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)

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 3, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. McRae: Madame Speaker, this is my first time doing this, so I'm going to do my very best. I hope my tie is on straight.

Today I call debate on estimates….

Interjections.

Hon. D. McRae: That's okay. I saw the member of the opposition with his tie all the other way, so it goes both ways.

Madame Speaker, even though my colleagues are attempting to distract me, I'm going to call debate on estimates for the Office of the Premier in the main chamber today. I call continuing debate of estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, and I call continuing debates for estimates for the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training in the Birch Room.

[1005]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

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

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,008,000.

Hon. R. Coleman: Joining in the committee discussions today are John Dyble, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, cabinet secretary and head of the public service; Kim Henderson, the deputy minister, corporate initiatives; Neil Sweeney, deputy minister, corporate policy; Deborah Fayad, assistant deputy minister and executive financial officer with the Ministry of Finance; and Michelle Leamy, director of executive operations in the deputy minister's office.

A. Dix: I know I wanted to express personally to the Deputy Premier our condolences on the death of his mother. I know, having spoken to him about this — I think most recently at the prayer breakfast we were at together some time ago — how important his mother was in his life. Obviously, on behalf of all the members of the House and members of the opposition, we want to pass on our condolences and our appreciation for him being here today under what are obviously difficult circumstances.

Welcome to Mr. Dyble and his team to the Legislature as well. I think it's obviously very helpful to have him there, especially for the first set of questions — which will, of course, be about Mr. Dyble's report and investigation into what has become known as the quick-win scandal.

Can the Deputy Premier, to start with, tell us who determined the terms of reference for the Dyble review?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks for the condolences about my mother. I'm going to state her name so that she can be in Hansard. Her name was Rosa Theresa Stewart, born August 30, 1919. She was a terrific lady. I wrote about her while I sat by her bedside, and I published it for people that wanted to see.

The terms of reference for the report were drafted by Mr. Dyble, and they were published on March 1 in an information bulletin that was provided to the public.

A. Dix: So the terms of reference were approved by the Premier and the cabinet, then?

[1010]

Hon. R. Coleman: The terms of reference were provided by Mr. Dyble and reviewed and accepted by the Premier. They did not have to go to cabinet.

A. Dix: Then it was, just to be clear, the Premier and Mr. Dyble who determined that the scope of the review would be limited to certain ministries, to the public service and potential violations of the Public Service Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: The Premier reviewed the terms of reference and accepted them. They were drafted by Mr. Dyble and not edited by the Premier. The scope of the review that Mr. Dyble brought forward was to include the scope of his position as the head of the public service.

A. Dix: So it was them who determined that there would be no review. It was the leader of the Liberal Party and Mr. Dyble who determined that the scope of the review would not touch on the Liberal Party or the Liberal caucus.

Hon. R. Coleman: On page 9 in the report there's a quote there that's pretty clear. It says:

"The scope of the review does not include external partisan activities or activities that relate to the use of caucus resources. That said, the team did review partisan activities and caucus activities that relate directly to the use of government funds, activities by government employees using government resources or direction to government employees based on non-government activities."
[ Page 692 ]

A. Dix: Well before the opposition cast light on the scandal, there was widespread use of private e-mails by cabinet ministers, government MLAs and public servants to conduct government business to avoid FOI laws. It was clear from the documents we released, the initial documents that preceded the review, that that was a key part of the scheme, in fact — the use of private e-mails as referred to in the report.

Who decided that the private e-mails of cabinet ministers, MLAs, Premier's office staff and other public servants who were part of this scandal would not be searched?

[1015]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two pieces to this. There were private e-mails provided for review by government staff with regards to this particular issue. In addition to that, there were about 1,100 e-mail communications that went out to private e-mails that we were able to get access to through our server.

For the record, I don't know how the member characterizes it. I actually have a private e-mail that doesn't do any government business. If you were to search mine, you would find no government business in my private personal e-mail.

A. Dix: This is to say that it was apparent on this issue that private e-mails were being used significantly for government business. It was already apparent when the terms of reference for the review were set out and the decision was taken not to pursue those.

I gather that what the minister is saying is that either the time of the review didn't permit that or the decision was taken not to pursue information in that regard — to see if information had been, for example, consistently transferred to the Liberal Party.

Did Mr. Dyble have the power to subpoena witnesses, and if not, why did they choose not to take that power?

[1020]

Hon. R. Coleman: We did receive private e-mail records in addition to the 27 interviews that were conducted. There are, on page 15 of the report, in freedom of information and privacy, a couple of paragraphs, and I'll read the bottom paragraph on page 15. It says:

"While B.C.'s FOIPP Act does not specifically include or exclude records created or transmitted using non-government e-mail accounts, its broad coverage essentially includes any record that is created on behalf of a public body. As such, a record related to government business created by a government employee or service provider would be presumed to be covered by the act, regardless of where the record was located or the medium used to create or transmit the record."

That's why we were given and were in the possession of and had the opportunity to review private e-mails.

A. Dix: Well, the question was…. With respect to private e-mails, Mr. Bonney, who was a public servant, in the course of his actions as a public servant on behalf of the Liberal Party, had thousands of private e-mails which were not reviewed. But the question was: why did Mr. Dyble not have the power to subpoena witnesses or choose not to take the power to subpoena witnesses?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, to the member opposite, Mr. Dyble doesn't have subpoena powers. He should know that.

On page 28 of the report that specifically deals with Mr. Bonney's e-mails:"…records show that…Bonney had forwarded over 1,100 e-mails from his government account to one of three personal e-mail accounts during the time he was employed in the public service." That was in the report.

Also, it should be noted that Mr. Bonney was not an employee of government at the time the report and interviews were done, but he did voluntarily do an interview and go through his involvement, and it is in the body of the report.

A. Dix: So the decision was taken…. You can create inquiries where people have the power to subpoena witnesses. That could have been done by the cabinet and led by the Premier, recommended by Mr. Dyble. They chose not to do that. I mean, that's a fact. I wanted to ascertain why they decided that they would do that. Were the witnesses who were interviewed required to swear an oath?

[1025]

Hon. R. Coleman: The review team found it wasn't necessary to go to the level of inquiry, simply because they had full cooperation of all parties that were involved. The e-mail trails matched up to the interviews of the folks that were involved in this, and they felt that they had the information required for them to be able to do an assessment of what had gone on and make the recommendations that are contained in the report.

A. Dix: Oh, the decision not to take those powers was made prior to the full cooperation. So the Premier and others were not interviewed under oath when they were interviewed by Mr. Dyble. With respect to that, were the interviews recorded and transcribed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Those who did the interview had extensive notes, which are actually part of the 10,000, 11,000 documents that were released as a part of the report and put on line. They matched up to those interviews. And information recorded and brought in to those interviews actually matched up to the e-mail trails as far as finding out that we were actually getting solid information from both parties and from the review of e-mails.

A. Dix: The Premier has described her interview as follows. "We sat down this week, and it was not just with
[ Page 693 ]
him" — referring to Mr. Dyble — "but with his team. So it's a group of senior deputy ministers across government. We sat down. They asked me a few questions. But the thing is, Kevin, I never saw the document. I didn't know it was being prepared. There wasn't a whole lot I had to tell them, but obviously, they needed to talk to me about it."

Is that characterization a correct characterization of the interview that was done with the Premier?

Hon. R. Coleman: The interview was about 30 minutes. You know, I've had experience in another life — two former lives: one in the private sector in a private investigation role and the other in the role of a police officer. When someone has no information, you don't have to continue an interview.

The reality is the Premier provided what she had available, in her understanding of what went on, to the interviewers. It was very limited, as she said publicly — that this was going on and didn't, in the e-mail trails or anything, have anything to add.

A. Dix: We'll return to that. What we understand is: the interviews were not recorded and not transcribed. The witnesses did not appear under oath. And the interviews, given the Premier's thing, were strictly limited to whether, in her case, she'd seen that particular document.

The list of witnesses on page 77 of the report — was that the full list of witnesses interviewed by the Dyble team?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's pretty transparent that those are the people that were interviewed.

A. Dix: See, it just shows how estimates can be better than question period, because we asked that question about 13 times in the House in the last three days, and the government refused to answer the question about whether a particular individual was interviewed. It turns out she was not. The government ministers in question period, for reasons passing understanding, refused to answer that question.

[1030]

To return, then, to the document search, maybe you can walk me through these documents. On March 1 the direction was given, according to the report, to various government ministries and offices to search and turn over documents. Keep in mind that the report came out March 14. What were the search criteria for this document search?

Hon. R. Coleman: So we don't have to bounce around on questions with regards to this particular one, I will read into the record "Records Search," appendix G, page 81 of the report. If the members would…. I'll get it done well within 15 minutes, so it'll be fine.

"On Friday, March 1, 2013, the review team provided instructions to the logistics and business services…"

Sorry, Mother, for the glasses.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: No, she wouldn't like them.

"…division, responsible for information access operations of the IAO, and the office of the chief information officer, responsible for information technology investigations and forensics, on the records search for the review.

"Search criteria was provided, specifying all potential individuals involved, and specific search terms were provided. For the physical records search, individuals within the Ministries of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology; government communications and public engagement; and the respective ministers' offices were asked to search e-mail, hard drives, LAN, SharePoint/Groove and physical files.

"All staff participating in the search were required to complete and sign an 'investigation records search sign-off form.' Each area was given until 11 a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013, to complete their searches and print all records. Staff from IAO arrived to collect boxes of records at 11 a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013.

"Employees who indicated they could not collect material in this time period were asked to provide the records available within the time period and to follow up with additional records as they became available.

"All records were scanned into an electronic format, maintaining the order in which the records were collected by program areas. Electronic files were labelled with the area of government and the name of the individual that supplied the records. Optical character recognition" — it's called OCR for an acronym — "was applied to all records to facilitate key word searches. The IAO estimates that approximately 10,000 pages of records were collected.

"The investigations and forensics unit, information security branch, office of the chief information officer, conducted investigations related to cyber security and the unauthorized or inappropriate use of government information and resources. The primary focus of the unit is on the collection, analysis and interpretation of electronic evidence.

"The unit was engaged to assist by collecting electronic data from government systems and by searching the data based on time periods and key words supplied.

"Current and historical data from mailboxes, home drives and computers was collected. Commonly accepted forensic techniques and tools were used to search across the aggregated data. The data related to specific persons identified by those leading the investigation. The unit also responded to ad hoc requests for additional, or more specific, information.

"The results and analysis were provided to the investigation team in various ways, including in-person reviews."

A. Dix: First of all, to the Deputy Premier, I can't believe that his mother would be anything but proud at any time.

Interjection.

A. Dix: We won't get into that now. Well, maybe outside — maybe we should do that part under oath, Minister.

The question, I guess, to flow from that is…. So the document search request was put out March 1. It comes back March 4. There were some records, presumably, that
[ Page 694 ]
came somewhat later than March 4, if I correctly read the appendix to the report.

How long did it take from that point — this assemblage of 10,000 pages? Presumably, at that point they came in. How long did it take for Mr. Dyble and his fellow investigators to have those 10,000 pages put in order so that they could be reviewed?

[1035]

Hon. R. Coleman: After they were picked up on March 4 they were all cataloged by March 5. They use an electronic model. Obviously it's an investigative model for creating a search engine to track certain things. That was then matched up to interviews that were taking place to corroborate the information relative to what we were being told versus what we found, and it did corroborate.

On March 8 the staff had completed a review of all of the documents read, not just the review team. The members of the review team and other professional public service were involved in that. Then the corroborated information that would come out of that went to the review team, who then again reviewed the documentation that was made available that corroborated what we were understanding. So you have electronic records that match up. You have interviews that are then taken for the information to match up to the electronic records, and that then corroborates into your, basically, completion.

So for the record for the member, the review team's steps, which were outlined on page 9, were…. The first thing they did is the record-gathering, including a review of all general administrative records, personnel and related financial records and Treasury Board records through an electronic search of all potential documents and a paper record search.

[1040]

The second thing they did is they then reviewed the chronology of events, which was corroborated out of interviews, etc., actually to take that chronology and then develop a list of people named or involved, which is third. That list was put together of people named or involved and the assessment of their roles.

The fourth step the team did is development of a framework for interviews and interview questions. The fifth step was that 27 interviews were conducted. The sixth step was the collation and analysis of all the findings, and the seventh was the preparation of the report.

A. Dix: So the review documents are prepared. Most of them come in by March 4. They're analyzed by other staff, and they're in the hands of the deputy minister and the senior review team — the team conducting the interviews — around March 8 or March 9.

With respect to a specific interview, I suppose, I want to confirm that the interview with Mr. Bonney took place on March 2, prior to any of this information having been gathered.

Hon. R. Coleman: That is correct. On page 77 of the report…. On Saturday, March 2, Mr. Bonney was interviewed. As I explained the flow, you are collecting records, and you're doing interviews. You receive the documentation to actually corroborate the interview information and see if the two match up, and they did.

A. Dix: With great respect, usually what you do is you gather the documentary evidence, and then you ask the witnesses about it. That's usually what happens, and it's not reversed. This was an unusual process driven by….

Well, let me ask the minister specifically this, then. Let's go on to the member for Richmond-Steveston, the minister of the day, and the former member for Burnaby-Lougheed, Mr. Bloy, who were both interviewed — again, prior to the documents coming forward. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pretty familiar with how an investigation and interview processes can work. In actual fact, as you go through the process, often what you do is you interview a witness or do an interview of a person when you have time to do so as part of your investigation.

What you do then is you take the results of the interview, and you then see if they corroborate up to other information that you were provided in that interview. In this case, it would be the search of documentation and e-mails that would have matched up, basically, to the discussion or the story that was discussed in the interview itself. That took place in this particular case.

If you were to be doing an investigation further and you found out that there was a portion of the information provided in an interview that did not match up or corroborate to the other collection of information, then you would go back and interview. But if it does match up, it is not necessary to go interview for a second time.

A. Dix: So the interviews with the Premier, Mr. Bloy, Mr. Bonney, Ms. Welch and the member for Richmond-Steveston occurred in advance of the documentary evidence, right? All those occurred in advance, and the documentary evidence was not used in those interviews to question those witnesses.

[1045]

Hon. R. Coleman: Right from the beginning we had some records and information. We also collected 10,000 pieces of information. Those were going in parallel processes, because we obviously had enough of the initial information to conduct the interviews, to ask what the involvement and the background was of individuals and what went on.

As we came through the conducting of…. I shouldn't say we, because I didn't do this. But the normal process would be that you would then review the information that you got from the interview to the information you received as a printed or written or e-mail type of record.
[ Page 695 ]
If there was any differentiation between the questions and discussion relative to that, you would sometimes go back and interview for a second time if you needed to corroborate something that wasn't correct that you got out of the interview.

That would appear not to be the case in this situation, in that the interviews were actually conducted by people who were, in my understanding, forthright and open. It was corroborated by the collection of the data.

A. Dix: Let's use an example, for the sake of argument, with respect to the document that's found on page 2639 of PDF 3, the document that we've been talking about in the House the last number of days.

That document would have come out not…. It wasn't a document provided by the opposition, which would have been the early documents. It was amongst the 10,000 pages.

The document says as follows. You know, it speaks to inducement. It says as follows:

"We will see if we can help find you something else."

This is the member for Richmond-Steveston suggesting that he ask Ms. Sarrafpour:

"Can you send…your resumé? Send it to Brian also. Assess her response and advise. Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how doing anything would damage the Premier and the party. Have him say how he will try and find her work and get her back involved. Assess her response and advise. Have Brian meet with her and do the same. Assess her response and advise. If need be, offer X dollars per month to do non-public work up to the election, developing her database of potential supporters. Brian Bonney."

This document would have come to the attention of the review committee when? Who was it reviewed by? Was it the subject of the interviews with the Premier, whose interests are directly discussed here? Mr. Bonney, the member for Richmond-Steveston, Harry Bloy, Ms. Welch — was this part of any of those interviews?

It seems from what we've heard today that the interviews occurred, Mr. Dyble got these documents, and then no further questions were asked. Is that correct?

[1050]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I am not going to mention any individual's name in the House, because whether they want to say something publicly which is hearsay…. That's entirely up to them, but I'm not going to breach freedom of information and privacy from a minister's perspective.

The review team did fully canvass the issues related to this individual. The records the member is quoting from are records that the review team actually made public as part of the 10,000 records. Had the suggestion in the e-mail led anywhere, the review team would have documented that, and the fact is that they didn't find anything that led anywhere.

A. Dix: Specifically, was the e-mail on page 2639 — this is in the public report — discussed with Mr. Bonney on March 2?

Hon. R. Coleman: The tone of the e-mail was obviously inappropriate. We acknowledge that. It's obviously in the public record that it's in the file. There wasn't one individual in the investigation…. It wasn't the only person that had any interaction with this individual. The individual left in September of 2012, ending their contract with caucus. Had the suggestion in the e-mail led anywhere whatsoever, the review team would have documented it in a report because it was leading somewhere, but it did not.

A. Dix: Then, the specific answer to the question was: there's an interview of Mr. Bonney on March 2. Yes or no, was he asked about this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: The interview records have been severed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by professional public service, so I'm not going to get into that type of detail here today because I don't want to breach the rights of an individual relative to this discussion.

In addition to that, I will say again to the member that had the suggestion in that e-mail led anywhere to any inappropriate other activity, the review team would have documented it in the report — which they didn't, because in fact they didn't find anything.

This was an exhaustive investigation that was done and brought the Dyble report and its findings to us. The e-mail the members opposite refer to was wrong. The approach and suggestion in the e-mail was wrong and inappropriate. But as I said before, if there had been any acting on that inappropriate e-mail and its language…. The review team found that it didn't lead anywhere, and the review team would have documented it in a report.

A. Dix: Okay, so when was the e-mail brought to the attention of the team? Look, it's fairly obvious that if the team didn't get the e-mails and didn't have them analyzed until well after the interviews with Mr. Bonney, the member for Richmond-Steveston and Mr. Bloy, then they weren't the subject of those e-mails. The minister talks about doing interviews and having things matched up, but none of those people, according to the report, were called back.

[1055]

Perhaps the Deputy Premier could explain how it was that it was determined it didn't go anywhere when the Premier wasn't interviewed again about it, Mr. Bloy wasn't interviewed again about it, Mr. Bonnie wasn't interviewed again about it, the member for Richmond-Steveston wasn't interviewed again about it and Ms. Welch wasn't interviewed again about it. I mean, what's set out here is a plan to induce someone…. Oh, and Ms. Sarrafpour was never interviewed.

We received the e-mail. The review team received the e-mail. They didn't, presumably, ask, because they didn't
[ Page 696 ]
have the e-mail when they did the interviews. They didn't ask about it before, and they didn't ask about it afterwards. So what steps were actually taken with respect to an e-mail which suggests inducement?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Dyble report was conducted by four very capable, most senior public servants in government. It was thorough, it was timely, and they looked at all of the documents. The government went to extraordinary lengths to publish and post all 10,000 pages reviewed as part of the report, you know, and obviously had to redact, under freedom of information and privacy, stuff that would have been personally not allowed to be released under that act.

The report found no evidence that the document in question was acted on — no evidence that the document in question was acted on. If there was evidence to suggest that the e-mail was acted on by government, it would have been included in the report and the recommendations relative to that document would have been made.

A. Dix: What steps were taken? What steps were taken to decide that the e-mail wasn't acted upon? I mean, the obvious steps to do would be (1) to have recalled Mr. Bonney, (2) to recall the member for Richmond-Steveston, (3) to recall Mr. Bloy, (4) to recall the Premier and (5) to recall Miss Welch.

None of those things happened. None of those things happened, so what we have is a serious statement of an attempt to induce someone to silence. That doesn't clearly fit up with the interviews taking place — certainly not the Premier's characterization of her interview. The report is limited in its scope. It can't review, as it states, MLAs or cabinet ministers.

So the interviews take place. The e-mail is found. What steps did the Dyble review panel take, when the minister says it didn't lead anywhere, to find that it didn't lead anywhere when they didn't bother to ask Mr. Bonney again, didn't bother to ask Mr. Bloy, didn't bother to ask the member for Richmond-Steveston, didn't bother to ask the Premier and did not bother to ask Miss Welch?

[1100]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: There was a fulsome investigation. The e-mail was totally inappropriate — we've actually said that publicly — and the content of it was inappropriate. It was not acted on. Members can find that, even in the comments of the individual, who has actually changed stories twice.

The actual fact of the matter is that the report found no evidence that the document in question was acted on. It was inappropriate. It's part of the record of the report that Mr. Bonney had inappropriately acted in his involvement, and that's why the report had come to the conclusions, and what have you, relative to the end of the review.

If there's no suggestion that the e-mail was acted on by government…. If there had been, that would have been included in the report, and the recommendations would have been made appropriate to that one particular e-mail.

There were 10,000 documents that were reviewed. There was no evidence that this particular e-mail was acted on, and therefore, it was dealt with in that way by having, obviously, the corroboration of other information and data that you bring together in an investigation — bring that together, and you come to your conclusions, which the investigators did.

A. Dix: Specifically, yes or no, did Mr. Dyble or any of the other deputy ministers involved ask the Premier, Mr. Bloy, the member for Richmond-Steveston, Ms. Welch — they didn't ask Ms. Sarrafpour, we know, because they didn't interview her, right? — or Mr. Bonney about this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: Clearly at the beginning I stated that the Premier had no knowledge, so, obviously, it would be a waste of time to go back and talk to the Premier. But at the same time, as you come through the report, you review your information, you corroborate back and forth from your interviews into the data and look at the information, and you come to conclusions that this document was not acted on, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

The investigators, the people who did this report — I have extreme confidence in their professionalism. I am quite comfortable with what they found and how they came to their conclusions with regards to this report.

A. Dix: That's the question. On this question, no finding was made in the report about this matter. The e-mail, according to what we were told in the report, was not available to the investigators when all of these people were brought before them.

This was brought before them. What steps did they take to determine, to use the minister's term, that no one followed up on it? We now know, of course, that had they interviewed Ms. Sarrafpour, they would have discovered that there was evidence. They chose not to do that, right?

[1105]

They didn't ask the member for Richmond-Steveston. They didn't ask the member, Mr. Bloy. They didn't ask the Premier. They didn't have it when they talked to the Premier. They didn't ask the Premier.

What steps did they take to determine that this very serious e-mail, which the government itself has said is unacceptable…? It lays out a plan, a scheme, to silence somebody. What steps did the Dyble committee take? They didn't bother to interview anybody. This was new information. They didn't bother to reinterview Mr.
[ Page 697 ]
Bonney about it. They didn't bother to reinterview Mr. Bloy. They didn't bother to reinterview the Premier.

Now, I understand that they were under pressure to release the report. I understand there are 10,000 pages. We went through the pages. A lot of them were blanked out. It took us a long time to find this, right? I understand all of that. But what steps did they take to make a determination, in the absence of asking anybody about it, that the e-mail didn't go anywhere?

[1110]

Hon. R. Coleman: During the interview process of the 27 individuals, this individual the member is referring to…. Involvement was discussed, including with Mr. Bonney, with regards to their involvement in all the things it related to, including their leaving caucus in September of 2012.

The issues were canvassed with Bonney and others during that period of time. The e-mail became available. It was then determined that it had not been acted upon, and it was a singular e-mail relative to this particular issue. Anyone that had a working relationship with the individual — that was canvassed in their interview. The report is clear that Mr. Bonney's involvement had some questionable activity around it, and that's why the report was put together in the first place.

We went to extraordinary lengths, publishing and posting all 10,000 pages that were reviewed as part of the report, including this particular e-mail the member brings up. The report found no evidence that the document in question was acted on. If there had been, we would have gone further, relative to that particular document. But there was no evidence that it had been acted upon other than this e-mail.

A. Dix: Well, what's more accurate, of course, is that the government didn't seek any evidence, and that would have been available to them. But they did the interviews. That's what the minister just said. They didn't, as I understand it…. The report refers to the interview with Mr. Bloy, which was principally about seeing the draft strategy document and workplan.

They did the interviews. They got the document. They did not ask Mr. Bloy, for example, or Ms. Sarrafpour if…. "Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how doing anything would damage the Premier and the party. Have him say how he will try and find her work and get her back involved." We now know, of course, that such a meeting did take place.

So the review panel interviews Mr. Bloy. They get this e-mail, and they do not re-interview Mr. Bloy. Is that the case?

Hon. R. Coleman: The involvement of this individual, relative to this entire situation, was canvassed in interviews with people that would have had any involvement with the individual during the process. The individual left in September, 2012. There is an e-mail that we have said was wrong, and it was incorrect. We have said that. It was not acted upon.

Anyone who had a working relationship with the individual was obviously asked about that relationship and that contract and that work during their interviews. It was corroborated by the 10,000 pages that were reviewed as part of the report. The report found no evidence that the document in question was acted upon. Therefore, it was not included in the report. If it had been included that there was evidence to corroborate anything further than just that particular e-mail….

I'm not going to get into the debate today with regards to comments of an individual which have not been consistent and would be classified as hearsay, taken in isolation. Any other conversation in any investigation subsequent to this…. Our corroboration comes from the 10,000 documents, the information that we received through the interviews and the work done by the review team.

[1115]

A. Dix: So the review team gets an e-mail that says: "Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how doing anything would damage the Premier and the party." They don't talk to Mr. Bloy about it. They don't talk to Ms. Sarrafpour about it. They don't talk to anybody else about it. How did they determine that nothing happened?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to become repetitive here. The government went to extraordinary lengths, publishing and posting all 10,000 documents. All the pages were reviewed as part of the report. Interviews were conducted, and relationships with people across the spectrum relative to this particular review were canvassed, including an individual the members brought to the House. The individual had left in September of 2012. The evidence clearly showed that anything in that e-mail had not been acted upon, and there was no evidence brought to government that would have suggested otherwise.

A. Dix: The evidence clearly showed it was not acted upon. That's what the minister said. What evidence?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Dyble report was conducted by four senior public servants in the government. It was thorough. It was timely. They looked at all documents, 10,000 of them, and went to extraordinary lengths of publishing and posting all 10,000 pages. The report interviewed 27 people and discussed the involvement of everybody across the spectrum, including the individual the member is speaking about.

There is one e-mail that we find wrong. We've said that. But the fact of the matter is there was no evidence that that document was acted on. The member can decide how, after the fact, he would conduct an investiga-
[ Page 698 ]
tion, by reading a report on an investigation. But I would submit to the member that the people that did this work — independent of government, senior public servants — did their job.

A. Dix: They got the assignment on February 28 and produced the terms of reference on March 1. They got the documents, 10,000 pages, a week later, after they'd been gathered. They started writing the report, presumably, at the very latest, on March 12 or 13, right?

The minister asserted a few minutes ago that the Dyble committee had evidence that this e-mail wasn't acted upon. I didn't say that; the minister said that. So what's the evidence?

Really, the only way to get such evidence would have been to ask the people involved, and they didn't do that. So they didn't make a determination, in fact, in the report about this e-mail. They didn't make a determination. They didn't ask Mr. Bloy. They didn't ask Ms. Sarrafpour. They didn't ask the Premier. They didn't ask the minister. They didn't ask Ms. Welch.

They didn't make a determination. They decided, presumably, that they couldn't address it. But they didn't make a determination, because no evidence…. When the minister says that "there is evidence that it wasn't acted upon," what is the evidence?

Is there a scintilla of evidence, one way or another, that the committee reviewed that it was acted upon or not? Given the seriousness of the e-mail, which the government has agreed to, why wasn't a single person asked about it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I will state that we went to the extraordinary length of publishing and posting all 10,000 pages we reviewed. This individual left the contractual relationship in September of 2012. Subsequent to September 2012, through the entire review process, there is no evidence and no record of any contractual or employment record relative to this individual.

[1120]

That part alone would tell you that the e-mail wasn't acted on. In addition to that, in all the interviews, people's relationships were canvassed with regards to — including this individual — the relationship and why they may have left or decided to terminate their contract.

A. Dix: To be clear, the review committee got the e-mail. They'd already interviewed Mr. Bloy, already interviewed the Premier, already interviewed the minister, already interviewed Ms. Welch, already interviewed Mr. Bonney. Even though, presumably, the e-mail doesn't match up to anything that was said in those interviews, the e-mail that came out of the process…. Even though that was the case, none of those individuals were recalled, and no evidence was brought to bear. No evidence was sought to determine whether the e-mail had been followed through on or not.

No evidence was brought to bear. They didn't ask anybody whether such a meeting took place. They didn't ask anybody if such an offer was made. In other words, they didn't pursue the issue. They didn't make a finding.

We have a very serious allegation, and it's not ours. I mean, the conspiracy involves the people involved. It's the people at the most senior ranks of government — right? — who are involved in this. No one brought it forward at the time in September, and said: "Oh boy."

How is it possible you could get that e-mail and not interview anybody about it to find out what happened?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, the government went to lengths, with the 10,000 pages of documents which were produced, and they were published. Documents were coming in, had already had been received, as you also went through the document search.

The report found no evidence in the documentation in question. I'm not going to get into the discussion and interview of the particular individual at the time that the member opposite is talking about. Obviously, there are pieces of every interview that are safe through personal privacy and protection.

The contractual employment records search did show us that after this individual left, there was no contract for the individual, or employment record. In addition to that, during the interview with the individual, the individual did not flag this as an issue.

A. Dix: Sorry, during the interview with what individual? Ms. Sarrafpour was never interviewed, right? Never interviewed, by the report.

You have an e-mail that suggests someone is being induced, but the person was not interviewed. It turns out, of course, that we see from the contract that the Liberal operatives have an unusual way, contrary to all of the rules of government, to make contracts and to bring people on board. That's the way it goes.

I guess the question is: what person? What person did they ask? Did they ask anybody about this e-mail in any of the interviews they did? In any of the interviews they did, did they ask anybody about what is a transparent attempt to induce someone to silence, to protect the person that the Deputy Minister to the Premier reports to?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think I misspoke. The member used a different name in his preamble to the question than the name he just used.

The reality is this. We did interview these folks. We interviewed the people that sent the e-mail and everyone that received the e-mail. We did a search of the contractual employment records to be sure that nothing had been acted upon, and that's the case.

[1125]

The member opposite and I could get into a debate about use of government funds for political purposes
[ Page 699 ]
and what have you. I'm not getting into that today, because there isn't any…. You know, I think, in this particular case, we became aware of something that took place. The leader of our province, the Premier, acted upon it immediately and said: "We're not going to go and…."

I mean, there was no indication whatsoever that anybody didn't want to look into it. We looked into it and conducted…. We got four public servants to work overtime, weekends, nights, and other people who put together search engines to search all of the documents and do the work. We did it so that it could be out there in front of the public in advance of an election writ, because we felt it was important that that information be there and that the people see that we had done what we thought was right with regards to it.

I mean, there are other forms of leadership that could have been taken on this. Our leader took leadership and took responsibility and apologized to the public and had a review and an investigation conducted.

A. Dix: I recall it was the Deputy Premier that first apologized to the public.

In any event, with respect to this question, because the Deputy Premier wants to be clear about names, Ms. Sarrafpour said that Mr. Bloy came and met with her, offered her a job — right? — an inducement. So the only step that the Dyble report did was to look at government records, not any other records — not caucus records, not anything else — and didn't talk to Ms. Sarrafpour or Mr. Bloy.

So the question is…. The e-mail says — pretty serious — that he's going to meet with someone to protect the Premier. That's the evidence that was presented. Did the Dyble review team ask Mr. Bloy about that e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to answer the question again.

This review was thorough. It was timely. It looked at all the documents. There were extensive interviews conducted, including conversations with regards to relationships and what their roles were within the package. Pieces of those interviews are redacted, and they're redacted for the protection of people's personal information and privacy. I will not in this House breach that law. I will not do it.

[1130]

Hon. Member, I will tell you this. The report found no evidence that the language the member refers to in the particular e-mail was acted upon. There was no evidence that suggested it was acted on by government. There were no contractual or employment records relative to this individual to show that it was acted upon after the individual left government in September of 2012.

A. Dix: To review, because it's apparent that the government did the interviews, didn't have the e-mail, didn't ask anybody about it but claims to have determined that they did a thorough investigation of this question. I think, simply put, it would've been very difficult, in the time frame required politically, for the government to do such an investigation, in fact. In fairness to the individuals involved….

Clearly, the individuals involved got an e-mail that was dramatic and problematic. They chose not to interview anyone about it, and that is, I think, a fact. It's a suggestion in the e-mail, and I think, frankly, that it ought to have provoked at least the return of Mr. Bloy to the witness chair, at least the return of the member for Richmond-Steveston to the witness chair, at least the return of Mr. Bonney to the witness chair and at least a question of Ms. Sarrafpour about what had happened. None of those things happened, and we know that because the minister told us this morning that none of those things happened.

You have this document, largely redacted, which shows, in fact, that all of those people were involved in considering this act, and no steps were taken to confirm whether it happened or not with any of the individuals involved. I think that's a pretty serious matter. Pretty serious, because had they done that, had they called a witness, they would have had evidence.

Of course, when you have evidence, then you have to assess the evidence. Presumably, the decision was taken not to conduct that interview. Presumably, the decision was taken not to have another interview with Mr. Bloy or Mr. Bonney, the member for Richmond-Steveston or the Premier or Ms. Welch.

I guess the claim that the report reviewed the e-mail and dismissed it is simply not true. They got the e-mail, and they didn't pursue the questions raised by the e-mail. They pursued other questions. These are always choices, I suppose, that you make when you do a report. They got a very, very serious e-mail that the government acknowledges is unacceptable, that directly involves the Premier and protecting the Premier and the Liberal Party, and no individual — no one — was interviewed about the e-mail.

I mean, it seems staggering to conclude that, actually, given the nature of the e-mail. We, of course, don't have all of the e-mail, and this isn't the only part of that e-mail that we'll be asking about. There are other serious questions related to that e-mail. What is clearly true is that the government decided not to ask anybody about it.

Now, I'll ask the minister one last time, because the minister hasn't responded to this question. Why was it that not a single witness was brought back and asked about this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite might want to twist words and use terms like "witness" when a review has taken place and try and raise the temperature on something that was a report that was done.
[ Page 700 ]

I think that something happened. We actually said it was wrong. We actually asked independent public servants to do it. They were completely independent and undirected by government to do their review and how they would conduct it. They interviewed people and talked about everybody's involvement, including the individual the member wants to bring to the fore in this discussion.

If we had directed them to do specific things and interfered with the review, the opposition would be screaming, saying that we were interfering in the review. It was independent.

[1135]

It was conducted by four of the most senior public servants in government — people that I've gotten to know over my career and that the member opposite knows from the time he's been around here to be of the highest ethical standard, people that are capable of doing something that's thorough and timely, relative to something like this. They looked at all the documents. In each interview they discussed the involvement and canvassed people with regards to involvement with regards to this. They then did an extensive review of 10,000 pages of documents.

I'll repeat that the report — and the member opposite will not like this — found no evidence that the
[ Page 701 ]
document the member has brought up was acted upon.

Now, you can accept that or not. I mean, you're not going to. Obviously, if this continues for some time, we'll get into some other performances that the public should be aware of with regards to public finances and the opposition, at some point in time — and be happy to maybe bring that into the discussion. But I'm going to stay with this because I'm staying at a high level.

The high level is that we did a report, conducted by senior public servants. They looked at all documents and interviewed 27 people. They talked about everybody's involvement in it. This one document the member is talking about was part of the 10,000 pages that were released by government. We're the ones that posted it, so nobody was saying: "Gee, let's hide something."

Then in the investigation there was no evidence to suggest that the content of an inappropriate e-mail was acted upon. It wasn't acted upon, hon. Member.

A. Dix: People who had direct knowledge — which the minister doesn't, and none of the review team did, because they didn't ask people about the e-mail — say to the contrary.

I think what is clear…. You get this every time. It's not the ethics of Mr. Dyble and his team that are in question. It's clearly the Premier and her political team, of which Mr. Bonney was a key member, in which Miss Sarrafpour was a member, in which Mr. Bloy was a member. It's those people that are in question in this e-mail, not Mr. Dyble. We can't confuse these issues.

I understand the challenge faced by Mr. Dyble in dealing with this matter. It's not them that are in question. It's the individuals involved in an e-mail that, on the face of it, is a conspiracy to silence an individual who has information that would do damage to the Premier and the party.

In fairness, in addition to Mr. Dyble, the terms of reference which he drafted but which were approved by the Premier precluded him asking questions about the Liberal Party, precluded him asking questions about Mr. Bloy and his constituency fund, precluded him from asking questions about the Liberal caucus, even though this matter at its core was about the merging of government, party and caucus. At its core that's what the matter was. That's what the question was.

Mr. Dyble was limited to dealing with one portion of that question, which was under his broad responsibilities. An independent review, clearly, would have sought to discuss all elements of that question. But what we have here is an e-mail that's very serious, that has serious implications for the Premier, and no one was asked any questions about it in the review. None of the witnesses were asked questions about it.

For anybody to say that on this question the matter dealt with it is just not correct. The best one could say, I suppose, is that the review was silent about it. Clearly, this e-mail was not dealt with by the review in the way one would normally deal with such a thing, which would be to ask people about it. They just didn't do so.

There may be reasons for that. None of those reasons have been given. But it's wrong to say that there is evidence to say that it didn't happen. Now there is evidence to say that it did happen. That is, I suppose, a pretty serious question.

I wanted to ask, with respect to the review, whether the Deputy Premier is confident that the document retrieval process obtained all relevant documents.

[1140]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we had a search process — very extensive. We feel that we did get all the documentation. Some 10,000 pages were reviewed as part of the report. We created, using the appropriate expertise within government, the search engine and what have you so that we could actually find records. Then the people that know how to investigate documents and correlate them relative to that, as I read into the record earlier, which was quite extensive…. That's on the record.

The Premier of the province of B.C., when she became aware of this in the public realm, immediately took the leadership to say, "We're going to go look into this," immediately said, "This is inappropriate," and immediately took the steps necessary to go out and have the leadership….

She took the leadership to put together a review team of four senior public servants who conducted interviews, who went through the 10,000 documents and who then advised me that the report found no evidence that the document in question was acted upon. I am prepared to accept the word of those senior public servants.

A. Dix: It's not their word that's in question. It's the word of people they didn't ask questions of.

I guess what the Deputy Premier means by "immediately" is "three days later." But we have a broad…. I guess in all of the history of British Columbia, three days could be viewed as immediately.

I want to ask, then, about pages 2637 and 2638, where there are numerous references to list collection and the brazen use of public resources for partisan electoral purposes by the Liberal government. Who reviewed these documents, and what assessment was made of them?

[1145]

Hon. R. Coleman: The report deals with the member's question, starting on page 23, No. 3, "Databases and lists." I won't read all of that into the record. But for the member's information, that was part of the review, and there were recommendations attached to the report relative to that question.

A. Dix: Well, the central element of the plan was to have lists created by government staff that eventually, I guess, followed through on lists produced in the distribution of grants and other community meetings paid for by government and that those lists be forwarded to the Liberal Party's database, right? So when the report concludes that no database was created within government, that database presumably already existed at the Liberal Party headquarters.

You'll recall that the Liberal Party was excluded from this review by the leader of the Liberal Party, the Premier, when she approved the terms of reference.

I wanted to determine, given the review, on how many occasions — because a lot of the documents are redacted — were there references to lists and list creations that were forwarded? And why is it that Mr. Dyble and his team decided not to pursue those lists into the Liberal Party?

Hon. R. Coleman: Page 23, No. 3, "Databases and lists," in the report: "The December 2011 spreadsheet makes specific reference to Win 2013 software for the ability to create 'ethnic lists' and creation of an 'ethnic database.'" I've already said that this action was inappropriate and that that's why this report took place.

"Those interviewed understand that while some initial work was completed on looking at the potential to use Win software for caucus, it was not pursued." In addition to that, "Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed," with regards to this.

Basically, I'll not go through all of it, but at the bottom of the paragraph is: "Again, these contracts were never signed by government. During the records search no evidence was found of a database having been created."

A. Dix: Well, they forwarded information which the Dyble report didn't have the ability to pursue, so presumably no database was created in government to deal with this question. But clearly a database was created, just not in government. The evidence around the creation of lists is, I think, a fairly significant part of those parts of the information released that we can see. We'll return to lists in a moment.

The member for Richmond-Steveston — and it's in the report specifically — said he never saw these planning documents. How does it square with all of the e-mails showing that the member for Richmond-Steveston was part of the communications chain?

[1150]

Hon. R. Coleman: The e-mail records show that back in the early days and into January, with regards to the multicultural strategy the member for Richmond-Steveston was not copied on the e-mail trail. Other future documents show that he may have received some of the later information. In actual fact, when this was started, he wasn't even the minister, so obviously, his involvement would have come at a different stage throughout this.

I'm sure we're going to continue this throughout the afternoon. We have another four hours of this to go. I don't know if we'll get to any other subjects.

I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

[1155]

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. 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 11:56 a.m.
[ Page 702 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sturdy in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $812,278,000 (continued).

C. Trevena: To the minister, today we're moving on, as I mentioned to him, to issues of safety on the highways. I think it's a paramount concern for everybody.

I'd first like to ask about safety in the bus industry. In January my colleague from Surrey-Newton wrote to the former minister, following the Mi Joo bus crash in Oregon, with a number of questions about the Ministry of Transportation's responsibility and its oversight of this specific bus company. We still have not, seven months on, received a response to this letter.

[1010]

I am very happy to read the questions into the record so that the minister is aware of them. One is that…. The U.S. Department of Transportation revoked Mi Joo Tour and Travel's authority to provide passenger service in the U.S. on January 8. It took three more days for B.C. to do the same. How can a foreign country act so much faster than the home jurisdiction?

The Minister of Transportation said that Mi Joo Tour and Travel had a clean safety record for three years previously, following a warning letter after a spot check. Was there any government monitoring to ensure that Mi Joo was meeting its obligations respecting other driver hours and recordkeeping? If not, why?

Given that safety violations at Mi Joo Tour and Travel were only discovered following a fatal crash, how can we be confident that the government is rigorously enforcing rules and regulations that protect passenger safety? What prompts a safety order to passenger transportation companies in B.C.? Does the ministry have the adequate staff resources to monitor passenger transportation companies and other commercial transportation companies?

As I say, these are all questions which were posed back in January. I think they are particularly pertinent for an ongoing understanding of what happened with Mi Joo and with the growth in our bus industry and with the current budget. So if the minister could respond, I'd appreciate it.

[1015]

Hon. T. Stone: Good morning, Member. I look forward to another day of good questions and — hopefully, in your opinion — fulsome answers.

In terms of your question with respect to the crash involving the Mi Joo bus company, this was a very sad and tragic event that took place on December 30, 2012, in the United States, the state of Oregon. My understanding is that there actually were significant delays in obtaining all of the accident reporting information — the data from this particular crash — from U.S. authorities. However, we were eventually provided with the material in early January.

Upon review of the material, immediately the Mi Joo bus company was suspended. In fact, the date of that was January 11. Before they can operate again, they have to prove to the province of British Columbia that they are monitoring their drivers' hours, that the drivers are keeping within the maximum number of hours allowed and that they're doing the appropriate pre-trip inspections.

We've asked them for evidence or proof of the improvements that they're making to their internal procedures and how they monitor their employees and their internal processes. We have received a response from them, and the staff is looking into that material. The outcome of the U.S. investigation will still form part of the completion of our review. Until that has all come together, the suspension will remain in place.

I think it's important to note that following the crash, the ministry did conduct a safety audit of the Mi Joo Travel and Tour company. This is a standard practice which happens after these kinds of occurrences.

To the more general question around ongoing monitoring and enforcement of safety for our roads, we do have a vigorous program for monitoring the safety of buses. There are over 20 weigh scales and over 100 mobile inspection vehicles that are in all corners of the province. On top of that, out of a total of approximately 260 CVSE staff, 200 are dedicated to enforcement.

CVSE actually conducts over 30,000 detailed inspections annually, looking at both the safety practices of the vehicles in question and the drivers' records. In addition to these inspections of buses, there are over 100,000 inspections per year of commercial trucks across British Columbia. So that's quite a vigorous program.

Finally, the member referenced a letter that was provided to the former minister. That is indeed correct. That was January 31, 2013. A letter was provided to my predecessor, the Minister of Transportation at the time. I actually have in my hands here a copy of the response that was sent to the member for Surrey-Newton, which I would be happy to facilitate for you. But I believe there was a response that was provided to the questions that were posed in that original letter.
[ Page 703 ]

C. Trevena: Thank you. I appreciate that. I will follow up with that for the response. If there are still gaps, in light of the time, I'll follow up, requesting further written responses, because I think there are still some questions, from the minister's answer.

[1020]

I have one further question on safety. I know that my colleague from Delta South also wants to ask about CVSE. My other question is partly CVSE, but it's also generally on trucking safety.

Long-haul truck drivers are now a permanent class in the provincial nominee program. My question is: does CVSE know what the provincial nominee program is doing in light of the fact that we may have many people coming in as provincial nominees who have really no experience of driving either in B.C.'s road or weather conditions, particularly in winter — so the safety issues of that?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I wanted to correct, for the record, my previous response, so the facts are accurately reflected. I mentioned previously that there were 30,000 inspections of buses.

[1025]

In actual fact, there are 30,000 detailed inspections that are done of buses and commercial trucks on an annual basis. The hundreds of thousands of inspections that I referenced refer to the visual inspections that are done at the weigh scales, which again, is a combination of buses and commercial trucks, just to set the record straight on that point.

In terms of this last question, though, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure doesn't actually have responsibility for driver certification, as I know the member is aware. So I would encourage the member to direct this particular question to…. With respect to the provincial nominee program, that falls within the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. With respect to the driver certification, that, obviously, is within the purview of the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles, which falls within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.

V. Huntington: I'd like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. It's a great department with wonderful people in it, and you'll find, I think, that you'll enjoy it very much. And saying that, I'd also like to thank your staff for the significant amount of time they've spent with me over the last year or so on a few issues that have troubled me. I've been satisfied on a number of counts but want to explore three of the issues a little bit further today, the first being the issue of quad-axle trailers continuing to operate at maximum axle weights.

As the minister may know, the full axle weights…. These trailers fail to meet the accepted national standards for vehicle stability, and I believe that that results in road safety being compromised in this province. In recognition of these shortcomings, there was an interprovincial MOU that was signed by all the provinces, and it mandated the reduction of maximum allowable weights for the trailers.

B.C. did not follow suit with that mandate, even though the MOU had been part of…. I believe it was signed by B.C. back in 2004. It took until 2004 for CVSE to issue a notice that similar weight reductions were being scheduled for B.C. I have to say that I suspect that notice caused a lot of consternation, because I would think that people had had some serious talks with ministry officials or ministers themselves.

It has been ten years now since that notice was issued, and there have been annual postponements, leaving, I believe, the roads in British Columbia in an unsafe condition when the quad axles are operating at full weight.

I think some of this justification is because the industry would take the position that these trailers are not operating interprovincially, so they don't have to accept the Canadian standard in that case. In phone calls with me, very irate phone calls with me, industry officials have indicated that the tax standards are out of date. I'm here to say that those tax standards were based on vehicle dynamics testing, which was based on fundamental laws of physics. They cannot be made out of date, with the exception of new science or new innovation.

I would like to ask the minister why CVSE is failing to issue the notice and schedule the rate reductions for quad-axle trailers.

[1030]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Delta South: congratulations, as well, on your re-election. I certainly appreciate your acknowledgment of my appointment.

Indeed, I do also want to take this opportunity to underscore the initial comments you made about the exceptional staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I have to say that, in the five weeks on the job, I hear from every corner of the province what tremendous people we have working in this ministry. For that, we're all very fortunate.

In terms of your actual question, to date there has been no evidence here in British Columbia that the limits that are applied to quad-axle trailers actually are causing any safety issues on B.C.'s highways. There are a number of other provinces which have the higher restriction level that exists here in British Columbia as well.

That being said, we absolutely take seriously the concern. We have actually initiated a review internally to look at this matter further, and we expect to have the results of this review done soon. We'll look at the results of that, and if there is any need to change our policy on this, I would expect a decision would be made on that by the end of this year.

V. Huntington: I'm assuming that review is what is
[ Page 704 ]
commonly known out there as the EBA study. Perhaps there's another review going on that I don't know.

[1035]

Minister, the topography in British Columbia is unlike anywhere else in this country. These standards for weights are actual. They're real, and they do affect public safety.

Well over two years ago the CVSE issued an RFP for a study that was to examine the safety benefits of the reduced weights. That RFP was pulled, and it was reissued with the terms of reference slightly changed, not only to study the safety benefits of reduced weights but also to study the economic impacts on the industry of reducing the weights.

That study — the final report was given to the ministry in December of 2012. It's been almost 18 months since I've been trying to get that report. I FOI'd the report and received a redacted copy that was so ridiculous, I have to say, that it even redacted the names of the trucking organizations.

Minister, engineers tell me that the only way you can assess the annual exposure to crashes and rollovers is to look at the total miles travelled and the total number of crashes and assess them based on that and any other issues that engineers do take into account on vehicle dynamics.

From the very beginning, a study of that nature in British Columbia is flawed, because the province a number of years ago said that the RCMP no longer had to report rollovers and crashes that did not result in injury. ICBC doesn't require reporting of rollovers and crashes on these heavy natural resource roads that don't have injuries.

I want to see, Minister, and I hope that you would want to look at, this EBA report. I would like to see that it's released. There is no reason that it's continuing to be held by the ministry. I would like your efforts in allowing this report to be released so that we can see for ourselves exactly what stats were used, how the results could possibly be real without stats that measure all the crashes and rollovers, and why CVSE has failed to release this publicly.

[1040]

Hon. T. Stone: The report that was released in December was a draft. I believe the copy that you were provided was a draft final. My understanding is that we're getting very close. We're working with EBA, the consulting firm, to finalize the report. We should have that done within the next short while. I will absolutely release the report to the member opposite when it is finished. I expect that that shouldn't be any later than this fall.

I want to point out, however, that this report will form one set of data points in the overall decision that we will make. We will look at what is the reality in other jurisdictions. We will look at our own internal statistics on this and weigh all of this into a final decision. It's important for us to understand where we are with safety on the roads and also understand the economics of this. We expect to be at a point of decision on this by the end of the year.

Finally, I will say that just because there are certain standards in other provinces does not mean that those same standards are necessarily relevant in British Columbia. We prefer to make decisions based on facts that are specific to the realities of our transportation infrastructure. We have highly qualified staff in the ministry, engineers, that are continuously looking at safety and areas for improvement. If it's deemed to be the right thing to do for safety and deemed to be in the interest of British Columbians, then and only then will we see a change in this policy.

V. Huntington: Yes, you do have highly qualified staff, Mr. Minister. But the ministry also has a highly influential industry, and I would suggest, with great respect, the minister take a very close look at the influence of the industry on the decisions being made at CVSE.

My last question is related to — I brought it up previously — the fact that CVSE is allowing trucks to operate without functional ABS.

In December of 2011 a notice was issued by CVSE that ABS was not needed or not necessary on natural resource roads, primarily. But as we know, this is a standard that is mandated for heavy trucks by Transport Canada. Rather than compelling the trucking industry to work with manufacturers to solve the maintenance issues that I think are basically the problem — i.e., the cost of maintaining ABS on natural resource roads — CVSE has allowed these trucks to operate without the ABS being functional. The notice was in December of 2011.

The issue of what was a natural resource road became one that even the inspectors in Transportation needed to have resolved, so a second notice was put out in April of 2012, four months after the initial notice, stipulating that…. Natural resource primarily was defined as: 55 percent of your operation had to be on natural resource roads. That was looking at logs, etc.

So 55 percent of a truck's operating time can be without…. If the operating time was 55 percent of the truck's mileage, he can operate on public highways without functioning ABS. I think that is another issue that has to be seriously examined.

[1045]

These are costs of maintenance. We know that. But rather than resolving those issues with the manufacturers, CVSE has seen fit to allow this safety precaution to be lifted. I would like to know when the minister will direct CVSE to stop issuing permits that allow this and to mandate that the industry work with manufacturers to solve their maintenance issues with ABS so that the public is secure in its safety.

[1050]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member opposite, yes, she is quite right. A notice was provided on December 31, 2011, that provided for this exemption. It came into effect on January 1, 2012.

I really want to make clear that all trucks in British Columbia are required to have well-functioning brake systems, and there are all kinds of checks and balances in place to ensure that that's the case. Again, we have great people in the ministry and are very active in monitoring, through inspections, the trucks on our roads to make sure that that's the case.

There are less than 1 percent of the commercial trucks in this province that operate almost exclusively on rural and resource roads, as the member mentioned. In fact, the issue, when it was brought forward to the ministry, from those trucks was that it's actually a greater safety issue to have the maintenance and the types of performance challenges on the ABS brake systems due to the conditions that they were travelling in, for the most part, which are dirt roads, rural and resource roads.

Frankly, it's in the greater public safety interest…. In the opinion of the Ministry of Transportation, as well as with full authorization of CVSE, providing those trucks with an exemption and not requiring them to have ABS brakes for rural and resource roads is actually in the public interest from a safety perspective.

That's where the policy is at. We do not expect to change that policy. I will point out that there is a requirement in the policy for an annual renewal. We will look at this issue on an annual basis and determine — again, based on facts — whether or not a change in policy is required at that time.

V. Huntington: I'd just like to remind the minister that trucks are specifically required to only operate on natural resource roads. Rural roads weren't part of that, although you would assume a natural resource road is rural.

Natural resource roads 55 percent of their operating time — that is the requirement. The rest of the time, if they were inspected on a public highway, they would still be exempt from having a functioning ABS.

I'd like to perhaps end this by saying, Minister, that these trucks are typically operating at maximum weights. The quad-axle trailers they're pulling are allowed in B.C. to operate at maximum weights, and they are typically travelling at extremely high speeds. I do not, with respect, believe this is in the public interest. I do not believe it is good policy, and I believe the minister should be re-examining this issue.

Hon. T. Stone: In response, your concerns are duly noted, and I encourage you to continue to raise this issue in the months and years ahead.

I will reiterate that the engineers and the staff in the Ministry of Transportation, as well as the very experienced staff in the CVSE branch, have looked at this and have studied it and have determined that the safety on the resource roads is actually improved by providing for this exemption.

Again, there is an annual renewal provision on this policy, and we certainly will take a look at the data that's at hand at that time to determine if any further changes are required.

C. Trevena: We're switching to B.C. Transit now. I've just got three areas, very cognizant of the time. We have limited time to cover a very vast ministry.

I wanted to focus on three areas of B.C. Transit. The first one is actually a basic one — funding for B.C. Transit. Between the February budget and the June revised budget, the amount of money listed in the service plan for transportation investments for rapid transit bus and other transit priorities has decreased by $27 million. Appropriations are down in the estimates book, yet the ministry avows to be investing in public transit infrastructure.

[1055]

It seems to be a contradiction in terms. You're taking money out, but you say that you're investing in it. I really want to know how you are squaring that circle and actually putting the investment into public transit infrastructure.

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you for the question. With respect to transit funding in British Columbia, the government remains committed to the B.C. Transit plan, the 2020 plan that calls for doubling ridership over that period of time.

In terms of the capital numbers that the member mentioned in her question, I think it's really important to note that the numbers fluctuate. Sometimes they go up. Sometimes they go a little bit down, depending on the timing of a number of factors. The member knows well that transit delivery is indeed a partnership between the province and, certainly, our local government partners.

Job 1, we go to our local partners, and we say to them: "Are you able to maintain your share of the base operational funding that's required to keep your system, as it currently is, operating?" Question 2: "What kind of expansion would you be interested in, and can you afford your portion of that as well?"

Once we have that aggregate data, B.C. Transit brings that back, and in consultation with the provincial government, we determine what level of funding will be provided at that point in time by the province. We may see in any given year that a capital number for transit might be a little up, or it might be a little down.

[1100]

On the Evergreen project, for example, the original forecast in February versus now showed that project actually up by tens of millions of dollars. It's all about the timing with respect to our local partners. It's also about
[ Page 706 ]
the timing with respect to our federal partners, which often are involved on the capital side of many of these projects.

Last but not least, B.C. Transit actively engages in public consultation on these projects. In the case of the Kelowna rapid transit, there was a very thorough consultation that was done with the people of Westside in Kelowna to make sure that B.C. Transit was clear on the priorities of the people in those communities, and then the decisions were made.

I would end by simply saying that the overall capital budget for the total transit plan…. In terms of where we were in February and where we are today, from 2013-14 to the end of 2015-16, the total transit plan actually has gone up from $836 million to $846 million. Again, there might be some adjustments, some up and down in some of the line items, but the overall spend is very much in place.

C. Trevena: Thank you to the minister.

I am actually not talking about the Canada Line or the Evergreen line, which are in TransLink, but the B.C. Transit section, which has gone down. Yes, it goes up and down.

Looking to local partners, the local governments actually don't have that much discretionary spending to continue to invest in B.C. Transit. The government keeps on avowing that it is in favour of encouraging the use of public transit, but it's got to come up to the plate to ensure that local governments can also have the support. Local government doesn't have the discretionary money. It's relying desperately on one-off, one-time grants.

So really, we are talking about a $30 million cut over the three years for B.C. Transit. I wonder if the government has actually measured what the likely impact of that sort of cut will be in that line item.

[1105]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, let's be really clear. There has been no cut to B.C. Transit. If we first talk about operational grants, the total operating grants from the ministry to B.C. Transit for 2012-13 stood at almost $93 million. That is scheduled to go up for 2013-14 to almost $102 million. It then goes up again in 2014-15 to $107 million, and in 2015-16 it goes up yet again to $113 million. From an operations perspective, this government is continuing to invest more in operating grants for B.C. Transit.

On the capital side I come back to my previous answer. There has been no cut there either. The investments that are made on the capital side are largely dependent upon the timing of the matching contributions from our partners, most of which are at the local government level. But a good amount comes from the federal government as well. So the timing of those commitments is really important.

I should also point out — and I think I said this yesterday — that there is no province in the country, no province in Canada, that invests more on a per-capita basis in transit than right here in British Columbia. In fact, as a percentage of the overall capital contribution for transit investments in British Columbia, municipalities in British Columbia are asked to pay the least amount of any set of municipalities across this country. The record is a very good one, one that we're very proud of.

As I said a moment ago, we are as committed today as we ever have been to doubling transit ridership through our transit 2020 plan. I will highlight two terrific success stories which show that the plan is working.

The Cowichan-Valley-to-Victoria transit route is at capacity. It's a tremendously successful route. And as I mentioned yesterday, the rapid transit line that now is in place between Westside and Kelowna…. I believe the original projections on that route were a 10 percent increase in transit ridership over a three-year period. We actually saw a 9 percent increase in ridership in the first year.

Outstanding results. I think it demonstrates that the investments this government is making on both the operational and the capital side are really paying off towards our goal of doubling transit ridership in this province by 2020.

C. Trevena: We can pass figures and work through them, but I want to move on, because I'm very aware of the time. Hopefully, both sides are committed to ensuring that we have a very healthy B.C. Transit system right across the province, both in rural and urban areas.

I'm very cognizant in my own community of the work with VIHA and then B.C. Transit in getting the Mount Waddington transit network, which has really changed the way of living for a lot of people in the Mount Waddington area. It's great to have that.

With this commitment and talking about the transit plan, I'm assuming…. When the minister talked about transit 2020, is this the transit plan for 2008, or is this a separate document we're talking about?

Also, I wanted to start moving along, looking at the report of the independent review panel. I know that the recommendations were welcomed by the government and the report was welcomed by the government. I wondered when the government is going to act on specific recommendations.

I won't ask about the changes to the B.C. Transit Act, because obviously there is no legislation happening in this session. Maybe in the fall session, if we are having a fall session, we would see the change in the legislation.

[1110]

Specifically, the recommendations were that the provincial government should provide B.C. Transit its capital funding through the service plan with output targets; that the provincial government should develop a policy framework for intercity routes — obviously, beyond
[ Page 707 ]
the Kelowna one mentioned; and that the Ministry of Transportation should provide B.C. Transit with the clear direction on its role in implementing the provincial transit plan.

Hon. T. Stone: First off, the member just asked a very simple question: what was I referring to, a new report? No, it's the 2008 transit plan.

I will say on that, however, that it was dated 2008. That was five years ago. I'm pretty certain that as a priority I'll be moving forward a refresh at some point in the near to mid-term. We're working in our ministry with B.C. Transit on a refresh of that transit plan. I think that some of the circumstances with transit around the province have changed a bit here and there. It probably is time to pull that report out and refresh it.

[1115]

On the question specifically about the panel's recommendations, as the member knows, there were 18 recommendations. B.C. Transit has been working their way through those recommendations. Government supports all 18 of them. Over half of the recommendations actually have been implemented — things like the implementation performance reports, and we're working with a number of municipalities on that front; changes to the strategic communications; and so forth.

With respect to legislative amendments that may or may not be triggered as a result of the recommendations, I think it's important to note, as well, that very few of the recommendations actually will require legislative amendments.

However, on those that may require legislative amendments, B.C. Transit is working in partnership with the working group that was established between a number of local governments, UBCM and B.C. Transit to really work their way through those recommendations to identify which ones may require legislative amendments and to prioritize those amendments.

I understand that B.C. Transit will be providing that information to the ministry at some point in the near to mid-term. Obviously, we'll look at that list of priorities, and we'll make a decision on whether or not to proceed and, if so, when we would do that.

C. Trevena: The specifics on the report…. It's good that the recommendations are being implemented. I look forward to seeing a feedback report when we get them all.

I wanted to ensure…. On recommendations 17 and 18, the policy framework for the intercity routes, we've heard of the Cowichan-Valley-to-Victoria one and the Kelowna one. If there are any others…. But also 17, where it "should provide B.C. Transit its capital funding through the…service plan process with output targets." Is that happening?

[1120]

Hon. T. Stone: First, with respect to recommendation 17 from the panel, which involved capital funding approval with output targets through an enhanced service plan process, I'm pleased to report that that recommendation actually is completed, and it was incorporated into the preparation of the current service plan.

I'd be happy, outside of this forum here, to provide you with further details on it if you would like. You won't see it per se in the service plan because the recommendation was to actually change the policy with respect to how the service plan is prepared, insofar as ensuring that the capital funding approvals with output targets are part of that process. That one is done.

In terms of recommendation No. 18, which deals with intercity routes, I could not agree more with the member opposite that there are some terrific examples of intercity routes in British Columbia that are tremendous success stories.

You know, we believe and B.C. Transit believes that under certain conditions, certain circumstances, certain makeup of the communities in question and so forth, there are likely other routes in British Columbia where an intercity route would make a lot of sense. I think in some situations it likely wouldn't make sense. A one-size-fits-all approach on intercity routes is likely not going to work around the province.

That being said, at the working group that I referenced a moment ago — B.C. Transit, local governments and the UBCM — this is one of the remaining recommendations that they're still working on. There has been vigorous debate, I understand, at that working group table, and they inform me that I should have a recommendation on my desk in the short- to mid-term with respect to the creation of a policy on intercity routes that could be applicable provincewide.

C. Trevena: Moving on and moving a bit backwards, we had the 2008 transit plan. Going back, I think, to about 2006…. I know it was long before the minister's time in elected politics, but in fact his former boss, the then Premier Gordon Campbell, talked about the hydrogen highway. We were going to have this fantastic link from B.C. all the way down to California, hydrogen pumps all over the place.

It seems to be that it's only in Whistler at the moment, and we have hydrogen buses in Whistler. I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about the buses and the fact that we don't actually have the hydrogen here in B.C. and the fuel has got to be transported, I believe, from Quebec.

I wanted to ask the minister…. Bearing in mind the time, I'll wrap up all these questions together. How much hydrogen is transported? How often is it transported from Quebec? I'm assuming it's from Quebec, and if the minister wants to correct me, I'd be happy to have that correction, to find out where it's from. And how many tractor-trailers are used in bringing the hydrogen across
[ Page 708 ]
the country?

[1125]

Hon. T. Stone: Thanks for the question about the Whistler hydrogen bus. A very straightforward answer. There are two tractor trucks that transport the fuel from the one supplier that provides us with the fuel. That's Air Liquide in Quebec.

It takes ten days for each of those trucks to travel from their location in Quebec to British Columbia. Each one of those tractor-trailers carries about 10,000 kilograms of fuel on each trip. Again, two trucks, 10,000 kilograms of fuel transported, and it takes about ten days to cross the country.

C. Trevena: One quick follow-up on that. Are they sort of going a constant ten days so that they are on the road the whole time? Or is it that you get three shipments a month? How does that work?

Hon. T. Stone: Every ten days B.C. Transit receives a shipment of the 10,000 kilograms of fuel. It's dropped off. The truck leaves. Ten days later another truck arrives.

C. Trevena: Sorry, I should have asked this together, at the same time. What's the cost of this — for purchasing the hydrogen and the fuel costs for the tractor-trailers from Quebec?

Hon. T. Stone: The annual cost for the hydrogen fuel is $2 million per year. That's inclusive of the actual cost of the hydrogen as well as all transportation costs to move the hydrogen out from Quebec to British Columbia.

C. Trevena: We're now moving from B.C. Transit. Much as I'd love to continue with B.C. Transit, I'm very aware that we have many other areas of this vast ministry to cover. We'll be looking at TransLink this afternoon.

I'm moving on to a couple of major projects in the Lower Mainland — the Port Mann Bridge and the Massey Tunnel.

Thanks to all the support staff.

While you're changing staff, I have one, I think, straightforward question on the Massey Tunnel. It was a flagship project. The Premier promoted it hugely during the election.

[1130]

It is mentioned in the minister's letter of expectations, but it just talks about consultations and planning. There is no money earmarked in the budget for what was described as a flagship project. I wondered if the minister could tell me very briefly where we are with it.

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the George Massey Tunnel, again, as part of our commitment to our Pacific gateway program and making strategic investments in our transportation infrastructure network to facilitate the movement of people and goods — which, again, is all about investment and trade and jobs and growing the economy — we have identified as one of our next core priorities on the infrastructure side in the Lower Mainland a replacement of the George Massey Tunnel.

I know the member knows well that it is the second-largest traffic bottleneck now in British Columbia, and 80,000 vehicles use the tunnel every single day. So it is a top priority of the government, and certainly it was specifically mentioned in my mandate letter.

[1135]

With respect to where we're at on the project, we've just completed a series of consultations, which the member referred to. The second phase of consultations was really looking at a wide variety of potential options for the replacement. I believe over 2,000 people participated in those consultations, so there was a high level of engagement from the public.

We actually have allocated in the budget…. There is some money in the budget with respect to the planning components of the project — the work that's been done up to this point and that we would be doing moving forward. It's rolled up under the Other Highway Corridors line item in the transportation investment plan, so we can provide those specific numbers to the member should she want them.

Specifically, there's a project development fund of about $2.4 million, the pre-project development of about $3.55 million, and then another $324,000 earmarked for the Massey Tunnel replacement study. So those dollars are there — again, under the Other Highway Corridors and Programs line item of the transportation investment plan.

Beyond that, the next step in this process is to get into the engineering and technical analysis as well as the related capital side, the funding side, with a specific option in mind. We're reviewing the results of the consultations up to this point. We expect to have more details to announce in the next couple of months on exactly where we intend on going with the George Massey project moving forward.

C. Trevena: My colleague from Delta South reminded me that there had been talk of some cosmetic upgrades to the present tunnel. I am wondering if that is still going ahead. If so, when? And how much has been allocated towards that?

Hon. T. Stone: For the member opposite, and certainly for the member for Delta South as well: yes. During the consultations that have been done up to this point, there have been a number of suggestions made or ideas put on the table for upgrades that involve the tunnel itself but also involve the approaches on both sides.

[1140]

We're currently working our way through those suggestions to determine, in the context of the larger capital project, which upgrades in the short term make sense and are really about safety and which ones would be better rolled in the larger project.

That being said, there are a few items that have come out of the consultation that we are proceeding with from an upgrades perspective. One example is some improvements to the Steveston interchange and, specifically, the Steveston off-ramp. We're in the middle of some design work on that. So when? As long as these things take to get from design to build. But that work should be underway soon. As for how much that costs, again, we won't know the costs on that until we complete the planning.

I'd be more than happy to keep the member for Delta South in the loop on that, as well as the Transportation critic.

C. Trevena: A switch over to one of the other major projects in the Lower Mainland, the Port Mann Bridge. I wanted to know from the minister…. I'll roll a couple of questions together, since we are short on time now. I guess they're interrelated. One is how ridership targets are doing. Are we on target? And are revenues from tolls on target? I ask this question specifically because Golden Ears — and I know that they are operated in different ways — tolls in 2012, I understand, were $38 million below target. I wondered where we are on the Port Mann toll situation.

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the Port Mann Bridge project, obviously, the government is very proud of this project and what it has meant for commuters and families throughout the Lower Mainland.

Specifically with respect to traffic volumes, I'll start off by saying that current traffic and revenue projections confirm that TI Corp is going to meet its financial targets as planned.

[1145]

Traffic volumes on the Port Mann Bridge are at the levels that they were expected to be — approximately the same number of vehicles per day this year as last year. Increasingly, drivers are responding very, very well to the 30-minute reduction in the average commute time by using the bridge.

One of the facts that I think underscores just how proud we are of this investment…. The number one intention here was to ease the congestion in the morning and in the evening. Certainly, if we look at the morning peak hours heading eastbound, the volume of traffic that is using the Port Mann Bridge now is up 18 percent in the morning over a similar period last year. In fact, in terms of the number of vehicles, in March of 2012 the Port Mann Bridge had a volume of 9,800 vehicles at that peak period in the morning, and one year later there are now 11,600 using that direction, so very successful.

I would also point out for the member — I know she knows well — that the rapid transit bus service from Langley to Vancouver is a terrific success story — over 50,000 people per day using that rapid transit bus. We expect that ridership to continue to increase.

My last point would be that I think, as all of us know, there is significant growth projected in the population in the Lower Mainland and particularly in the communities that are closest to the Port Mann Bridge. There are over one million people expected to move to this region by 2031, and most of those folks will be living in the communities adjacent to the bridge, in Surrey and the Tri-Cities area. So we could only expect that the number of travellers crossing the bridge will continue to increase in the months and years ahead.

The Chair: Member, recognizing the time, we have, perhaps, time for one more question.

C. Trevena: Recognizing the time, thank you. I'll respect the Chair. I'll roll my two or three questions into one.

I take it from the minister's response that the tolls are on target, so I want to move on. A very positive view on the way that the Port Mann ridership, usership, is going to increase. I'm pleased to see that there is the encouragement of people using transit there.

I wanted to go back a little bit in time to the winter when we had the ice bombs on the Port Mann Bridge. Kiewit was responsible for that. I wanted to ensure that there have been the necessary adjustments and repairs made for that, but also what penalties Kiewit faced, either within its contract or outside it, for that problem that caused so much trouble during the winter.

[1150]

Hon. T. Stone: Before I answer this last question, I wanted to clarify. I believe I misspoke and referenced 50,000 riders per day going over the Port Mann Bridge on rapid transit, which would be phenomenally amazing. It's 50,000 per month, so that the record is clear. I didn't want you to call me on that later today.

In terms of the, I think, very serious question around the situation that happened on the bridge last winter, I'll start off with a clear statement that obviously, safety is our number one concern. That's paramount.

This past winter our crews, with the contractor in question, did install cable sweepers on the bridge, which could have been used if a similar weather event were to have taken place. We're confident that the good work of the contractor, as well as our engineers, has put a solution in place that would deal with a similar situation in the future.

At this point it's too early to determine what the costs of that solution actually are. But Kiewit-Flatiron has done that work, and they've done that work at their own
[ Page 710 ]
expense.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $181,457,000 (continued).

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, I'll say good morning to everyone — you, hon. Chair, and others.

I also do want to read into the record several answers to questions that the members opposite left us yesterday, so we can cover off some of that business. I'll go through…. Some of them we obviously need a little bit more time with.

The member opposite asked about the CEO search firm and the cost to use Pinton Forrest and Madden that Destination B.C. has selected. The answer is it's a $60,000 fee. It's made up of $55,000 in fees and $5,000 in expenses.

The member asked for the job description for Destination B.C.'s CEO. We have a copy of that, and we'll make sure that it's provided to the member opposite. There's also a website where that can be accessed.

When we looked at the question of how does Destination B.C.'s revenue source compare with Tourism B.C.'s revenue source…. If you look at Tourism B.C.'s audited financial statement of 2008-2009, total program revenue was $7.672 million.

[1010]

Some of the same items were listed there, but I think we noted yesterday the reservations on B.C. Parks and product sales. That was almost $3 million. It was $2.9 million. Then there was the subsequent B.C. Magazine listing merchandise, for a total of $7.672 million. We'll start with those answers. We'll be happy to share the other work with members opposite as we receive that information.

L. Popham: Good morning, and thank you for those answers.

This morning I'd like to start with B.C. Magazine. I'd like to ask what the revenue is from B.C. Magazine and where it's published.

Hon. S. Bond: The magazine is a stand-alone publication. It is the publication done by Destination B.C. The forecast for revenue in this coming year is $1.4 million. That's a combination of advertising and subscriptions.

L. Popham: Is the magazine published in-house at Destination B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize. I had that answer and just didn't keep reading down the list. It is published in British Columbia but not in-house. It is published through contract.

L. Popham: What's the cost of producing this magazine?

Hon. S. Bond: In order to allow maximum time, we'll look up the number, and we'll move on to the next question. I'll provide it when I have the answer.

L. Popham: My next question is about consistency within Destination B.C. Destination B.C. is a new name that's out there in the industry and around, I would imagine, the world.

We have Tourism B.C., which no longer exists within the government, but it's still out there as a name. We have B.C. Magazine. We have Hello B.C. I'm wondering if we're going to be moving everything into Destination B.C. as far as a marketing package. I know that at trade shows people show up, and they're still going to be looking for Tourism B.C., because that's what they know. We've spent a lot of capital making sure that people know that name.

Now I'm going to refer back to a program that we've talked about a lot on our side of the House, which is Buy B.C.

[1015]

I'm not sure how it makes sense to throw away all of the capital we've invested and change the name. People were comfortable with Tourism B.C. I think it also allowed people to understand what we were talking about when we said Tourism B.C. For me, Destination B.C. — I think it needs some explanation. So if you could tell me the philosophy behind changing that.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member makes a very valid point. Certainly, in an industry where marketing
[ Page 711 ]
is critical, you want to reach as many people as possible as effectively as possible, so I think it's a valid question. In fact, the board of Destination B.C. is currently doing a brand audit and looking at how we ensure that there is a consistency. That work is underway. Some of the research has been completed, and the board will continue to look at that.

The name Destination B.C. is here to stay. I think there was a conscious choice to change the name to reflect some of industry's concerns. This was a new model, an opportunity for it to be more directly industry-led. So the name Destination B.C. was chosen intentionally, but there is an audit underway.

I think my colleague and the minister of state made an important observation. Even if someone is familiar with the Tourism B.C. name, when you google it or go on the Internet, it actually redirects you to Destination B.C., and the same with Hello B.C. So there is that redirection that takes place. But brand consistency is pretty important in marketing, and the board of Destination B.C. is currently doing a brand audit.

L. Popham: So Tourism B.C. will probably continue to live on regardless, but as you said, when it's searched, the websites are directed to Destination B.C. Social media sites are still using Tourism B.C. For example, Facebook has a Tourism B.C. site, and that doesn't redirect. It seems to me that it would have the potential for creating a lot of confusion.

When the brand audit is done by Destination B.C…. The minister mentioned that Destination B.C. is here to stay. What would be the point of doing that audit?

[1020]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I think that the board is doing work to rationalize and ensure that there's consistency. I think it's critical that people who are experts in marketing actually analyze what works best. We have a fantastic tourism product in British Columbia, and we want to make sure that it is marketed as effectively as possible.

I'm confident that the board will look at all of those things, and it's very likely that potentially, the name "Tourism B.C." may not be used in the future. But again, we're going to allow the board to do their work, make sure that experts in the marketing field are looking at all of the issues around consistency. I think it's a valid concern that the member has expressed, and I think there's work underway to ensure that any confusion is minimized.

L. Popham: When I go through a lot of the websites for our tourism businesses, they often link Tourism B.C. on their own website. One of the concerns that I had is that it's going to create more work for everybody who's trying to run their business, trying to redirect and to explain Destination B.C., when they, I think, had a very good brand.

Now, I understand also that using experts in the field to figure out the correct avenue for a brand change is a great idea. I question whether doing it after the name has been changed was a correct way to go, but I have confidence that Destination B.C. knows what they're doing.

I'd like to know who the minister considers our main competition for tourists.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, not a simple task and certainly something quite sophisticated when you think about how the analysis is done. We look at our competitors both by market and by sector. For example, if we're looking at who would compete with us in the ski industry, likely the competitors would be Colorado and, potentially, Alberta. There's a very sophisticated process where both market and sector research is done, and they're identified very specifically in both those areas.

L. Popham: As far as skiing goes, will Destination B.C. be doing a ski campaign?

Hon. S. Bond: Destination B.C. does do a ski marketing program each year. They do that in partnership with Canada West Ski Foundation, and they do a joint marketing program. In fact, skiing is one of our major products, so it is one of the priority marketing campaigns that's done each year.

[1025]

L. Popham: How much will industry be contributing to that campaign, and what's the total cost of the campaign?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the program is fairly extensive. We actually are going…. The budget for our "Ski" campaign is $1.8 million. In addition to that, we match a sector advertising campaign, where we provide $250,000 and match $250,000 in the industry sector. Industry also, obviously, has a much broader advertising program than that.

So $1.8 million is our "Ski" campaign — that would be in North America — and a sector match of $250,000.

L. Popham: So the ski industry is contributing $250,000 to a $2 million advertising campaign. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: No. It's two separate campaigns, in essence. We have a $1.8 million campaign, which we operate in consultation with…. We talk to the ski operators, obviously, through Canada West Ski Foundation about how we can do that best. So that's our campaign — $1.8 million.

The sector, I am positive, would spend much more than half a million dollars. What we do is contribute
[ Page 712 ]
$250,000 to their specific sector campaign and match. So that would be $500,000. Then the ski industry, generally, would spend far in excess of that for their own advertising.

L. Popham: I understand that the ski industry would be doing their own marketing program. But for the benefit of these estimates what we're talking about is the contribution of Destination B.C.

The marketing program for the ski industry — the one that's designed by Destination B.C. — is it marketing outside our province, inside our province or both, and how is that broken down?

Hon. S. Bond: The campaign is focused on North America more broadly, but we do have three target areas. About 60 percent of the funding is used in Ontario, 30 percent in California and 10 percent in Washington.

L. Popham: What's the effect of advertising within our own province to our own population, as far as a campaign goes? Are we advertising Silver Star ski resort to people on Vancouver Island? If so, how much are we contributing to campaigns like that?

The reason why I'm asking, and the reason why I'm going down this line of questioning, is because what I've been reading is that as the economy struggles — although it may be recovering, it's still struggling — we travel closer to home. Our province is massive, and we may not be aware of those opportunities. I think it's important that we advertise to ourselves, because people are looking for more at-home options.

[1030]

Hon. S. Bond: We're trying to sort out the last question. We'll get back to you on the cost of B.C. Magazine.

Destination B.C. does not do specific campaigns, direct campaigns, in regions. However, they do support communities and regions in choosing, as they choose their campaigns.

The total amount of money that's invested in six regional tourism organizations' areas is $6 million. Now, "Ski" would only be a part of that. We would support the area or the community through funding, but Destination B.C. would not do direct campaigns in those areas.

J. Shin: I'm looking at the B.C. tourism strategy 2012-2016 executive summary, and there's a five-year strategy that's noting the key tourism products. The key tourism products are: touring vacations, city experiences, skiing, and the list goes on — conventions and meetings included.

I was hoping to get some clarification if these products are something that the ministry is developing or if these are the products that are identified within our local tourism sector and being supported by the ministry. If that's the case, some breakdown of what kind of support the businesses can leverage, as afforded by the ministry, would be great.

[1035]

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to comment that I think the member opposite and I certainly share the view that B.C. is a pretty special place. If you live in one part of it, you don't necessarily know about the other parts of it. So I think the points are very valid.

How do we support regions in promoting themselves? I live in northern B.C. There are some very small communities that would simply not have the capacity to do that and that are phenomenally beautiful. I think it's a very relevant line of questioning, and I don't disagree with it.

The way that the list of priorities is determined by Destination B.C. is that there's a broad information-gathering process. It's through Stats Canada, through data, through research, through surveys. Ultimately, that list is determined by looking at all of those factors. We want to market the products that are actually going to sell the most, that are going to attract those individuals.

They are supported, then, in the way that we've just discussed. Either communities or regions can receive funding out of that $6 million pot, and that's determined by them in terms of how they want to utilize those dollars and what's important to them.

Destination B.C. also then chooses special campaigns. "Ski" would be a good example of that — a primary product. It's important for us to market that. So there're a variety of ways of doing it, but there are ways where local communities or regions can get support for the kinds of things they want to share with other British Columbians, in particular.

J. Shin: Where I'm hoping to get more information is, for example, on the fishing sector. In the Chilliwack River and towards Mission there are a lot of businesses that thrive on the traffic we get from U.S. visitors that come up here just for that fishing experience. I do have the privilege of having a small network of small businesses that I've gotten to know personally.

For example, if I were to go back to those businesses and go: "Look at what Destination B.C. or the ministry is doing…. This is some of the advertising that is done beautifully already. We could copy the link and send that out to your potential clients or the traffic that you're trying to attract from other places."

I'm trying to get a better sense of what resources there are that we can share with the businesses for them to leverage effectively so that they're not trying to come out with their own marketing campaigns. I'm trying to get a better sense of what's already existing out there that we can better utilize.

[1040]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Thank you for the question. I don't know if you know, but I'm a huge fan of fishing, especially in the Chilliwack area and the Vedder River. I'm not sure if I caught my first steelhead there, but it may have been.

Anyways, fishing isn't actually one of the areas that we focus on, but we do know it's very important for some of the communities. What we try to do, through Destination B.C., is to work through the local businesses, through the regional destination marketing organization — that can be the chamber of commerce, or it could be the regional DMO.

We also have a program called experiences B.C. That's where Destination B.C. folks will actually work with tourism operators to ensure that we maximize the resources available to attract visitors to those areas.

J. Shin: Thank you for that answer. It's very good to hear that you're an avid fisherwoman as well. I hope you can come and visit us at our shop. We have one in North Burnaby. But we'll go into that more.

If I can, what I'm hoping to communicate to the ministry is that, going forward, I understand that the ministers are very supportive of small businesses. I would like to see better synchronization and communication between the communities of businesses that we have here locally so that they're aware of the ministry and Destination B.C.'s efforts.

If I were to develop a promotional video to showcase the industry, if there have been materials that are promotional that have been made beautifully by Destination B.C., for example…. The fact that we don't have to duplicate those efforts….

Is there a resources website or something that's already in the works or could be developed in the near future that small businesses can leverage?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: That's a great question, and as Minister of State for Small Business, this is exactly the type of initiative that we're looking for.

One of the reasons why Destination B.C. has been formed is to look at the alignment of communities and regions and businesses to ensure that marketing resources are also aligned. In that respect, businesses can actually list their businesses on the website, which is a marvellous way for businesses to obviously increase their exposure. Currently we have 2,800 businesses registered on the website, and we'd appreciate your help in increasing that.

L. Popham: The idea of connecting businesses and marketing products within B.C. to Destination B.C. is very important. Of course, that is the success, hopefully, of Destination B.C.

The Destination B.C. site will direct people to experiences. Often they are crossing to Vancouver Island or other islands, other areas, where you have to take a B.C. ferry. I know B.C. Ferries is not in this ministry, but we do have a gift shop that operates on the B.C. ferries — not all of them, but most of them.

I've been watching this for years. Not often do you see very much made-in-B.C. product. In fact, I've always thought that it is a showcase for us to use.

[1045]

When I look at the B.C. books section, I know that there is a percentage of B.C. books that is supposed to be held there. Right now I think it's 50-50. At one point it was 80-20. I don't know why we don't showcase all B.C. products there. I don't think that is a protectionist viewpoint. I think that we're missing a huge opportunity. We have a captured audience there.

I look at the potential for even food products, processed food products from our province. I have spent a lot of time travelling the province, looking at what we're providing, what our small businesses are producing.

One of them, as an example, is up in Kamloops. The First Nations Agricultural Association has an amazing product, a traditional product, which is a jerky, with dried fruit in it, from their grass-fed beef, and they package it up in an amazing way. That's a product that I think should be on the B.C. Ferries. Not only is it amazing, but it's something the world should know about. We have so many people, I think, that would support that.

Another question that I'll add on is…. I don't quite understand why we wouldn't be able to have a boutique wine and spirits shop on our B.C. Ferries. Maybe that can be addressed — not that I have any connection to spirits.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: You know, I actually really enjoy the boutique, the shop on B.C. Ferries. I think the person who, obviously, is in charge of marketing and setting up the products there has done a great job. You mentioned something about buying boutique wines and spirits there. I don't know if you know this, but you can't even actually buy gum on the B.C. Ferries.

Having said that, we don't have a mandate with respect to B.C. Ferries on what they sell in their shops. But I have to say that both myself and the minister responsible for JTST are very pleased to hear that WestJet recently announced on their Q400 — that's their western Canada flights — a policy to serve only B.C. wines. They'll be rotating through the Okanagan winery — I think starting with two initially. I think that's a fantastic idea.

At the Vancouver Convention Centre the policy, as well, there is to only sell B.C. wines. I think something like that is great for our economy, but we don't have a mandate with respect to what B.C. Ferries can sell in their shop.

L. Popham: I'm curious why we don't have a mandate. We do have some agreement as far as B.C. books goes, I think.
[ Page 714 ]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I would respectfully ask the member opposite to perhaps talk to the Minister of Transportation, who actually is responsible for B.C. Ferries, about that.

L. Popham: Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. I'll have that conversation. But we're talking about tourism right now and connecting B.C. products and spending money, advertising experiences, one of them being trips on B.C. Ferries. Not to be argumentative, but I do think that it's a huge opportunity.

Maybe the minister could tell me how many tourists travel on the B.C. Ferries every year.

[1050]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I share the member opposite's passion for showcasing B.C. products. The Minister of JTST and I both share that. Actually, whenever we have the ability to influence that, we'll encourage, obviously, shopping local and buying B.C. products. But with respect to B.C. Ferries, again — that question about how many visitors — it would be best to direct that question to the Ministry of Transportation.

L. Popham: I think that Destination B.C. should have those numbers. That's a huge number for our tourism industry.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As I mentioned before, this information is information that I'm sure B.C. Ferries has. We don't actually have access to that. I would recommend that the member opposite, if unable to get a response from the Ministry of Transportation, perhaps contact B.C. Ferries.

L. Popham: Well, I will contact B.C. Ferries, but I do find it a little bit odd that our Tourism B.C. Crown corp does not know how many tourists travel on the B.C. Ferries. I'm only making this point repeatedly because I think we have a captive group of tourists who do spend money. Really, that's what it comes down to. It's money spent by tourists that helps our economy. If we're missing an opportunity, I think that it's an excellent avenue to proceed with.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The idea that we don't have a mandate to sell all-B.C. goods on the B.C. Ferries would be, I believe, a cabinet decision. Is either minister interested in pursuing that?

[1055]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think we are agreeing, both sides, that we would like to take any opportunity we have where we have the ability to influence the choice of visitors to buy local — and increase that opportunity. We are in agreement there.

But we do not have the information with respect to the number of visitors who take B.C. Ferries. I would again recommend, if you would like that information, that you contact B.C. Ferries directly.

Let's not forget that both sides of the House have a vested interest in ensuring that our small businesses are showcased in B.C.

L. Popham: Well, I'm glad that there is interest. I know that there was a mandate back when the NDP was government. So to me, it seems like that was a decision that was made.

And it's not necessarily just for tourists to see our B.C. goods. I can tell you that I ride the ferry a lot, and I have shopped in that gift shop. Although they do have a lovely selection of things, I'm often looking for a purchase as a gift, a B.C. product to give to somebody who I'm going to see. Or it's your two hours of shopping that you have, and you could, actually, be spending some of your money in that gift shop, which would benefit B.C. businesses. And I do think it's a missed opportunity.

I guess I'd like confirmation that it's a decision of government that we don't have that mandate.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As the member opposite probably knows, B.C. Ferries is an arm's-length-run organization, so we don't have the ability to influence there.

But I'd like to remind the member opposite that we will do what we can to ensure that B.C. products are showcased in British Columbia. Perhaps during the estimates process for Small Business we can talk about the B.C. small business accord and the work that we're doing to showcase small business and influence people to buy local.

[1100]

L. Popham: Yes. I think we will be canvassing a lot of that in the next set of estimates, which I think falls under Jobs. But I believe this is Tourism and Small Business and Skills Training, so I think that it's appropriate to ask those questions here as well.

The minister points out that B.C. Ferries is arm's-length, but our province contributes a lot of money to B.C. Ferries. I would question why we would not be looking at the whole picture instead of in silos. When we're creating a contract with B.C. Ferries, why would that not be part of our contract? How did we get the mandate to have 50 percent B.C. books on the ferry?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I think we've canvassed this topic thoroughly. I've respectfully mentioned to the member opposite that those types of questions could be directed to the Ministry of Transportation. I don't have the answer with respect to the mandate for the percentage of B.C. books on the B.C. Ferries.
[ Page 715 ]

L. Popham: The five-year targets for success show $18 billion by 2016 — 5 percent annual growth. How is that measured? If we're looking specifically just at revenue, to me it seems there should be some other type of measurement tools used. Is there anything else?

The Chair: Minister.

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

The tourism revenue numbers are a B.C. Stats measure, and it was determined that that would be the key measure in Gaining the Edge, the tourism strategy.

I can tell the member opposite that the tourism revenue in 2011 was $13.4 billion. In fact, 2012 numbers will be available in September. It is a way to measure — one of the measures.

But there are a number of other factors that are considered when we look at meeting our targets. It's things like visitor volumes, how many people actually visit our province; the number of overnight stays or accommodation; employment; and also looking at occupancy rates, for example, in hotels — and those kinds of things. So a number of factors, but the critical measure is the B.C. Stats number that looks at tourism revenue.

L. Popham: If tourism revenue goes up, I would imagine that Destination B.C. would be taking credit for that. If tourism revenue goes down, I can imagine that the economy would take credit for that. How do we find the difference? Which story do we believe?

[1105]

Hon. S. Bond: I don't think that it's as black and white as that at all. I do think that Destination B.C. has a target that it needs to work toward, and we've certainly been very clear about that. I think, you know, it's obvious that if Destination B.C. could control the Canadian dollar, that would be a good thing.

There are many influences on those numbers. It does not mean for a moment that Destination B.C. isn't expected to be accountable for working and striving to its best ability to support the tourism sector, to create a strategy that's going to be efficient so that we can actually meet those targets.

Undoubtedly, as the member has pointed out, the economy does have an impact on tourism. We only have to look around the world, when there have been catastrophic events, other things, the Canadian dollar — a number of factors. It does influence tourism revenue.

It is the target that was chosen — tourism revenue. I would like to see, whether the numbers are up or the numbers are down, that Destination B.C. takes responsibility. It's industry-led. We have great people on that board. There will be ups and downs, but we certainly expect them to do their utmost to help meet that target.

L. Popham: Thank you, I appreciate that answer. One of the reasons why I asked that is…. Of course, it's not a black-and-white situation. There are a lot of factors that come into play. I've been speaking to the gift shop owners on Government Street here in Victoria. They're reporting out that the numbers are down for them as far as visitors.

They believe that one of the things that's keeping them going is the cruise ship visitors that are coming into town. But the difference in the cruise ships that used to come here and the cruise ships that are coming here now is that it's a different type of traveller. The expenditures that tourists previously used to make, coming from cruise ships, was a lot higher. Now the visitors are spending less. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Your points are very well taken, and you're displaying, obviously, some knowledge of the cruise ship industry and small business in gift shops in Victoria.

[1110]

I'm pleased to report, though, that the Victoria airport actually recorded its best number, the highest volume of passengers coming through their airport, in June. That's obviously good news, not just for the airport but also for the gift shop owners, who, obviously, these passengers may visit.

With respect to the cruise ship industry, Victoria has seen, again, a growth in the number, an increase in the number of cruise ships that are coming to Victoria. I think the important point here is that our Gaining the Edge strategy is looking at diversifying our market — focusing on markets but also diversifying our focus so that we're not just relying on one particular sector. As the member opposite noted, there are factors beyond our control.

The cruise ship industry, however, is doing well. We're going to see over 460 cruise ships coming into British Columbia at five different ports — Victoria, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Prince Rupert. That's 1.3 million visitors that are coming to British Columbia this year.

L. Popham: I appreciate that answer. Yes, things definitely are complicated. With that many visitors being attracted to British Columbia, it's very, very important that we're set up to be able to make as much profit as we can from those visitors while making sure that they have a good experience. The only way that we can do that is if we connect all of the dots.

Where I'm going to go on this line of questioning is the culinary tourism part. The culinary tourism industry is something that I think we've seen take off over the last few years in a way that we would not have expected. A lot of that is because consumers are now interested in a different type of food that they're eating. Of course, this is near and dear to my heart.

One of the things that I think we need to work on
[ Page 716 ]
cross-ministry is fixing the barriers to make sure that we can take advantage of that. They may be different barriers when you're looking at it through the lens of a different ministry.

One of the things about downtown Victoria is that we have a lot of restaurants here. Of course, it's the same as in Vancouver. These restaurants are taking advantage of locally grown food. I believe that that's what tourists…. Not all tourists, but a lot of tourists are looking for that experience now.

We have a major problem with our food production, which is our meat regulations. There are a lot of restaurants that want to highlight our locally raised meat, and right now that's stuck in limbo, and it has been for the last seven years. I'm very close to the restaurant industry. I know a lot of chefs, and it is a problem.

Although Destination B.C. might be about marketing, the implications of the dots not being connected in other areas would resonate within Destination B.C. a lot. If we're looking at the increase in restaurant visits, maybe medium to higher-end restaurants, I think that's something that could be contributing to why it may not go up, because restaurants are struggling to get the products they need.

I'm wondering if there's any cross-ministry talk that addresses issues like this.

[1115]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: That's a great question. I actually like where the member opposite is going with this. I am myself a huge champion of culinary tourism and probably spend more money than I should in restaurants around town when I'm visiting.

To your answer, there is cross-ministry talk, and in fact, it's encouraged. We have a new team of ministers, and it's been heavily encouraged that we do talk with each other. We are tasked with overcoming barriers — in particular, from my point of view, where there may be barriers to tourism growth. But I am the minister responsible for small business, so it doesn't stop there. I am obviously a champion for small business, and that means that all ministries have to recognize that.

The member opposite talked about growing this industry. All we have to do is look at what happened to the wine industry in the Okanagan and perhaps the craft breweries, the beer industry, as well. So we know we have the potential. We know that we have the right ingredients for this, and we will be doing what we can to encourage this growth.

L. Popham: We certainly do have the right ingredients for culinary tourism — absolutely.

I'm wondering. How much money will be spent on a culinary tourism campaign?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Regrettably, we don't have a number for you on this, but we can get back to you at a later date with an approximate figure.

L. Popham: Can the minister confirm that there is a culinary tourism campaign?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: There is no specific campaign designated for culinary tourism. As the member opposite mentioned, culinary tourism is an experience that's woven through a visitor's experience at least three times a day as they have breakfast, lunch and dinner. But we do recognize that it is important.

One of the successes that we're quite proud of is that the tourism branch was part of attracting the Top Chef TV show here to British Columbia.

[1120]

As the member opposite may recall, yesterday the Members of the Legislative Assembly as well as the public were treated to quite a lunch — unfortunately, they had run out by the time I got there — that was created by the actual winner of the Top Chef show.

A Voice: From B.C.?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: From B.C.

L. Popham: Well, I did get to enjoy that lunch, and it was fantastic. He's a wonderful chef.

That being said, it's quite surprising that we don't have a culinary tourism program in place. I understand that people eat three times a day, but that's not capturing the part of the tourism industry and the tourism potential that I think we would be able to have if we had a culinary program in place.

This is not something that I'm just passionate about because I come from that area. It's well known. In fact, I'm going to quote something from the Canadian Tourism Commission. They acknowledge that culinary tourists spend more. They're often an older demographic, and they're looking for a culinary experience that's organized.

There are independent businesses — I'm friends with many — who do wine and food tours. But in order to capture that and to encourage more of those businesses happening — we certainly have enough destinations to visit around B.C. — I think we need a program in place, especially since the potential for expenditure is there and it's proven through many surveys. The Canadian Tourism Commission has captured that in their report.

This would lead to the development of more small businesses in this area, I think, including support for agriculture, agritourism and the spinoff businesses. Often these visitors also partake in golf or other activities like that. So the multiplier effect from a culinary tourism campaign, I believe, would be enormous. From the research that I've done, I think that's being proven.

One of the things that these documents say is that
[ Page 717 ]
we need to capture this market between now and 2026. That's the window that we have. I believe that we should start now if we're going to do that. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have the Gaining the Edge tourism strategy. In order to come up with the final shortlist of seven products or services that we were going to focus on, we went through a process of identifying about 150-plus products. What we wanted to do is to ensure that we identified the highest opportunity for us to generate revenue through tourism, as well as, obviously, increased tourist visits. Those 150 products were short-listed down to about seven products, and that's what we're focusing on.

I do agree with the member opposite that there is room to consider increasing the focus, perhaps, that we put on culinary tourism. But what we should do is leave that up to the experts. In fact, the board of Destination B.C. will be undergoing a strategic planning session once they have this new CEO in place to continuously ensure that we're re-evaluating the marketplace. We know that the competition for tourist dollars is very, very competitive.

[1125]

L. Popham: One of the things that I think is the strength of the culinary industry is that it's a green industry. The resources that you use are renewable, and they're renewable right here in this province. I think that should be one of the angles.

Can the minister tell me the seven focuses that Destination B.C. will be having?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I misspoke in my previous answer to the member opposite. There are actually six areas that we're focusing on. I mentioned seven; there are six. The six areas are skiing, aboriginal tourism, touring, city stays, outdoor ecotourism and convention. I want to add that this is a process that was done by experts after considerable consideration and evaluation of the potential to attract tourists here and for the greatest opportunity to increase our revenues.

L. Popham: Which of those campaigns — or perhaps it's all of them — is focused on our older demographic?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: To go back to a previous question the member opposite asked. This is an interesting statistic. We have a current campaign on right now that's called B.C. Moments, and I'd recommend the members opposite take a look at this campaign. Of the 50 B.C. Moments experiences that are featured, 13 actually are culinary in theme. So that's obviously an area that we're still looking at.

With respect to the member opposite's most recent question, we target generally to folks who are between 35 and 55. Since I'm in that category — my age — I'm not sure if you consider that old or not. But we would generally tend to focus on the older visitors in areas like touring and city stays. The younger tourists will be more attracted to skiing and the outdoor ecotourism opportunities.

L. Popham: Considering that I also fit into that demographic, that wasn't the demographic I was considering older.

[1130]

What I was considering to be an older demographic is retired people — retired people within British Columbia, who may have more time than people in the other demographic you were mentioning. Is there anything that's specifically designed for seniors in B.C.?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: My father is 86 and retired, and I would consider him a very young traveller. He just spent four weeks out of the province and, in fact, is not even in town right now. He's travelling. But we do not have a specific program directed at seniors or retired folks, as the member opposite has asked.

L. Popham: Well, again, I think that's probably an audience that we could capture. I think it would be interesting to look at a campaign designed around seniors within B.C. travelling within B.C., but I'll leave that aside.

My next question is, again, around connectivity between ministries as far as cycling tours go. Connectivity is the key word, because we have an absence of connector routes across B.C.

If somebody wanted to cycle through B.C. and take advantage of our bed-and-breakfast industry, our restaurant industry and all the rest of the businesses that they may frequent if they're on a cycling tour, we have some investments to make to connect these trails and roadways. I'm wondering if that's something that Destination B.C. would be lobbying the Ministry of Transportation for or working on their own internal campaigns to make sure that things are set up so that they can appropriately market a campaign like that.

The reason why I'm talking about cyclists is because cyclists are another demographic that is proven to spend more when they're travelling.

Hon. S. Bond: I think, as we discussed with other ministries and other issues, they are policy issues that cross government. We have been directed very clearly to look for impediments and ways to work constructively with one another. I can assure the member opposite, as a former Minister of Transportation in my career, there is a significant emphasis on adding bike paths, walking paths, those kinds of things, and supporting communities in developing them.

I think there are ways for us to look at capturing a
[ Page 718 ]
market that does look at cycling. You just need to talk to people who travel to other countries to cycle. That's what they do.

Again, there's room for us to continue to work together across ministries. This government certainly can't be accused of a lack of investment in infrastructure. In fact, we will continue to look for ways to add those kinds of projects where it's appropriate. The policy purview belongs to the Ministry of Transportation.

L. Popham: Well, I've been studying the Green Route in Quebec, and I think that it's a fantastic example of what can be done when you connect the dots that way. There's a lot of crossover in businesses, one of them being the bed-and-breakfast industry and the accommodation industry, which leads me to the question: is the accommodation guide being printed right now?

[1135]

Hon. S. Bond: The accommodation guide is done annually. The 2013 one is actively being distributed as we speak. The work gathering the information, going back out and speaking to people who are included in the accommodation guide, begins very shortly for the 2014 guide.

I think it's also important to note that it is on line. You know, one of the things that I'm very interested in is looking at how we utilize things like social media and technology so that where it's appropriate and possible, people can actually access and use it in that format as well.

L. Popham: Thank you for that answer.

Is the physical copy still in print? Is it still something that's printed annually?

Hon. S. Bond: I understand distribution started, I think, in February for the 2013 accommodation guide. They've been delivered, as far as I'm advised, to tourism centres across the province.

Certainly, there may be additional copies available, if necessary. If the member has a specific request about that, we can certainly consider it. But I'm told it was distributed beginning in February. It's out in tourism venues across the province, and we do believe there may be some additional copies available if they're required.

L. Popham: From my understanding, there's advertising that's sold, as well, within that guide. Maybe not, but the minister can confirm that. I'd like to know how much revenue is generated from the accommodation guide.

Hon. S. Bond: There is advertising that is part of that accommodation guide. There is revenue from that particular publication. We don't have the breakdown of the specific amount that is reflected through the accommodation guide.

The total amount of revenue we receive from publications, for advertising, I'm told is $215,000.

J. Shin: I am studying Gaining the Edge: A Five-Year Strategy for Tourism in B.C., 2012. It has wonderful objectives for the ministry, such as: implement an action plan, develop a B.C. blueprint strategy, build an outstanding system of tourism information, and it goes on.

I was curious to find out when the public accountability takes place so that we have a way to follow up whether these action items have taken place. What are some of the performance indicators, the timeline when some of these projects will finish their indicated purpose? If I can get some idea as to where I can find that information, that would be great.

[1140]

Hon. S. Bond: I, like the member opposite, am very interested in deliverables. My colleague and I, who are responsible for Gaining the Edge, will be very interested in tracking the progress that Destination B.C. makes and look forward to working with them very constructively.

The deliverables will be reported on in the ministry service plan. The Minister for Tourism reminds me that Gaining the Edge has only actually been one full year, in terms of its creation, so there wouldn't have been an opportunity yet to report out.

The member opposite can certainly wait and see our service plan. We, too, will be interested in making sure there is accountability and looking at that strategy.

J. Shin: Thank you for that answer.

For the objective 5.1 on page 27 of the revised service plan, it reads that one of the plans is to foster solutions for the labour shortage in B.C., in B.C.'s tourism workforce specifically, "critical to tourism growth and investment attraction."

I was curious to find out what kind of efforts have been made and if there was any work with the Ministries of Education or Advanced Education for that.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: As the members opposite probably know, tourism is actually one of the largest industries in British Columbia. There are around 18,000 businesses, mostly small and medium-sized businesses, in B.C. that are tourism operators or businesses. About 127,000 people in B.C. work in the tourism industry, and year after year we have seen growth, so that's good.

The member opposite raises a very good question. We do work with the Ministry of Advanced Education, and obviously within our ministry, for skills training to ensure that we have invested in programs so that we have people, British Columbians, with the skills that they need to service this industry.

To list a couple of them, we have a partnership agreement with go2. That's the ITO, the industry training
[ Page 719 ]
organization, for the tourism sector. We contributed $140,000 to that. We've got $4.2 million in the workplace training programs, and that training and development opportunity has been presented to about 1,200 participants who are now employed in the retail or tourism sectors. Again, that's designed to upgrade existing skills for employees.

Almost $500,000 of funds came from the labour market sector solutions program. So 120 individuals in Vancouver on the Downtown Eastside were given the opportunity to gain HR skills and needs to support the food and restaurant sector, which we've talked about already.

The employment skills access program provides eligible people to receive tuition-free programming — so they don't pay anything — and training throughout post-secondary institutions throughout the province. Three that I know of that have focused a lot of their training in tourism are Capilano University, Royal Roads University and Thompson Rivers University.

Finally, $13 million through the Canada–B.C. LMA, the labour market agreement, has gone to initiatives in underemployed areas in British Columbia. One of those areas is looking at tourism.

[1145]

L. Popham: This is probably going to be our final question, noting the time.

One of the goals of Destination B.C. is looking at removing barriers for businesses participating in our tourism industry, as far as I understand.

A great draw that we have here is our festivals. People are drawn to that from not only within our own province but from outside of our province. Many of the festivals have a major barrier in place, and that's around the alcohol regulations. I'm wondering if the minister will be working on that.

We have a specific festival here in Victoria called Taste, and they struggle with the alcohol regulations every year. It's getting to a point where it's become so burdensome that they may not be able to continue. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Again, the member opposite reflects a concern that I share as well. I've seen that experience happen even in my own riding. With some simple changes, I think, that we can make to our liquor laws to ensure that we can maximize the positive impact that these night markets or festivals have.

That's why it was a platform commitment to appoint a parliamentary secretary, and his task will be focused on modernizing our current liquor laws. I'm looking forward to the work that the parliamentary secretary will be doing. I've talked to him, and I'm encouraged by the fact that he will be talking to small businesses that are particularly affected by this.

I will remind the member opposite that earlier this spring we did announce some changes to our liquor laws that have enabled the craft brewery industry, or sector, to grow their businesses, as well as caterers.

We have gone down a road that, I think, looks at helping remove those barriers that the member opposite talked about. Our commitment to go forward will be to ensure that our tourism sector and small businesses that rely on tourists and locals will have a liquor legislation that will be easier to understand — and modernized.

Hon. S. Bond: My colleague and I certainly want to thank the members opposite for their interest in the tourism industry in British Columbia. Working together…. All of us appreciate the great province we live in, and we wanted to make sure we're maximizing the benefit and welcoming as many people to British Columbia as possible. We very much took to heart the concept of using B.C. products and showcasing them wherever possible. I think all of us in are vigorous agreement about that.

I'm going to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again because this is the Tourism component of the ministry. I think we'll be covering off Jobs, Labour and a number of other issues next week.

I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada