Multiculturalism, it's not difficult to imagine that there may be circumstances where this ministry places advertising related to ministry programs on radio stations. Did the conflict commissioner provide guidance on that subject or not?
Hon. T. Wat: The Conflict of Interest Commissioner has not provided me any guidance on any specific issues, because my ministry has not come across any advertising in the multicultural media. But our discussion with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is an ongoing process. If there comes a time when there's a specific conflict of interest, I would certainly consult with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on what I should do.
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that assurance. I note in page 115 of the estimates in the description of the Multiculturalism voted appropriation, the subvote says: "Programs and services include public education." Usually, public education is a euphemism for advertising. Can the minister advise whether the branch has placed advertising with this station in the past?
Hon. T. Wat: As far as I know. My staff advises me that the Multiculturalism Ministry has not placed any advertisement on AM 1320.
B. Ralston: I thank the minister for answers on that issue. It's something I expect that we will discuss again in the future. As I say, I do note in the subvote there's a reference to public education.
I want to turn now to the "International trade and investment attraction," so-called, appropriation. Can the minister explain the somewhat, to a first glance, disjoint-
[ Page 531 ]
ed structure of the ministry?
I understand this ministry or this function has been reorganized approximately once every 18 months over the last 30 years. One of the problems in the ministry, or the function of international trade, has been a number of entities working not always in harmony and not always to the same end, overlapping jurisdictions and competing priorities.
Can the minister explain the rationale of the structure of the ministry? For example, the minister has made reference to trade missions in the website. One can understand, from our previous discussion, that they're not necessarily authoritative. The item "trade missions" is listed as being a ministerial responsibility of the Ministry of Jobs and whatever else goes with it. Yet in the "Message from the Minister and Accountability Statement" in the service plan: "Annual ministerial trade missions will continue to promote B.C.'s competitive advantages, natural resources and other offerings."
Can the minister explain how it is that the ministerial responsibility, at least in the description of the divisions among ministries, is allocated to the Ministry of Jobs, yet the minister in her message speaks of trade missions? Can she explain how that works?
Hon. T. Wat: The Minister of International Trade leverages the success we have had with diversifying our markets. Our Asia-Pacific strategy is a key to that expansion, and a separate ministry provides additional focus and opportunities. The addition of multiculturalism to this ministry showcases the diverse business and culture that we have in our province.
We in the Ministry of International Trade work with all government ministries, including the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, to facilitate the delivery of trade missions. And trade missions are very crucial in creating and protecting high-paying jobs for B.C.
B. Ralston: Well, unfortunately, your reciting that statement doesn't really answer the question, so I'll repeat it.
I think we'll get along a little bit better here, and more expeditiously, if the minister directs her answers to the questions that I ask. I find that's always very helpful.
The trade missions responsibility is listed as being part of the Ministry of Jobs. Yet this minister in her accountability statement — and I stress "accountability" — speaks of annual ministerial trade missions. So what is the division of responsibility between those two ministries?
I'm proffering this as an example of the somewhat disjointed way in which international trade is dealt with by the government as a result of yet another reorganization of this dysfunction — creating, this time, a separate ministry. Can the minister explain the division of responsibilities when "trade missions" is listed in the ministerial responsibilities as being with Jobs, yet the minister speaks in her "Message from the Minister" about annual trade missions?
Hon. T. Wat: Our Premier has decided to create a separate Minister of International Trade and for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism because it has been proven in the last decade that trade and investment are very crucial for our economic prosperity. We are an open, small and competitive economy. Only by diversifying our export markets and attracting more investment can we then create more high-paying jobs for the average British Columbian. That's why we are a separate Ministry of International Trade.
We work with other ministries to facilitate an annual ministerial trade mission, a Premier's trade mission to Asia-Pacific or to the rest of the world. We have our overseas offices in our priority markets. They provide on-the-ground expertise. They are providing a lot of information for our potential export business people so that we can increase our trade and we can diversify our export markets. We have been working successfully, and that's why it needs the attention of a separate minister for this file.
B. Ralston: Once again, no answer to my question. Let me try it this way, then.
The trade mission that the Premier undertook to China and India last November — it was reported that it cost $614,000. Will the budget supporting future trade missions come from the Ministry of Jobs — because in the ministerial responsibilities it says "trade missions" — or will it come from this ministry in this voted appropriation? That may be a simpler way of putting it.
I'm really not interested in getting talking-point answers. I'm interested in an answer to the question.
Hon. T. Wat: The majority of the trade mission costs are covered by our ministry, international trade and investment attraction support.
B. Ralston: Can the minister advise, then? She's spoken of a trade mission that's already underway. I understand the first stop will be Japan. Can the minister advise: what is the budget for that trade mission? What are the destinations? What is the duration and all the other detail in terms of who is going and what support staff will be going?
Hon. T. Wat: The planning for the Premier's coming visit to Asia will happen in the fall. We are planning it right now. The Premier's trip is going to happen in the fall. It's still in the planning stage, and I do not have any specific details to tell the hon. member.
I want to remind the hon. member that the course of a
[ Page 532 ]
trade mission depends on a number of factors, including the length of a mission, the number of destinations, the number of events, etc. As part of the planning of a mission, our ministry will obtain estimates for all the trade mission–related costs. Based on that, we will develop a budget estimate.
B. Ralston: In the "Message from the Minister and Accountability Statement" in the service plan on page 3, it says, "Annual ministerial trade missions will continue to promote British Columbia's competitive advantages, natural resources and other offerings," which I don't disagree with, just for the record.
I'm interested in…. Since we are debating in Vote 29 the voted appropriation for international trade and investment attraction, there's a budget of $15.065 million. Is the budget for…? There must be a budget, at least prospectively.
I can appreciate that the minister doesn't want to reveal the details of the trip. I understand from a reliable source that the first stop will be Japan. The minister probably doesn't want to confirm that. If she wants to deny that, I would be interested in that too. But that's beside the point.
There must be a budget. It's spoken of annual trips. There must be a budget in the three-year fiscal plan. So what is the budget for these items? I grant that there may not be specific detail about this particular trade mission.
The minister seems to be saying that it's going to come from her ministry. So what is the allocation in the budget to expend on trade missions coming in the next year? That's a legitimate question, totally within Vote 29, and I'd appreciate an answer.
Hon. T. Wat: A total of $750,000 has been notionally allocated for the Premier's and minister's trade mission for this fiscal year. As I said earlier, while we are developing the trade mission for the Premier, we will come out with a budget as we are getting nearer to the trade mission. Right now at this stage we are still in the planning stage, and I cannot confirm any details.
B. Ralston: Well, thank you for that answer. That's a little bit clearer.
Can the minister, then, confirm that the time horizon for the trade mission that's proposed is sometime this fall? Last year there was one in November. Given that it's highly unlikely that there'll be a fall session, I expect it will be sometime in the fall. Can the minister confirm what time frame is being looked at in terms of planning this particular trade mission?
Hon. T. Wat: As I said earlier, we are still in the planning stage for the Premier's trip to Asia in the fall. There are a number of events and activities we are looking at in Asia to time with the Premier's trip so that we can make the maximum benefit of the Premier's trip to Asia.
We will avoid certain holidays in Asia. For example, in China, as I'm sure the member of the opposition is fully aware, October 1 is a national holiday. They're having one week of national vacation. Then before and after that, there's hardly any business being done in China. So we'll try to avoid that time frame as well. That's why we are looking at many factors in organizing and preparing for the Premier's trip to Asia.
B. Ralston: Just to confirm, then, it will be a trip to Asia. It will not be to Europe; it will not be to Latin America. It will be to Asia. Is that correct?
Hon. T. Wat: The focus of the Premier's trip in the fall this time is in Asia.
B. Ralston: Thank you for confirming that it won't be a trip to other emerging markets in Latin America or in Europe, where there are many investment opportunities that other countries and provinces are aggressively pursuing.
Can the minister, then, confirm? She spoke, in her opening, of opening new offices in Mumbai, Chandigarh and, I believe, Hong Kong. Can the minister advise what the business case was for opening a business office in Mumbai?
Hon. T. Wat: Mumbai is the business capital of India and has many large multinational corporations there. If we want to be successful in our trade and investment with India, we have to have a presence in Mumbai.
B. Ralston: Well, once again, it didn't really answer the question. Can the minister advise what the annual cost of the office in Mumbai will be? How many staff are employed there? Are they B.C. government employees? Are they local hires? Are they hired as permanent employees, or are they contracted employees?
Hon. T. Wat: We share an office in Mumbai with the federal government, and we have six contractor staff in the Mumbai office, with a total budget of $740,000.
B. Ralston: So that $740,000 is coming out of the voted appropriation entitled "International trade and investment attraction."
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, that's correct.
B. Ralston: Can the minister advise whether these are Canadian citizens, or are they local hires, firstly? And secondly, are they permanent employees of the ministry, or
[ Page 533 ]
are they contract employees?
Hon. T. Wat: They are all local contracted staff. They are local contractors, I should say.
B. Ralston: As the minister will know or as her advisers will tell her, there is an ongoing debate about the efficacy of contract employees versus permanent employees. If a contract employee leaves, generally they take all their knowledge and contacts with them, and the intellectual property and accumulated networks that are built up tend to disappear when the contract employee leaves.
What is the policy in effect now in terms of how employees are engaged at trade missions, or is there one? I understand that in the past directions have been very ambivalent and confused, depending on the location and on the political directions of government.
Hon. T. Wat: All the contractors in our overseas office, including Mumbai, have three-year contracts to allow some stability for our staff.
In addition to that, we do have our own staff in our ministry. They have an ongoing relationship with our contractors in the field to ensure that they are doing the right job and that we have all the business connections in the Vancouver office as well.
B. Ralston: Who directs the six contract employees in the Mumbai office?
Hon. T. Wat: We have a contractor manager in our Vancouver office to direct all the resources and the management of our contractors in Mumbai.
B. Ralston: The minister mentioned opening a new office in Chandigarh. This is an issue that my former colleague, now ex-MLA, Jagrup Brar pursued for some time. As the minister may be aware, a promise was made at the Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade during the 2009 election campaign that an office would be opened in Chandigarh. In fact, a trade office was not opened initially, and it was an office to administer the PNP program.
I understand that — and the minister can choose to confirm or deny this — that operated out of the private residence of the individual contractor. So the minister can…. Apparently, this office is now opened, as promised back at the Vancouver Vaisakhi Parade in the election campaign.
I would suggest the motivation for opening this office is not a pure business case. Can the minister confirm, then, when the office was opened formally, its address in Chandigarh and the number of people who are employed there and their names?
Hon. T. Wat: We have one individual who is our contractor that is working in the Canadian High Commissioner's office in Chandigarh. As for the name of this particular individual, we'll have to get back to the hon. member.
B. Ralston: I just want to confirm that it's a single person operating out of the Canadian high commission. Is that right?
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, there is one individual. But I'd like to emphasize that this individual gets all the support from our Vancouver office, the manager who oversees our overseas trade presence, and this particular person also leverages the resources from the Canadian high commission office.
B. Ralston: Then I just want to confirm that this person is a contractor. When did this office open, and when did this person's contract commence? If the two are not the same date, could the minister please provide both dates?
Hon. T. Wat: The office was opened in December 2012. The individual's name is Charu Sandhu Walia. As for the start day of her contract, I have to get back to the hon. member.
B. Ralston: What is the value of that contract in terms of what is paid monthly?
Hon. T. Wat: The total contract value in Chandigarh is $117,000. Some of the expenses we have to give back to the high commissioner for certain charges. As for further breakdown, if the hon. member would like to have a further breakdown, we need to come back to you.
B. Ralston: I'd ask the minister undertake to provide that to me in writing by the end of this session — that is July 25. Will the minister please confirm that on the record?
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, we will do that.
B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm that in late 2012 — and I would understand that the ministry and its network would still be absorbing the impact of this political direction — a direction was given to double the numbers from 30 persons overseas to 65? Can the minister confirm that that was done and that these locations are still absorbing the impact of that direction?
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, we have successfully doubled our international trade and investment representatives all over the world. We have 11 offices. Let me read out the
[ Page 534 ]
offices: Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Bangalore, Mumbai, Chandigarh, London and California.
B. Ralston: Will the minister confirm that a simple political direction as part of the politically motivated jobs plan was given and no business case analysis was done in order to justify opening these offices and simply doubling them? That was a political direction: get some more people on the ground.
Can the minister confirm that that was the way the…? I don't fault anyone in the section. Certainly, there was political direction given, I'm advised, and it was a simple direction to double the number of people on the ground. No business case analysis took place.
Hon. T. Wat: The bulk of our increase is in Asia because this government sees the importance of the emerging markets in Asia. Ten years ago we started doing business with China and diversifying our export market, and today we have seen a 500 percent increase in B.C.'s exports to China. Now India is an emerging and growing economy that we have to focus on. That's why the bulk of our increases are in Asia.
We carefully select our location to justify why we need to have our international presence there. As for U.S. and Europe, we do have an increase over there because that's our traditional base and we see some business leads and also investment opportunities in these two — in the E.U. and also in the U.S.A. That's why we also increase our international presence there.
B. Ralston: Can the minister provide a dollar amount of the cost of the so-called doubling of the representatives from 30 to 65, and will the minister also confirm that that was paid last year from contingency, not from the ministry budget?
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, last year's expenses were funded from the contingency.
B. Ralston: Could the minister also give the dollar amount? This is estimates, and I'm interested in the dollar amount.
Hon. T. Wat: Last year's contingency funding is from the jobs plan funding. It's totaling around $11,000 million.
B. Ralston: I think that's the British way of expressing it. So $11 million — is that what the minister means?
Hon. T. Wat: Yes, it's $11 million.
B. Ralston: And this increment, then, is reflected in the figure of $15 million in the voted appropriation for international trade and investment attraction? That increase would appear to be the bulk of the expenditure in this area this year. Is that correct?
Hon. T. Wat: Funding for the expansion is still within the contingency. Contingency access for jobs plan funding has been approved, and overall contingency is managed by the Ministry of Finance. This allows us more flexibility for government as a whole, as the jobs plan expenditure can vary. This is good fiscal management because we only get the money that we need.
B. Ralston: Well, that's an interesting question that I'm sure the Auditor General would be interested in.
So the minister is saying that an ongoing, permanent program of the government, run by this ministry, is being funded deliberately out of contingency when it is not genuinely contingency because it is planned for, was spent for last year and is going to be spent in coming years? Is that the minister's position on this issue?
Hon. T. Wat: Yeah, as I said, contingency access for the jobs plan funding has been approved. We access contingency because that provides flexibility for fiscal management as the situation changes.
Overall, contingency is managed by the Ministry of Finance. As I said, this allows more flexibility for the government, as the jobs plan expenditure can vary. Our extra expenditures are reflected in the public accounts.
B. Ralston: Well, it is, I would suggest, an unorthodox way to budget. It's not a genuine contingency; it's an ongoing expenditure of this ministry that's known and contemplated. These offices are open and have budgets.
I can appreciate that the minister is subject to the political whims and directions of the jobs plan and the Premier. Obviously, maximum political flexibility is desired, but I would suggest that this is not the way that one puts together a budget. I'm sure that, as I say, the Auditor General will be interested in the minister's explanation of this practice.
Can the minister advise if, in her trip in November 2012, the Premier was in Hong Kong?
Hon. T. Wat: Yes. To confirm the hon. member's reference, the Premier was in Hong Kong in 2012.
B. Ralston: Apparently, on this occasion, that's why the announcement was made to open an office in Hong Kong. It coincided with the political desire of the Premier to make that announcement during this trip to Hong Kong.
[ Page 535 ]
Will the minister confirm that the announcement to open an office in Hong Kong was made at the request of the Premier because it was considered politically desirable and that, in fact, no business case for opening an office there was ever completed?
Hon. T. Wat: Hong Kong, as the hon. member is well aware, is the focal point for mainland China investment capital and export development, as well as for the investment capital and export development for ASEAN countries. Hong Kong is geographically located to serve that purpose. That is why we have decided to expand our international trade presence in Hong Kong.
B. Ralston: Was that announcement made by the Premier when she was in Hong Kong in November of 2012?
Hon. T. Wat: The Premier made the announcement in September, not November, of 2012.
B. Ralston: Can the minister confirm, then, what the cost of the Hong Kong office is and confirm that it is being funded not from the ministry's budget but from contingency? How much is that expenditure from contingency on an annual basis?
Hon. T. Wat: The total contract value is $916,000, and we have four contractors. It is a blended budget. A portion of it comes from the contingency, and a portion of it comes from our ministry's budget.
B. Ralston: Is that an annual budget, then?
Hon. T. Wat: This $916,000 is for the current fiscal year. That is a part year for some of the staff. For the next fiscal year it will go up slightly, to $938,000.
B. Ralston: Can the minister give me the names of the four people who have those contracts?
Hon. T. Wat: The lead of our Hong Kong trade office is Brian Brown. As for the names of the other three contractors, we have to get back to the hon. member.
B. Ralston: I'd appreciate the minister's undertaking to provide those names in writing, together with the annual dollar value of their contracts. Can the minister also advise whether this office is co-located with any other province — say, Alberta or Saskatchewan? We hear a lot of talk about the new west agreement, and one would think there might be some opportunities there. Or is it co-located with Canada, or is it an independent office? If so, what is the street address in Hong Kong?
Hon. T. Wat: It is a stand-alone office, and I have to get back the address to the hon. member.
At this point I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Members, you've heard the question.
Those in favour?
Some Voices: Aye.
Some Voices: Nay.
The Chair: The ayes have it. We'll adjourn.
Point of Order
B. Ralston: Point of order. The adjournment motion was defeated five to four.
The Chair: I'll give the opposition the opportunity to ask one more question.
Debate Continued
B. Ralston: The minister mentioned opportunities in Asia. Will the minister confirm that there are longstanding business cases to open offices in both Singapore and Taiwan, but for political reasons the government has chosen not to proceed with opening those offices?
Hon. T. Wat: Currently our main focus is on the two emerging, fastest-growing economies in Asia — China and India. Having said that, our ministry is continuing to look at all the other cities in Asia. If we see that there is any justification for any business or export opportunities, we will definitely consider them.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); G. Hogg in the chair.
[ Page 536 ]
The committee met at 10:09 a.m.
On Vote 17: ministry operations, $171,265,000 (continued).
D. Eby: Yesterday we were discussing the area known as electoral area A, the area around the University of British Columbia and, in particular, the area governed by the province and administered in part by the University Neighbourhoods Association and the University Endowment Lands advisory committee.
My question to the minister related to consultation. In particular, when I say consultation, I'm talking about going out to the community to ask about their feedback on particular initiatives, whether they be transportation, governance or any other matter.
Can the minister advise on whether the province plans any consultation with the communities at UBC about how the province can better serve their needs at all? Let's just start with that — how the province can better govern the areas around UBC.
Hon. C. Oakes: By way of background, in the fall of 2010 the deputy minister and staff visited and met with the university — the UBC board of governors, the executive alumni, the community advisory and the University Neighbourhoods Association. The conclusion at that time was that there was a strong preference for status quo.
Since then, we continuously meet with the UELs, the community advisory group, on issues such as land use planning. Currently there is a consultation process that is going forward around land use planning.
D. Eby: Can the minister clarify which process is ongoing right now around land use planning?
Hon. C. Oakes: There are currently two rezoning processes in the works. The design review panel and the community advisory committee are actively involved in the review of one of the applications that has been submitted, and we are currently waiting for the other application.
D. Eby: The minister also listed — and I apologize, paraphrasing, if I misspeak — some kind of ongoing consultations that will be happening. Can the minister clarify whether these are consultations with residents by post, on line, through community meetings, or whether the minister is simply referring to talking to the University Endowment Lands or the advisory committee?
Hon. C. Oakes: There is a regular process of consultation and outreach. We have a fantastic manager, very knowledgable with the UEL, that meets with the community advisory committee. There is a newsletter that's produced. There is a website. There are face-to-face meetings. As well, there are accountability sessions currently with the greater committee.
D. Eby: That addresses, certainly, the University Endowment Lands. What about the University Neighbourhoods Association, the neighborhoods at the university?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for your question.
Currently when we talk about electoral A, the UBC Neighbourhood Association is actually outside the jurisdiction of this committee. It is a separate society based under the Society Act.
D. Eby: Just to clarify, then, the minister has no intention of consulting with the society at all?
Hon. C. Oakes: Just going back to what I previously stated, in the fall of 2010 we did do the consultations with that group. They, in fact, wanted it to remain status quo.
D. Eby: My final question, then, is that the minister is going to stand here and advise the thousands of people who live in the University Neighbourhood Association's area that she is relying on a three-year-old consultation as being sufficient for the next year. I just would like to clarify that on the record please.
Hon. C. Oakes: We are always open to consultation, and we're just waiting for the group to ask us. We have not yet heard from them.
D. Eby: Mr. Chair, the minister has made a liar of me. I do have one last question.
If the group wishes to ask, who in the minister's office should they approach to ask for the minister to come and consult with them about issues in that community?
Hon. C. Oakes: Please feel free to contact our office, and our deputy minister will direct to the right, correct individual.
G. Holman: One question for the minster regarding the governance study currently underway on Saltspring Island. My question is whether this year or in the budget forecast there are dollars set aside for incorporation studies, formal incorporation studies, in the province. And if Saltspring were to come forward and request funding for such a study, an incorporation study — that will depend on the recommendation of the current committee, as your staff is aware — would funding be available?
[ Page 537 ]
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the question. As we know, with local governments, currently we need to look at achieving consensus on this particular case. Consensus is often difficult, and it does take time. There is a process. Perhaps, if you'll allow me to, on twofold….
There is a particular branch that we have that does provide support. For the first step, what we're looking at is…. The purpose of the study is currently to review the current state of governance with factual, objective information and to identify the general differences between the rural and the municipal governments. This study responds to the requests from the local elected officials and the public to update the community's understanding of the current governance situation.
So I expect to receive a report from the committee. We're looking at getting a copy from the committee. Then, after the completion of this study and engagement on what the community makes of this information and of the level of interest and further exploring the possibility of governance change in the future, we're certainly open to that.
We do have a particular branch within our ministry that would support, once we get through those three stages, once we get to what the that consensus piece on governance looks like…. We have the governance and structure branch within this ministry that supports the work of local governments in the three main areas of advising: problem-solving on complex local, regional governance issues; overseeing the restructuring of local governments, including the municipal incorporations and boundary extensions; and supporting the building of productive relations between local government and First Nations.
We do have a branch that will support, once we get to that third stage, and there is funding that can be allocated once we get to that area.
G. Holman: Just to clarify in terms of timing, what's the timing of the report from the governance committee? When you speak of consensus, does that essentially come down to a recommendation from the current governance committee? Is that the group that you would be looking to for a recommendation? Is that what you would view as consensus of the community?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you again for the question and for your patience on this particular issue. There is a governance committee.
It advertised for volunteers, and we have three elected officials that participated in making sure that there was representation on that governance committee. We'd be happy to provide you with the terms of reference of that governance committee. As well, we could provide you with the workplan for that.
But it's important to note, again, that we will be consulting as well with the residents on what their wish is to move forward. It really is…. It's them leading what they wish to have, as we move forward on this. It depends on the governance committee. It's the work of the governance committee that'll set the tone of the timeline.
S. Robinson: I have some questions that were left over from yesterday. I would like the opportunity to ask the minister a question about the Auditor General for Local Government. I'm a little confused. I'd like just some clarity. Perhaps the minister could shed some light on the Auditor General for Local Government.
I understand that it's a different vote. I'm trying to track down under which set of estimates this budget will be explored, so I can ask some of my questions. If the minister could be so helpful, that would be really great.
Hon. C. Oakes: Currently the Auditor General for Local Government is a separate estimate, so it's under Vote 52. The scheduling of estimates is up to the House Leader, and we haven't been advised when that will be.
S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that, and I guess I'll check with my House Leader, when I can find him, when it's the best time to do that.
But I do have a question still related to that. I want to know if this ministry, then, is responsible for the mandate, if that's part of this ministry's responsibility, in terms of setting out the scope of work for the Auditor General for Local Government.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. The first thing: we'd be happy to set up a technical briefing. Currently the staff is located in Vancouver, so we'd be happy to work with you on setting up any kind of technical briefing that you would like.
I would like to read into the record that the Office of the AGLG does not report functionally to the government. It is instead overseen by a five-member audit council, and all the questions regarding AGLG operations really should be directed to that body.
S. Robinson: I really appreciate the response, because in a recent CBC radio interview the member for Delta North suggested that either the core review or perhaps the Auditor General for Local Government ought to be reviewing the budgets of regional districts: "Regional governments — that could be up for grabs. You have Metro Vancouver. You have regional governments here on Vancouver Island as well. I think the possibility could be expanding the mandate and looking at those too."
It goes on to say: "I'm not quite sure where the auditor for regional governments is going to go with her mandate, but wherever we can find efficiencies, we're going to look
[ Page 538 ]
for them and try to scrape them out."
I was just curious if that was something that this minister was going to do in terms of direction. But I appreciate the clarifying that it's a five-member audit and that it's not government that will be able to shift that. I appreciate hearing that here.
Those were my questions on that. I will, perhaps, take the minister up on a meet-and-greet and get a bit of orientation around that office.
I have some questions for Sport that I would like to ask. The first question I have is in trying to understand all of the different sport bodies and functions. I'm curious about….
I'll start with the B.C. Games Society. I checked on the website to learn about this Crown corporation. I noted that the terms of reference for the CEO were from 2008 to 2011 and that the remuneration for this position was $107,572. I just wanted to know what the current terms of reference are for this position, if it has changed over the last few years.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question and for now moving into Sport. That's great.
I'm pleased to note that the terms of reference for this position, which you have noted, have not been changed. The salary that was noted on the website, of approximately $107,000 — I don't know the exact specifics — has also not been changed. The only change that has happened is that the position description has been revised.
S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that information. I have a couple of other questions. I'm going to roll some of them up because I'm aware of the time, and I have a number of colleagues who have some questions as well.
I'm very interested in the $10 million for the sports half of the sports and arts legacy money used in 2012-2013. How was it used, and how is the money planned to be spent this year? What will the process be for allocating it? And where has the money been drawn from in the ministry to create this dedicated fund, if that has been the case?
As well, if I could just throw in, because I know in terms of time…. The Hosting B.C. grants — how much was provided to communities last year, and is this amount stable for the coming year?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the questions. We had several questions in there. Please bear with me, because I want to make sure that we provide you with the correct information.
So for the first piece on the $10 million, unlike other years in the budget, it was in contingency. We have been able to move the sports legacy funding as a base budget item, which provides a little bit more security moving forward. But if you will allow me — because one of the questions was the Hosting B.C. — it does remain stable.
Perhaps I'll give you a breakdown of where the money is going, just for information on the record. So $4.85 million goes into provincial sport organizations, and that supports the development of community coaches and officials, athletic insurance coverage, event hosting, training teams for high-level competition, and there's a lot of other information. There are 60-plus provincial sport organizations and disability organizations receiving funding.
Programming reaches over 650,000 individuals. Approximately 55 percent are children and youth. It supports roughly 4,000 clubs and teams in communities throughout British Columbia, and we're extremely proud of that. So that's the $4.85 million.
The Hosting program. There is $1 million for that program — $500,000 is for Hosting B.C., which is budgeted annually to support smaller international, national and provincial events throughout the province of British Columbia. Each year roughly 70 events in communities across the province have been supported.
We also have $500,000 for mid-sized events that are budgeted annually to support the larger, international and national events, such as the Olympic qualifiers for women's soccer, the International Children's Games and, of course, the 2014 Special Olympics Canada Games.
We have an after-school program, which we contribute $1 million out of this sports legacy fund. This is a new after-school sport and arts initiative, which supports after-school sports and arts programs in selected schools in 17 communities. The program is really targeted to kids who face barriers to participation — low-income, aboriginal, new immigrants or remote communities.
The community matching program provides free after-school sport and physical literacy programming at the children's schools and funding for equipment, training and programming. Funding partners also, on this particular fund, include the Canadian Tire JumpStart program. It's always great when we have a different partnership.
We have the KidSport program, which is $400,000. This is a government investment to help KidSport B.C. — 40 community chapters leverage private sector funding to assist more than 5,500 low-income children annually with the cost to help them play sports.
We contribute $500,000 of the aboriginal sport strategy, and this is to the Aboriginal Sports, Recreation and Physical Activity Partners Council, funding sport programs across six regions in British Columbia. It includes equipment grants for youth, the development of teams and leagues in communities and hosting provincial championships across the province.
We also contribute $1.95 million to the Canadian Sport Institute and regional training centres. This is
[ Page 539 ]
really part of the federal-provincial matching program to take Canada's Own the Podium program to the next level. British Columbia was the launch program for this particular initiative to move towards the creation of the Canadian Sports Institute. Victoria and Whistler were the first two locations selected by Canada.
There is $100,000 that goes to the local sports development grants. These are new programs which provide grants up to $2,000 to municipalities, aboriginal groups and not-for-profit organizations to really encourage the expansion of new sport opportunities within the community. Examples of this project's funding include a wheelchair tennis program in Surrey, Rocks and Rings curling in Merritt, adaptive skiing for people with autism in Vancouver, the New Totem Archery Club in Fort St. John and Pickleball for Everyone in Trail.
Finally, we provide $200,000 for Sport on the Move grants for high school championships. This is another new program that provides $200,000 annually to help offset the costs to families and students competing at high school championships. Since most championships are in the Lower Mainland region, financial assistance mostly helps schools in the north, Vancouver Island, Okanagan and Kootenays. That's what makes up the $10 million for the sports legacy fund.
J. Kwan: I am bringing forward an issue that has been brought to my attention by my constituent who is the coach of East Side Boxing Club. The minister might be familiar with the issue, because there have been many, many letters and e-mails flying back and forth around this.
The East Side Boxing Club, of course, is more than just a boxing club, as the minister may know through the correspondence that has been brought to her attention. It is a club, basically, that provides support and help to youth who are at risk, to aboriginal youth, to victims of domestic violence, and so on. They actually do it in a very unique way, in a different kind of way, in an East Van kind of way.
They do have a fundraising event, which is coming up on July 24, called Aprons for Gloves, which puts on a fundraising event each year to support the programs that they run for the club. They have gotten all the approvals, and so on, with the city of Vancouver through licensing, etc., etc. The latest development, is that the federal government has brought in Criminal Code changes in regulating mixed martial arts and kickboxing. There might well be some sort of ripple effect as a result of that if the provincial government decides to bring in regulation through order-in-council to regulate amateur boxing and combat sports.
My understanding is that since the correspondence has been brought to the minister's attention and to her ministry, there has been verbal confirmation, at least for this event, that the OIC, order-in-council, would not be brought forward, therefore impacting and making them having to cancel their event for July 24.
My first question to the minister is: could she please confirm that that is in fact the case? Then I have a follow-up question, of course, for thereafter.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for bringing that forward. I would like to confirm that the event for July 24 will not be impacted and that they can move forward with that event.
J. Kwan: Thanks for putting that on record. I know that the organizers would be pleased about that.
That said, going forward it does not mean, then, the issue has gone away. It's dealt with for July 24, for this upcoming event. But down the road, could the minister advise that she can also confirm that the ministry, or the government, will not be bringing forward OIC amendments impacting amateur boxing and combat sports? If they do, this problem will repeat itself.
Namely, the proposal, as I understand it, would be such that through the order-in-council, a person or body specified by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have to grant permission to whichever organization to proceed with their activities in the future. If that is the case, that would mean that they would therefore not be self-regulating anymore in amateur sports in this arena, but rather, they would need to seek permission from somewhere else. The minister, I can imagine, would understand what I'm talking about when the community raises the concerns to simply say that they did not wish to be governed in that way.
Could the minister please confirm that there will be no plans to proceed with any order-in-council impacting amateur boxing and combat sports?
Hon. C. Oakes: I'm certainly not a lawyer, so please excuse as I move forward.
The federal government recently had royal assent on Bill S-209 and modified section 83 of the federal Criminal Code of Canada. Under that, as of June 19 the federal government has given powers to the province on which sports to regulate. For example, currently, as of the royal assent of this bill, amateur kickboxing in Canada is currently illegal.
This is certainly something our province is grappling with right now. We want to make sure that we provide opportunities for these groups. As the MLA opposite, we understand how important these groups and organizations and the ability to put on events are to the province of British Columbia — for youth and for all of those participants.
Like every other province in Canada, British Columbia is currently looking at how we address that. That's what
[ Page 540 ]
we're doing as we move forward.
J. Kwan: As it happens, I'm not a lawyer either. Thank goodness for that, I think. As it happens as well, the MP Murray Rankin — who happens to be a lawyer, who happened to be in Ottawa at the time this bill was debated in parliament in Ottawa — has actually written to the minister indicating very clearly what the intent was when the amendment was brought forward.
I'm actually going to quickly read this letter into the record, if you will please indulge me. It says "Minister" by name, and then it says:
"I have been advised that the province is considering the regulation of amateur boxing and amateur wrestling, apparently on the basis of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada that were passed in parliament during the last session.
"As a Member of Parliament who participated in the debate on this amendment, I can advise that the legislative intent of the amendments was clearly to address the legality of mixed martial arts and kickboxing. I cannot recall any reference to amateur boxing or amateur wrestling.
"I understand that the amateur boxing community is concerned that your ministry may be considering amendments by which amateur boxers and wrestlers would have to first seek and obtain permission from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or a person or body specified by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to grant such permission. To date this province has not regulated amateur sports. Self-regulation appears to be effective.
"Although 'prizefighting' has been outlawed in Canada, a boxing contest between amateur sportsmen wearing gloves of a certain size was deemed not to be a prizefight. As mixed martial arts and kickboxing became popular in Canada, it was recognized that the old definition of a 'prizefight' would have to be changed if those participating in the sport were to avoid criminal prosecution.
"It was to accommodate mixed marital arts and kickboxing that the Criminal Code was changed, with section 83(2) being replaced. This amendment changes the definition of prizefight to include an encounter or fight with feet in addition to fists or hands, so as to include mixed martial arts and kickboxing.
"In my view, the notion that a contest between amateur athletes in a combative sport would be captured was not something that was contemplated.
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment."
"Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament, Victoria"
I think it would be wise to check with our federal colleagues, as well, to ensure that the intent of the legislation that was passed does not capture, I think, the arena that the province is now contemplating in bringing forward an OIC. I think that's really important.
The other thing, as well, is that in that process, if an OIC was brought forward to regulate the amateur boxing and combative sports area, that caution and care be exercised that you don't create a situation where an organization — another sports organization, let's say — would have, basically, the authority to either give permission or withhold permission for another similar sports organization to obtain regulation to do the activities that they engage in.
There is a submission that was passed on to the minister by Andrew Schuck, who is the coach of the East Side Boxing Club. The submission is entitled Regulation of Amateur Sport: A Necessity? It goes on at length about all the reasons why this is the wrong approach. I would urge the minister to take a look at that. I would also urge the minister to consult broadly with people in the field, the stakeholders. Specifically, I would ask the minister to give Mr. Schuck a call or contact him so that he can personally express his concerns to the minister with respect to this.
With that, I want to thank the minister for her time, and my colleague for lending me the space to raise this issue.
S. Robinson: I have a whole list of questions around sport. The fact that I have a number of colleagues who are wanting to ask their questions…. I thought I might just read them into the record and ask if the minister would be so kind as to provide the answers in writing before, perhaps, the House rises, so that I have the information that I need going forward. I would appreciate that, if that's at all possible. You can get your pens ready. I will list my questions off. I mean, you can always check Hansard later, I suppose.
I'm very interested to understand a little bit more about the B.C. combative sports commissioner. It's great to see the province take this on. I know that in Coquitlam we actually had to throw one together because we had an event. I'm interested to find out: how much is the budget for this office, how many paid staff will this entail, and will it cover all combative sports?
I'm also very interested in understanding about how some of the sports funds are divvied up among the various groups. I'm sure that it's probably oversubscribed in terms of the demands, so I'm curious about process. In particular, I'm interested in how much money is provided to male- and female-dominated sports. More importantly, and I suspect, because I've been seeing that there's been more balance…. I haven't seen a balance around male and female coaching and leadership in sport, so I'd be very interested to find out a little bit more about how that gets spread out.
Other questions that I have relate to aboriginal programs, aboriginal sport programs. The website notes, under aboriginal programs, that "the provincial government recently announced $1.5 million to the Aboriginal Sports, Recreation and Physical Activity Partners Council." Then it lists what those funds are for. It says "recently announced," but there's no date. I don't know if that's from two years ago, from last year, from this year. I'm interested to find out about when that announcement was, and is this the same as the northern sport strategy, which I read about as well? If they are the same programs, that's great — different names. If they're different, how are they different and who do they serve differently?
The ministry website also lists a number of partner organizations, and it notes that the partnership is direct or indirect. What's the distinction for the ministry? Which partners are funded directly? How much funding? What
[ Page 541 ]
are the expectations or outcomes expected as a result of this funding? And what does indirect support mean? I'm just trying to make sure that I understand exactly how we do that.
I have some other questions related to viaSport. I'm interested in understanding — I started reading that website a couple of days ago — how it's structured, how many staff it has. I've read a bit about its mandate, but I'd like to know how it's different from Sport B.C. I'm trying to grapple with that distinction and what the deliverables are for viaSport.
And the last question…. Well, actually, it's not the last question. I apologize. The B.C. School Sports program — is it funded by viaSport, and how was their funding changed over the years in terms of the school program?
Then I have questions about the service plan. Again, I found it very useful to go to the service plan to understand exactly the direction for this ministry. Goal 4 of the service plan — I think it might be goal 4: "A robust provincial sport sector that supports increased participation and athletic achievement." It lists a whole bunch of objectives.
The only measureable, the only performance measure, is the percentage of B.C. athletes on national teams, which will not measure that goal. I'd be interested to find out how the ministry will be measuring that goal of increased participation and athletic achievement. I'm assuming that's at all levels and not just at high-performance levels.
Those are my questions related to Sport. And if I could get that in writing from the minister before the House rises, that would be great.
I have one last comment that has to do with the Auditor General. I understand the Chair was going to permit some room to ask questions about the Auditor General and encourage ministry staff who are available to answer the questions. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
I'm curious about the budget for this office and how much of it is being contracted out. If anyone here has that information, I would be most grateful.
Hon. C. Oakes: I do have more information now on Vote 52, just to provide you with that information. The budget for that particular estimate is $2.6 million, and we contract out $650,000 for professional services.
S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister answering that question. I have a couple, and I'm actually just going to send them in writing because I have a number of colleagues who have a whole bunch of questions. Looking at the time, I guess we have about a half-hour, and I'd like to give them the opportunity, so I will be sending the rest of my questions by mail.
I appreciate the time that the minister has taken to answer my questions, and I guess I look forward to doing this all again in short order.
K. Corrigan: To the minister: congratulations. We haven't had a chance to chat yet.
I wanted ask a couple of questions about the light industrial class 5 tax. Now, I understand that that is primarily Ministry of Finance, but there is a B.C. Assessment Authority component, which falls within this ministry.
The light industrial class 5 tax was increased very significantly, apparently by a directive, I assume from the Ministry of Finance, in February. The municipal tie to it is that, of course, cities are required by the province to collect that tax on behalf of the province. This is the tax which is related to schools.
What happened this year…. I guess there was a directive in February that essentially is phasing out the credit that class 5 properties receive, and the outcome is a decrease from 60 percent to a 30 percent credit for the 2013 year and then a wiping out of the credit in 2014. It'll be removed completely then.
This has affected all sorts of light industry businesses in my community and around the province. What they are saying is that although there was a directive, certainly the businesses are telling them that they had no idea.
My first question is…. Maybe I'll string these together. We'll get what we can now, and then I'll let my colleagues ask some questions.
I would like to find out whether…. My understanding is that the original tax credit needed to be done by legislation, but what has happened here is that instead of simply phasing out the credit — which would have taken some kind of legislative action, perhaps an order-in-council — what has happened is that the province has instead doubled the assessments, doubled the tax payable, and then left the credit in place. The net result is the halving.
I'm wondering the reason why it was done that way. Was it to avoid legislation before the election? Or maybe there is some other credible explanation for that.
I would also like estimates on how much tax was being paid in 2012 in this class 5 and how much difference it's going to make in 2013 because of the elimination of the 30 percent credit, and also how much difference that will make in 2014.
Specifically, to this minister, I wonder whether the ministry was consulted on this, aware of this, because it certainly is affecting municipalities across the province.
I'm wondering as well whether this minister has heard from municipalities on this and what action the minister is taking in order to allay the concerns of municipalities. I'm very concerned about the light industry businesses in their community, which are being very negatively affected by this.
They say it happened without warning, and it's having a significant increase. I'm hearing various estimates. I haven't done the math, but certainly, one backgrounder
[ Page 542 ]
I read said that it was going to be, essentially, a tripling of that portion of their property tax.
I guess the question that perhaps the minister can answer now is about what the minister's involvement was, how the ministry was involved. Then the figures I'd be pleased to receive later, before the end of this session.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for your patience, and thank you for bringing this forward. It's great bringing that forward on behalf of the local governments. We appreciate that.
On the estimates for the taxes, if we may provide that to you in writing after that. On the question around the process of this, the Ministry of Finance is actually responsible for setting tax policy, and they do that through the budgetary process. Consultation is up to Finance on this particular one, but we are certainly aware, and I will certainly be bringing these comments forward to the Ministry of Finance.
K. Corrigan: I understand that the consultation would be through the Ministry of Finance. The question was: was the ministry and then minister…? You may not know this, but staff may know that. Was the ministry consulted? Were there discussions?
One aspect of it that I specifically mentioned was the fact that what looked like happened was the tax rate — I'm not sure about the assessment — was increased. Was that anything to do with this ministry? Then the other part: was the ministry consulted on this? Were there discussions about the impact it would have on municipalities?
Hon. C. Oakes: Again, thank you for the question.
There is a long tradition that the Ministry of Finance does not consult around the specifics of tax policy ahead of the budget, so I would defer these types of questions to the Ministry of Finance. But I would suggest that the Ministry of Finance does do a broad, general consultation out to communities in advance of them setting forward their policy.
R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions as the minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. I think the first question I'd like to ask the minister to comment on is around the Provincial Capital Commission's future. This is, of course, a Crown corporation that has existed under different names and different formats, really, since 1956, when W.A.C. Bennett created the Capital Improvement District. So it has a series of continuity through governments of all political stripes — Social Credit, NDP, B.C. Liberal.
It was subjected to a review when I was a director on it, as a municipal representative, in 2002. The mandate was changed by then Premier Gordon Campbell to focus on provincewide benefits and programming. The PCC went out and fulfilled that new or revised mandate. I know that they bring 35,000 visitors, school groups, per year to the legislative precinct, among many other things. All that is good.
I wanted to ask the minister what, under this budget, the PCC's future looks like. There's a lot of speculation that there's an imminent order-in-council that may give some direction on some changes to do with the Provincial Capital Commission. I just would ask the minister to maybe share what the future looks like while she's the minister responsible.
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you so much for bringing that question. This is a new ministry for me, but I absolutely have been thrilled to participate. It was great to see you at one of the Provincial Capital Commission's events. Thank you for coming. I apologize for learning the ropes and trying to get everyone's names and everything like that. Thank you for attending. It was great to see you.
I'm absolutely thrilled that I've had the ability to see some of the groups that have come forward, and I think they do great work. The 35,000 kids that you've talked about that come and celebrate the provincial capital is great. The change in the mandate will continue. To connect and celebrate will continue to be the core mandate of the Provincial Capital Commission, with all of British Columbia. I think that's great, because what an amazing province we live in. The capital here is something that we do want to share with everyone.
As you know, but I will read into the record, it is a self-financing entity. They operate through the revenues that they have.
R. Fleming: That's, I think, where I want to ask the next question. It is a self-sustaining Crown corporation. It has property that allows it to earn revenues that pay for all the programming, so there's no annual appropriation in the budgeting process required to operate the Provincial Capital Commission.
That being said, is the ability to be self-sustaining going to be maintained in this budget? As we know, one of the central budget assumptions sort of across government to achieve "balance," if I can put that in quotations, is selling an awful lot of property. The Provincial Capital Commission owns some very strategic, valuable property in the Inner Harbour and around the capital regional district. If those properties are sold for one-time revenues to give the illusion of balancing the budget, the Provincial Capital Commission, of course, will not achieve revenues and will no longer be self-sustaining.
Some of the properties that are owned include consolidated property on the Inner Harbour. The tourism information centre is hosted in a Provincial Capital
[ Page 543 ]
Commission–owned building. The Crystal Garden, which is now an annex to the trade and convention centre of Victoria is, again, owned and managed by the Provincial Capital Commission.
If I could just ask the minister: are those kinds of properties on the for-sale block of government?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. At this time we're not able to share our full list. From a financial perspective, it would not make any sense to compromise our market position on that. Supply drives demand, and properties for sale are listed on the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services website.
What I would say, as a public document, to provide you with a sense of where the Provincial Capital Commission…. The service plan for the Provincial Capital Commission has been posted, and it is business as usual, ensuring that we're able to continue the great work of connecting and celebrating the provincial capital.
R. Fleming: Well, I think what I'm hearing there is that almost anything within the PCC's property portfolio could be on the for-sale block. That is a significant concern, because there is history behind how those properties have been acquired. There is a reason for that. Government has a long-term strategic interest in holding many of these properties.
For example, we have an international ferry terminal here, called the Belleville terminal. It brings in a million annual visitors, is an important gateway to Vancouver Island for American visitors. It is in a derelict condition. The PCC received those properties. They were transferred from the federal government in good faith from Transport Canada to make something happen. There are 12 years where nothing has happened. It would be a shame to see the government try and sell properties, divested from the federal government, to the highest bidder instead of playing a development role — in that ferry terminal, for example.
I mentioned the property that's sometimes called the Milestones property, which hosts the tourism information centre. That's a strategic property on the Inner Harbour. And on and on it goes.
Some of these properties are parking lots. Given, that's not their highest and best use, but why would government not rezone those — create wealth, at the very least, and partnerships with the private sector, to foresee something better as opposed to selling them short in the immediate term to just grab one-time revenue and put it towards the budget? That would be a colossally bad mistake.
In fact, I think the PCC — and I'll ask the minister to comment on this question — should be allowed to be opportunity-driven and in some cases acquire new properties. I'll give her an example and ask her to comment on this. Craigflower School, which is just adjacent to my constituency, on Helmcken Road — the oldest schoolhouse in western Canada — was assumed by the Land Conservancy and has not been able to run successfully. It runs at a cost.
Government has nothing to do with it. Unlike many museums and cultural attractions, there aren't any tax dollars put towards that. However, the building is significant to our history. It's older than Canada is as a country and certainly B.C. is as a member of Confederation. I think government has an obligation to take a look at that.
So my question to her is…. Given that the Provincial Capital Commission has a track record in restoring heritage buildings and putting them to better use — like St. Ann's Academy, like the Crystal Garden — the Helmcken House school seems to be an ideal candidate for the PCC to bring its expertise, take a building that's in receivership now and bring it into public hands so that the asset is protected for future generations. Is that something that she will consider doing?
Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. The mandate of the Provincial Capital Commission — as you discussed, in 2002 they did look at a new business model for that. At that time, they came forward, and I've certainly met with them, and they've certainly flagged…. The chair has that.
Really, what they want to move forward is that they're focused on connecting and celebrating the provincial capital. To answer your question: would the provincial capital look at going out, purchasing other properties and refurbishing and doing that piece…? They've come to us — and it was part of that 2002 business model — to say: "You know what? We want…." Property management and the property development piece are not something that the board has expressed an interest to us in doing. That model changed in 2002. There was a subsequent report in 2006.
Really, at this point, the message that I've been given and that I'm working with them on is: how do we carry forward as a Provincial Capital Commission on connecting and celebrating the provincial capital?
L. Popham: We're trying to get an extension on our time because I have questions for B.C. Assessment. I'll do five minutes of them right now, if that's okay. We'll see if we can have an extension.
In 2007, B.C. Assessment began a project in Saanich South where they were reassessing farmland, and as a result, a lot of small-scale farms were split up. Unused areas were then classified as housing, and the areas specifically being used for farming were used as farms. So it was a split farm situation. It created a lot of distress within Saanich South and within the agricultural community of the province.
[ Page 544 ]
That created a review panel that travelled the province in 2009. From that report there were many, many recommendations and a lot of input from the agricultural community on how farms should be assessed.
One of the things that came from that is maybe the threshold would be increased. Generally, it's $2,500 for a large-scale farm, $10,000 for a smaller-scale farm, and there has been talk that that is going to be increased. That's been underway within this ministry for years now, and I would like to have a indication of whether that is going to change over the next year.
The other thing that I'd like to ask is…. There's a list of products that qualify as farm products. That has been changing over the last five years. There have been new products added, one of them being horse semen and ovaries — eggs from horses. Maple syrup. There are quite a few things that have not been added that we have been requesting.
One of the things is value-added products. This is something that the agriculture community is very frustrated about, because as we're trying to encourage more local production, one of the things that makes that most valuable is value-added. As an example, you can't pick blueberries from your farm, put them into a pie and sell that pie at full value as part of your farm income. The only thing that counts is the actual blueberries.
The other thing is that you can't harvest natural goods on your farm, like blackberries or mushrooms, and sell them and have them count as farm income.
I want to know where we're at with that, because ministers before you have agreed that that's the direction we should be going in.
The other thing that is not added, which I think could be added — it doesn't make sense that it's not — is horse manure and cow manure. Those products are one of the most valuable inputs for organic farming, and on Vancouver Island we have a shortage of those because we've lost a lot of our livestock. Because the meat regulations have been in flux for so many years, there is a lot of livestock production that's not happening.
Those are some of my questions, and I'll leave those with you. I'll see if we can get some more time this afternoon.
Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada