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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the gallery today we're joined by Brenda and Brian Harrott, who are from Kelowna and are friends of my chief of staff. We were all fortunate enough to attend the wedding of my chief of staff and his new bride, Sophie, two weeks ago in Kelowna. Would the House please welcome them.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is someone who has been shadowing me for the morning and into the afternoon. He's a young man from Langford in my constituency, Ravi Parmar. He will be known, I'm sure, to the Minister of Education.

It was Ravi who led a walkout of students at Belmont high school a year ago that led to George Abbott having to sit down with him for half an hour. Now, thanks to the good work of the Ministry of Education, we will have a new high school in Langford, and it's all as a result of Ravi Parmar. Would the House make him welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: Today, alongside the Speaker, the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of Social Development, I had the pleasure of having lunch with representatives from Richmond Centre for Disability.

Joining us today in the House and in the gallery are Vince Miele, the board chair; Tom Parker, the board vice-chair; Angela Gauld, board member at large; Shirley Liang, board member at large; and Eileen and Peter Kalshoven. Would the House please join me in giving them the most warm welcome.

V. Huntington: I'm extremely pleased to welcome to the precinct today Peg, Eric and Nick Keenleyside, who are residents of Delta South and wonderful supporters of mine. Will the House make them welcome.

[1335]

D. Horne: Joining us in the members' gallery this afternoon is His Excellency Ali Al-Sammak, the Ambassador for the State of Kuwait to Canada. The ambassador is here on his first official visit to British Columbia and will be meeting with the Lieutenant-Governor at Government House this afternoon. Would this House please make him feel welcome.

D. Routley: I've invited several guests to the House today. They're parents and people affected by potential school closures in the south end of Nanaimo, in the Cedar and Wellington communities: Olivia and Kathie Aarsen; Andrea Bonkowski, a former school trustee in Nanaimo, and her husband, David; Steven Bowen; Coleen Burke; Sheilagh Gourlay; Garry Hein; Scott Kimler; Alec McPherson, the Nanaimo regional area director for the community; Caeleigh and Tiffany Nelson; Steve and Melodie Rae; Madeline and Debra Shred; Lloyd and Delaney St. Cyr; and Peter Yoon. Can the House please help me welcome these folks to Victoria.

L. Reimer: I'm pleased to announce that today is the birthday of my wonderful brother Bob Chambers. Would the House please join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.

D. Eby: Joining us today in the gallery are representatives of the Alliance of B.C. Students, who represent over 180,000 British Columbia students in post-secondary institutions. I know they've been having a lot of productive conversations with my colleague on the other side of the House, and I wanted to ask the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Each year since 1903 British Columbia has selected a Rhodes Scholar to attend Oxford University for further education. That's from a period more than a decade before these buildings came into use.

I'm pleased to announce that this year's 2013 Rhodes Scholar for British Columbia, Ms. Tara Paterson, is here in the gallery. I must note that she is politically active. I'm trying to convince her that there are other ways to see the world than the one she currently sees it through. Whether I'm successful or not, I am hopeful, and I anticipate that we will see her in this House one day.

D. Plecas: I have two guests in the gallery I would like to welcome today. One is Geri Bemister, who is a professor at North Island College and one of the most inspiring people I know, and my youngest son Sean, who's a university student. I'm fond of telling him that he can do anything he wants with his life after he gets a PhD.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PARKS SYSTEM AND PROPOSED NATIONAL
PARK IN SOUTH OKANAGAN AREA

S. Chandra Herbert: This Saturday, July 20, people from across British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada will be celebrating Canada's Parks Day.

As members will know, B.C.'s first provincial park was Strathcona Park, established in 1911. At the time, MLAs spoke in the Legislature about how it would open up British Columbia to tourism and bring untold millions
[ Page 722 ]
into the provincial treasury. Well, Strathcona Park and, indeed, the over 800 parks that have come since have done that and more.

I fondly remember my dad taking me and my brother on our first back-country camping trip to Strathcona. The wonder of nature seemed to stretch on into infinity, and the mischievous whisky jacks were just a lot of fun. It helped grow a desire in me to stand up for our environment for generations to come.

Parks play that role for so many and have inspired countless British Columbians to improve our parks by giving back. They deserve our thanks and support through investing in the park system.

Parks also play a vital role in maintaining healthy and resilient ecosystems and protecting critical habitat for species at risk. But there's an area in B.C. which still needs more work done. I'm speaking of the South Okanagan and the proposed national park. This area of unique beauty and rare ecosystems is home to 58 species at risk, one-third of B.C.'s total. Unfortunately, the fragile grasslands of the South Okanagan are in danger of being lost.

[1340]

As we celebrate Parks Day, I'd encourage us all to look at the growing support for this creation of a national park, to consider the economic and conservation benefits that it could deliver and to start talking with the government of Canada and local First Nations once again.

The Okanagan Nation Alliance, the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, the Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association, numerous town councils, chambers of commerce and more all recognize the value this park could bring to British Columbia. I hope this House will as well.

PARALYMPIC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
AND PARTICIPATION BY
PARKSVILLE-QUALICUM MLA

E. Foster: Wilma Rudolph, a legendary American Olympic track and field champion from the 1950s and '60s, said we should "never underestimate the power of dreams and the influence of the human spirit. We are all the same in this notion. The potential for greatness lives within each of us."

These words ring true, especially for all of those who participate in sports, be it for fun or competition. I think it is safe to say that all of us, at least at one point in our lives, have dreamt of becoming a world-class athlete and reaching that sports pinnacle by winning a championship or representing one's country internationally.

Dreams drive and motivate us. We should encourage and applaud those who strive to achieve them. Thirty-five Canadians will join 1,100 other athletes from nearly 100 countries in Lyons, France, to live their dream and achieve greatness at the International Paralympic Committee 2013 Athletics World Championships, which start tomorrow.

It is a vision of the IPC to enable Paralympic athletes to achieve sporting excellence and to inspire and excite the world. We are fortunate to have one of those world-class and inspirational athletes with us today, and that is our member for Parksville-Qualicum. Our colleague exemplifies the potential for greatness and has inspired Canadians, young and old, to dream and achieve excellence.

I hope everyone will join me in wishing all of Canada's athletes, especially our colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, our best as they represent our country at the IPC Athletics World Championships.

We'll be cheering you on.

I know that the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the entire Canadian team will do our country proud.

SCHOOL CLOSINGS IN
SOUTH NANAIMO AREA

D. Routley: The south end of Nanaimo, including Cedar and South Wellington, are deeply rooted and historical communities. They are welcoming to newcomers and still the home of pioneer families. They are the traditional territories of the Snuneymuxw and Chemainus First Nations.

The soul of a community is an aggregate of its history and its present, its people and its institutions. There is perhaps nothing more important to the binding of the past, present and future of a community than its schools. In south Nanaimo recent plans by the school district, driven by deficits in resources, called for the closure of several schools. These are excellent schools that produce great results. The First Nations students and their families bring cultural vibrancy.

The Cedar Community Secondary School is the sixth most improved secondary school in B.C. South Wellington, the pride of its community and staff; North Cedar; Woodbank — all of these schools are home to many First Nations students. Their leader, Chief Douglas White, complains that despite the contribution to the district of over $1 million in educational funds, his nation has not been adequately consulted.

There are consequences to school closures that go well beyond the immediate educational costs. Do retail businesses look for a community closing its schools to locate their operations? Do realtors brag to prospective buyers that this community is closing its schools? Do local social groups and sports teams benefit from the closure of the facilities they depend on?

How will students participate in extracurricular sports and other school activities when they must queue up for a long bus ride? How do parents participate in the classroom and school from long distance?

These are not trivial issues that are lost in the chess
[ Page 723 ]
piece movements of assets in such educational plans that fail to recognize the values of the community. I am calling on the provincial government to respond to south Nanaimo's communities, families and voters. Hear us. Help us by appointing an adviser and necessary resources that can help the district, First Nations and the community arrive at a solution that better suits them.

Madame Speaker: Member, you heard the direction I provided in the chamber days earlier. I'd ask you to take it into account.

[1345]

LINDSEY BABINEAU AND
SCHOOL FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
SNACK PROGRAM

D. Plecas: We've heard a lot recently in this House about food, local purchasing and the benefits of B.C. agriculture, so I thought it would be good to bring to the attention of the House a remarkable Abbotsford resident, Lindsey Babineau. Lindsey was a schoolteacher who, 15 years ago, established the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation. She did this out of a concern for what she saw students eating and a belief that there was a need to teach students more about healthy living and B.C. agriculture.

At first, her focus was just on providing information. Ultimately, that changed. In 2005 she actually started delivering fruits and vegetable snacks to students in ten schools. Ultimately, that resulted in the government helping out with some money, and today we have a situation where we're under the umbrella of the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional program.

With the work of more than a thousand volunteers, fruits and vegetable snacks are delivered in 1,400 schools around the province to over 500,000 students. Collectively, this amounts to their serving seven million servings a year. This year, with a million dollars in new money from the government and in a partnership with the B.C. Dairy Foundation, they've added milk to the initiative.

This program accomplishes many goals, including promoting healthy living and supporting local businesses and communities and B.C.'s vibrant agriculture. Importantly, it's an example of how government, communities, businesses and schools can all work together to do great things.

I think we should all be proud of this program. We should be proud of it especially because it's the only one of its kind in Canada, and we should be especially proud of Lindsey Babineau, the person who started it all.

REFUGEE EXPERIENCE OF
MOHAMMED JAWARA

R. Chouhan: Last Friday I had the opportunity to meet with Mohammed Jawara, a young man from Liberia who has written a short book about his traumatic experiences in the refugee camps in Africa. He was only 12 when his mother, uncle and aunt were killed by the Liberian rebel soldiers. Mohammed, along with his sister and two brothers, escaped the attack and fled to a refugee camp in Sierra Leone.

Shortly after their arrival the Liberian rebel soldiers attacked the refugee camp, slaughtering and raping — including pregnant women. This attack left over a thousand people dead in and around the refugee camp. Jawara's brother lost his arm, but they were able to get out and fled to Guinea. After a couple of years living in Guinea, they applied for refugee status and were accepted to Canada.

Mohammed, now 26, lives with his siblings in Burnaby-Edmonds's Hillside Gardens, a subsidized housing complex with many more refugee and immigrant families who share similar stories of struggle. To help him cope with the trauma he experienced, Mohammed was encouraged by adult education teachers to write his story. With perseverance, he self-published a short book titled The Tears of the Innocent and the Bloodshed, which came out in March.

Although it was a painful process for him to write this book, he felt it was important to share his story to inspire hope in others and to encourage the community to work together to help refugees become successful citizens in their community.

I wish Mr. Jawara, his sister and two brothers a very peaceful life in Canada and thank him for sharing his story with us.

SYMPHONY IN THE PARK EVENT AND
PIANO ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF AVAN YU

R. Lee: This past weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 25th annual Symphony in the Park, featuring the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, with other members of the House from Burnaby. Since the first Symphony in the Park on August 10, 1989, over 160,000 people have enjoyed the talents of the VSO in Deer Lake Park.

We are so lucky to have the beautiful Deer Lake Park as a community gathering place for cultural events in Burnaby. With the generosity of the city of Burnaby and other sponsors, all members of our community are able to attend this annual event free of cost and enjoy young rising stars.

[1350]

Last Sunday the program featured a young Canadian pianist, Avan Yu, who performed the Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini. Mr. Yu moved to
[ Page 724 ]
Vancouver from Hong Kong at the age of nine, has performed with elite symphonies around the world and is the winner of the prestigious 2012 Sydney International Piano Competition. He first played with the VSO in 2002 in Burnaby, and we are happy to have welcomed him to Burnaby's Deer Lake Park last weekend. Again, the event finished with Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, complete with fireworks simulating the 16 French cannon shots in the finale.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Yu and Vancouver Symphony Orchestra on an excellent performance and an exciting 25th anniversary event. I encourage all members to visit Deer Lake Park and the Burnaby Village Museum to enjoy any of the great cultural events that our community is proud to host throughout the year.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

A. Dix: For days in this House and outside, the Premier and the government have denied that the so-called hush money e-mail was ever acted upon. Yesterday, however, it was established that an inducement was offered to silence a staffer who had information that would be "damaging to the Premier."

Now let's turn to another government denial. For months the Premier and the government denied the larger quick-win strategy was ever implemented. Today we have in our possession new information that shows, despite the government's denial, that the larger quick-win strategy was also put into effect.

Let me quote from an e-mail, from the private e-mail of the Premier's Minister for Multiculturalism of the time, the member for Richmond-Steveston, to a public servant of the time and Liberal operative, Brian Bonney. "Have you received Sepideh's lists?" it begins. "I realize she's been busy, but she has an obligation to you and me and our Primrose to meet this contact-list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign strategy."

In light of this e-mail, can the Minister for Multiculturalism confirm that the multi–election campaign strategy was indeed implemented?

Hon. T. Wat: As I have said in the past three days, since Monday — today is the fourth day that I'm going to reiterate myself again — all the e-mails, including the last e-mail and the e-mail you refer to, were wrong. The approach and suggestions being made in the e-mail were wrong and inappropriate.

The Dyble report found that there's no evidence that the e-mails were acted on by the government. The Dyble report was fulsome, was exhaustive and was comprehensive. It did show that some individuals clearly acted outside of the guidelines for public servants and for political staff. This e-mail falls into this category.

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

A. Dix: Well, this e-mail was not even available in the material released by the government after the election, and it's not about political staffers. This was the minister sending this e-mail from his private account to avoid freedom-of-information laws and confirming that there was a "multi" — presumably short for multiculturalism — election campaign strategy that was using public funds to advance the Liberals' partisan interests.

It's not me testifying to this. It's the former minister. It's the member for Richmond-Steveston. It's the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. It calls for the creation of contact lists which then could be used by the Liberal Party in the election.

[1355]

Here we have a minister of the Crown demanding of a supposed public servant where Ms. Sarrafpour's lists were — lists that were for, in his words "our multi-election strategy."

Will the Minister for Multiculturalism finally admit to this House, based on this incontrovertible evidence provided by her own colleague — her own colleague, hon. Speaker — that the Liberals' multi-election strategy using public funds was indeed implemented?

Hon. T. Wat: Our former Minister for Multiculturalism has already apologized and considered the mistake by resigning already, so we have taken the responsibility.

It is clear by this line of questioning from the leader of the opposition that the members opposite have not yet read the whole Dyble report. Here's what the report said: "Those interviewed understand that, while some initial work was completed on looking at the potential use of Win software for caucus, it was not pursued. Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed."

The report goes on: "During the records search, no evidence was found of a database having been created." As members of this House, this side, we all trust the work of our distinguished civil servants, and I hope that the members on the opposite side will do the same.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: This was nine months after they set out that strategy in that document, which of course referred to strategy before and after it. Nine months. This was three days after a meeting held in the Premier's office where they were developing lists and demanding that lists to further a multi–election campaign strategy be produced by people paid for by the public.

This is the collecting of lists of contacts and passing them on to the Liberal Party, all using tax dollars. In
[ Page 725 ]
fact, it's the member for Richmond-Steveston in this e-mail who specifically contradicts what his successor, the Minister for Multiculturalism, just said, hon. Speaker.

Will the minister finally admit that this was indeed the government's strategy from the start and that this plan had nothing to do with the public interest, nothing to do with governing? It was a scheme that had one purpose: to promote the Liberal Party.

Hon. T. Wat: It has now become clear, extremely clear, that the opposition wishes to refight the last election. The voices of the electorate were loud and clear. They gave us a mandate to create jobs, to expand trade, to promote the economy and to secure a better future for our children.

I am ready and members of this side of the House are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I strongly urge the members of the opposition to do the same.

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY
INVESTIGATION AND E-MAIL FROM
FORMER MULTICULTURALISM MINISTER

J. Kwan: I know that the minister and the government like to claim that the Dyble report was thorough and comprehensive — same as the now member for Richmond-Steveston, who actually claimed before the election that the document "never hit my desk." We now know that the government deliberately delayed the release of the 10,000 pages of documents until after the election. It was a deliberate strategy to hide what they were doing.

[1400]

Now an e-mail has come to light from the then Minister for Multiculturalism that confirms, in his words, "the multi-election strategy" was, in fact, being implemented. I have a copy of that that e-mail in my hand right now, dated August 16, 2012, from the then Minister for Multiculturalism to Brian Bonney asking specifically for the contact lists for the election from Ms. Sarrafpour.

Interestingly, this e-mail was not found in the 10,000 pages that the government released after the election. Maybe it was blanked out amongst the 5,000 pages that were blank. My question to the minister is quite simple. Was this very telling e-mail hidden by whiteout, or was it hidden by omission by design?

Hon. T. Wat: Honestly, I don't know what the member of the opposition was referring to. It's 10,000 pages of documents that were posted on the website. Let me reiterate once again that the Dyble report was conducted by four of the most senior public servants in the government. It was thorough, it was timely, and it was released prior to the election.

All the e-mails were ones of the 10,000 pages of documents that we looked into and released as part of the report. The report found no evidence that the document that you guys are mentioning was acted on. There was no evidence. If there was any evidence that it was acted on by the government, it would have been included in the report and recommendations would be made.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The evidence is actually not in the minister's script, but it is all around her, surfacing each and every day. Now, during the estimates debate this morning the Leader of the Official Opposition asked the Deputy Premier if the Dyble review team had obtained all the relevant documents needed to conduct the investigation. The Deputy Premier replied: "We feel we did."

Can the minister explain why this damning e-mail, an e-mail from the former Minister for Multiculturalism confirming that government was using public money for partisan purposes, was not included in the material reviewed by Mr. Dyble? And can she tell this House how many other e-mails and hidden documents are there that somehow were overlooked by this very thorough, comprehensive Dyble review?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This line of questioning invites so many metaphors.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: If the member opposite would refrain from so many interruptions, you might get some answers.

This has truly become the "Dance of the Seven Veils." With each passing day, the members opposite pull yet another scrawny rabbit out of the hat. But thanks to the members of the gallery, yesterday there was a particularly insightful question from media in the hallway. They turned to the Leader of the Opposition and they said: "What do you know about the mystery woman?" And the Leader of the Opposition was obliged to agree that the NDP have actually interviewed the mystery woman but didn't bother to tell this House.

[1405]

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Since we're deep into metaphors and Shakespeare, methinks they doth protest too much.

It's time for the opposition to come clean with this House. We've had this silly cat-and-mouse game all week, four days of pulling scrawny rabbits out, pointing to the scrawny rabbit and saying there must be stew on the other side. It's time for the members of the opposition to come clean, present their evidence to this House and let the court of public opinion decide.

S. Simpson: Maybe if the exhaustive investigation had interviewed Ms. Sarrafpour, we'd be further along than we are today. Minister after minister has claimed that the Dyble report tells us all we need to know about the quick-win scandal. Yesterday the Multicultural Minister said that the report was comprehensive: "It was exhaustive." The Innovation Minister said it was a "wide-reaching investigation." This morning the Deputy Premier said: "Commonly accepted forensic techniques and tools were used to search across the aggregated data."

How is it possible that a comprehensive, wide-reaching investigation using forensic techniques missed a government e-mail from the minister to political staff asking where the contact lists were for multi-election strategies? And if it wasn't missed, why was it hidden?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We're faced now with our fourth day of sanctimonious pronouncements from the opposition. It's time to get some facts on the table. The facts behind the NDP ethnic outreach fiasco are rather murky, but this is what we know. These facts had to be ferreted out by the Auditor General, and then the NDP did everything they could to suppress them.

The NDP — 27 members opposite — siphoned off $200 a month from constituency funds paid for by the taxpayer, handed them over to the ethnic outreach slush fund over the years. Six years — count the fingers. We know they have ten, so perhaps they have four years to go on the slush fund.

Over the six years, $372,000 of public funds are paid out from ridings like Columbia River–Revelstoke, from North Coast, from Maillardville. Those are paid into an NDP ethnic outreach slush fund.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The legislative comptroller administered that money. I wonder if they administered the money for the quick-win scandal. This e-mail….

Interjection.

S. Simpson: As soon as he finishes the bluster, I'll get going there, hon. Speaker.

This e-mail is from the former Minister for Multiculturalism, hon. Speaker. This e-mail is from the former Minister for Multiculturalism to Brian Bonney using government e-mail.

[1410]

It refers to contact lists for use in the B.C. Liberal election strategy. In the e-mail the MLA for Richmond-Steveston says that Ms. Sarrafpour has "an obligation to you and me and our Primrose to meet this contact list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign strategy."

This contradicts the Premier, who claimed that this scheme was never put into play. It is time for some truth and some honesty in this process. It is time for an independent investigation with the power to get at the B.C. Liberal Party, to get at the Liberal caucus and their staff and others. Will the Deputy Premier order that investigation today, or is he going to keep hiding?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Let's look at the consequences of these actions. The minister in question, from Richmond-Steveston, resigned. Where's the resignation on their side? When this came to light, there was immediately an independent investigation on this side of the House. Where are the disclosure and investigation, on their side of the House, about public money being spent on slush funds? This side of the House promptly paid back $70,000 of taxpayers' funds. Not one nickel has been paid back by the 27 members sitting there.

Finally, Madame Speaker, let me quote from NDP insider Bill Tieleman in 2011 — quoting community organizer Katrina Chen, "As an adviser for the B.C. NDP, Gabriel Yiu has significantly helped the party to raise its profile in the Asian community" — the year that Gabriel Yiu was paid $74,000 by 27 of the people on that side of the House.

Madame Speaker: Member for Delta South. [Applause.]

ALBERTA RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
FOR OIL AND GAS COMPANIES

V. Huntington: Oh, I thank the hon. member.

The government's campaign platform included a promise that B.C. will ensure Alberta lives up to its TILMA obligations not to discriminate against B.C.-based companies that want access to Alberta's oil and gas play. I can't tell the government how pleased I was to see that my previous questions on this subject had made it into your platform.

Even so, it was a curious election promise, because just before the election the former Minister of Jobs told the House that the trade dispute had been resolved. Meanwhile, my office had been advised that while the negotiators might have agreed on regulatory equivalency, neither government had signed off on the agreement.

In the last four years alone, Alberta's residency requirements have led to residency audits on at least 17 B.C. companies. One constituent of mine was forced to move his family, his company and its jobs, taxes and talent back to Alberta.

Given that this House has been told many times that the deal had been concluded or was about to conclude, can the minister responsible — and I've just recently found out that it might even be, for some reason, the Minister of International Trade — tell us when her gov-
[ Page 727 ]
ernment will step up, be as hard-nosed as Alberta and take control of a situation that has penalized B.C. companies for over a decade?

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you, hon. Member, for that question. As a small, open economy, B.C. recognizes the crucial importance of trade for our economic prosperity. Improved market access leads to freer flow of goods, services and also labour, which helps to diversify our markets, increase trade and create jobs. That is why our government is a leader and active partner in numerous domestic and international trade initiatives.

[1415]

Domestic trade agreements — like TILMA, as the hon. member mentioned, and the new west partnership — eliminate barriers to interprovincial movement of goods, labour and investment and bring about a more open and stable domestic trade environment within Canada. It is through this initiative that we can grow our economy, diversify our markets and create family-supporting jobs.

Madame Speaker: Member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I'm sorry that the minister feels that that's an adequate answer to a question that's been hanging over B.C. companies for over a decade.

Last session the former Minister of Jobs also told the House that thanks to the successful culmination of the new west trade partnership's dispute resolution process we were "starting to see head offices being set up in British Columbia." He was referring to B.C. firms operating in Alberta's oil and gas play.

Can the minister confirm this statement, and will she provide this House with the names of the companies that have returned to B.C.?

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you, hon. Member, for the question. I will get back to you on the name of the company, but I would like to say that my ministry, along with the Oil and Gas Commission, is working to conclude the mutual recognition agreement with Alberta that is in B.C.'s best interest. Once this MRA is signed, energy companies with head offices in B.C. will have full access to the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION INTO MULTICULTURAL
OUTREACH STRATEGY

B. Ralston: It's clear that the B.C. Liberals took money from the public and used it to build party lists aimed at "swings in B.C. but focused in the Lower Mainland." They used public money to "recruit supporters to help local MLAs" with the election.

If the Minister for Multiculturalism truly believes these actions were wrong, will she support a full, independent investigation into how the Liberals abused public money in their bid to get re-elected?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I don't intend to be repetitious and use up the good offices of Hansard to restate what has been said 25 times already this week. Rather, I propose a homework list for the NDP MLAs as they return to their ridings this weekend to explain a few things to their constituents: (1) draft a letter of apology to the four deputy ministers who put together the Dyble report; (2) apologize to their constituents for a week of bungled questions on an issue they already knew the answers to; (3) each of them, all 34 of them, raise $11,000 from party members to contribute to the $372,000 cheque that they will bring next week, payable to the Ministry of Finance, to return taxpayers' money.

Assuming they have some spare time this weekend before they come back to the House next week, they could arrange to issue bogus e-mail addresses to each other to continue the frauds of the 1990s that led to hiding their messages from the FOI.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONSE
TO MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH
STRATEGY ISSUES

L. Krog: It may not be repetitious, but it's certainly tedious.

I'm wondering what the Attorney General has done in light of all the evidence presented over the last two weeks. We have an e-mail outlining a scheme to offer inducements to buy the silence of Ms. Sarrafpour. We have the revelation that she was never interviewed, notwithstanding, supposedly, the claims of a wide-ranging investigation that was anything but.

[1420]

The revelation now — a new e-mail from a cabinet minister at the time laying out what her obligations were and, I would suggest, hon. Speaker, pretty clear evidence over the last two weeks that this scheme was in fact implemented, notwithstanding the repeated denials by the Premier and other members of the executive council, denials obviously contradicted by the evidence that is now clear and in the public realm.

To the Attorney General…. And before she gets up to answer, I'd like to remind her of her dual role as both a member of cabinet, as a political member, and her separate and independent role as the chief law enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia. What steps, if any, has she taken to protect the integrity of the justice system and the public service of British Columbia?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member refers to doubt. There is no doubt about the need for the members opposite, all 34 of them, to collect that money from their NDP funds and bring it back here on Monday to pay back the Ministry of Finance.

Very briefly, we've been joined just now by an esteemed member of the press gallery. I'm going to paraphrase him by saying that if this is the pattern that the NDP are setting, this is going to be four very, very long years.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

J. Horgan: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege with respect to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the annual report for the calendar year of 2012 by the Labour Relations Board and the annual report for the calendar year of 2012 by WorkSafe B.C.

Petitions

D. Routley: I rise to present a petition to the House. This petition is collected by parents of the South Wellington School. It calls on the government to act to stop the closure of their school. It also calls for the removal of the Nanaimo school board.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

N. Macdonald: I'd like to rise and reserve my right to raise a point of privilege with respect to a statement made by the member during question period.

Madame Speaker: Can you just state the member in question?

N. Macdonald: Well, I guess that I would be confused if it was the Justice Minister, but I think it's the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Petitions

D. Routley: I rise to present another petition. This petition is collected by parents of the Save Cedar Schools group. In a period of 24 hours they have collected over 1,800 signatures. They are calling on the government to provide the resources necessary to keep their schools open and to appoint a special adviser to review the progress of the Nanaimo school district.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continuing estimates of the Office of the Premier in Section A, Douglas Fir, Committee of Supply; and the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation in Section C, the Birch Room, initially Committee of Supply estimates for the Ministry of Education — and, I believe, by agreement, at 5 p.m. we would do, and I alert members, committee stage on Bill 2.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege based on the comments by the Minister of Technology uttered during question period.

[1430]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

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

The Chair: We're currently considering the budget estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Is that right? That's exciting. These are the innovations we have. Two innovations: we can't reduce the Premier's salary to a dollar, and we can't do anything about this. These are the changes we have. It's very interesting.

A question in terms of the e-mail question today, in question period. It's an e-mail from the former Minister for Multiculturalism, from his private e-mail, to Mr. Bonney, in his public e-mail.

[1435]

There is nothing in the e-mail that seems to us to indicate that such an e-mail — I'll just read to you the relevant sections here — would in fact be withheld under freedom of information. It says as follows — from, as I say, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the former
[ Page 729 ]
Minister for Multiculturalism:

"Have you seen Sepideh's lists? I haven't heard nor received any copy. I recall on Monday" — and the Deputy Premier will recall the Monday we're referring to is the meeting held in the Premier's office that is referred to in the report — "she 'promised me' the lists would be submitted by Tuesday — Wednesday, yesterday, at the latest."

It goes on to say:

"She has an obligation to you and me and our Primrose to meet this contact list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign strategy. She has been very late on her reports.

"Please follow up as needed, and drop me a line to advise."

With the minister's initial at the bottom.

Why is this document — which specifically contradicts on issues of lists and development of lists, conclusions of the report — not in the 10,000 pages?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I have stated previously about the lists, all matters were reviewed by the Dyble report. If the opposition would take the time to read the report, they would know that they concluded no database was ever created.

Here is what the report says, from page 24: "Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed." The report goes on to conclude: "During the records search no evidence was found a database had been created." I trust the findings of these distinguished public servants, and I suggest that the members opposite might want to do the same.

The reality is that people resigned or were terminated over this. We acted upon it. There have been recommendations of the Dyble report implemented within government. The Premier immediately apologized to the people of B.C. and took the steps that were necessary. We know what did and did not happen, and it's all contained in the report.

J. Kwan: Was the e-mail that the Leader of the Official Opposition just read into the record amongst the 10,000 pages that were released by the government?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the e-mail in front of me, and neither do my public servants. There's no ability to actually respond to that specific request relative to the 10,000 pieces. I do know that there was a very extensive database search done. I do know that the report concluded that no database was ever created out of this. The whole search package….

[1440]

One of the members quoted me from earlier today that we had the right people on this. We had people who do work with regard to computer and database searches, searching for e-mails with key words to find all the information we possibly could; 10,000 items were actually released on this.

I'll repeat what the report says. The report says: "Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed." It goes on to conclude: "During the record search no evidence was found of a database having been created."

J. Kwan: Well, as it happens, the e-mail was actually sent by the former Minister for Multiculturalism to Brian Bonney, to his government e-mail account, so it wasn't hidden in a private e-mail, presumably. It was actually sent to Brian Bonney, who was the then director of communications, to his government e-mail account.

Again, I'd like to know: if the minister says he doesn't know whether or not that was amongst the 10,000 pages that were released, will he commit to find out so that we can have that information, so that we have clarity about whether or not this e-mail was in fact amongst the 10,000 pages that were released by the government?

Hon. R. Coleman: You have clarity, hon. Member: "Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed." It also concluded: "During the record search no evidence was found of a database having been created."

But for the member's interest, because she may not have heard earlier, I will go through how we did the record search again.

"On Friday, March 1, 2013, the review team provided instructions to the logistics and business services division — responsible for information access operations, the IAO — and the office of the chief information officer, responsible for information technology and investigations in forensics, on the records search for the review.

"Search criteria were provided specifically specifying all potential individuals involved, and specific search terms were provided.

"For the physical records, individuals within the Ministries of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology; government communications and public engagement; and 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…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 at this time 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 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 record. Optical character recognition, OCR, was applied to all records to facilitate key-word searches. IAO estimates that approximately 10,000 pages of records were collected.

"The investigation and forensics unit, information security branch, office of the chief information officer, conducts investigations related to cybersecurity 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 that data based on the time periods and key words supplied.

"Current and historical data from mailboxes, home drives and computers was also collected. Commonly accepted forensic tech-
[ Page 730 ]
niques and tools were used to search across the aggregated data. This 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 interviews."

In 10,000 records, hon. Member, no database was ever developed.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I think there's a lesson amongst cabinet ministers to be trained to not answer the questions that they're asked. That wasn't the question that I asked. The answer that the minister gave was not to the question that I asked.

[1445]

So let me repeat the question very clearly for the minister. I'm asking whether or not the e-mail dated Thursday, August 16, 2012, at 1:51 p.m., from the former Minister for Multiculturalism, from his private e-mail, to Brian Bonney — Bonney, Brian, GCPE:EX, address brian.bonney@gov.bc.ca — which is a public e-mail account address from government….

The e-mail is, "Subject: Contact lists," and it reads as follows:

"Hi, Brian:

"Have you received Sepideh's lists? I haven't heard nor received any copy. I recall on Monday she 'promised me' the lists would be submitted by Tuesday — Wednesday, yesterday, at the latest.

"I realize she's been busy with the Iran earthquake–related issues and a PCCA event, but she has an obligation to you and me and our Primrose to meet this contact list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign strategy. She has also been very late on her reports.

"Please follow up as needed, and drop me a line to advise."

It is signed by the initial of the minister.

I am asking specifically whether or not this e-mail is amongst the 10,000 documents that were released from the government.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will repeat for the member opposite that there was an extensive investigation, and 10,000 pieces of information were posted. The work was done by, as I described a minute ago, very qualified people. The report says, on page 24: "Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed." Now, also on page 24: "During the record search no evidence was found of a database ever being created."

Through this investigation, or this review, we determined that those things did not happen. The member can ask the question a hundred more times in a different way. The fact of the matter is that I will continue to give the member the answer that no database was created. No database was developed, and that is part of the Dyble report. I would suggest the member take the time and read the sections of the report that are pertinent to that.

We also, as the member knows, dealt with personnel issues. People were terminated. A minister resigned. Those things were taken in full public view with regards to this matter, and the Premier actually apologized in this House with regards to the issue.

A. Dix: As I understand it, this e-mail, which in the words of the former Minister for Multiculturalism essentially contradicts the assertions that he makes in the report itself that are used as evidence and foundation, which were said to be confirmed…. It absolutely contradicts that.

The minister says it doesn't contradict it and that he was seeking, from a government employee, lists — demanding lists coming out of a meeting about lists held in the Premier's office — and that the requirement was part of their multi–election campaign strategy.

That contradicts the conclusion of the report on these questions. The report seems to suggest that these items were not pursued. They were pursued. The meeting in question was even referred to in the report, but there was nothing about this in that referral to that August 13 meeting. In fact, the August 13 meeting — which magically has disappeared from the calendar of the Minister for Multiculturalism when we FOI'd it, but there it is — was about lists. It said it was about lists.

Now, we know that they were demanding actual lists. It wasn't theoretical, in the future. This e-mail shows it, so it's legitimate for us to ask: did the report find this e-mail or not? It was in Mr. Bonney's e-mails. We know that because it was sent to his government e-mail. It was sent from the member for Richmond-Steveston's private e-mail.

The question, I guess, is pretty straightforward. Did the Dyble report see this e-mail, and doesn't it say explicitly that the minister is out there getting lists, which is consistent with what he was going to do in the draft strategy document?

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to refer back. This is on page 23. I did some of this, this morning, as well, with regards to databases and lists.

"The December 2011 spreadsheet makes specific reference to the Win '13 software for the ability to create ethnic lists and the creation of an ethnic database. Those interviewed understand that while some of the initial work was completed on looking at potential use of the software for caucus, it was not pursued. Every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed."

To the hon. member, I can read the rest of page 24 and over to page 25 into the record, but I would refer him to that information in the report that clearly deals with this.

The fact of the matter is that there were activities going on that were wrong. That's why people resigned; people were terminated. That's why a report was done. That's why the research was done. That's why the decisions were made. The policies were directed back to government, from the report to there. But the fact of the matter is that no matter what… I mean, whatever activity was going on, no database was ever developed.

A. Dix: Well, here's the relevance of the e-mail. The minister said it was not pursued. The report says it was not pursued. What the e-mail shows is that it was pursued. So the question is: did the Dyble review team have the e-mail or not? Because the e-mail is explicit. The Dyble report could not say that if they had that e-mail.

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely, it could say that. Just because there's a conversation about lists being developed doesn't mean that you ever did get to where you had a database developed, which is the case. No database was ever developed. It's on page 24 of the report, hon. Member.

A. Dix: So the meeting, Monday, August 13, referred to in the document — right? — in the same paragraphs that the minister's talking about. This is, "I recall on Monday," says the former minister in his testimony here. I don't know what his testimony was like to the review, but his testimony in this e-mail is pretty clear. He says: "I recall on Monday" — this meeting — "she promised me the lists would be submitted by Tuesday — Wednesday…at the latest."

The report accepts that building databases was a forward-looking assignment for the four community liaison officers. It wasn't a forward-looking assignment. They were doing it, and the minister himself was demanding the list. Why was he demanding the list? To promote the Liberal Party. That's what the e-mail says.

The e-mail says — about that exact meeting, the exact meeting — they were meeting to get these lists. The minister himself was demanding the lists. And the report says it was a forward-looking assignment that wasn't being proceeded with.

So my question is simple. I mean, you cannot have the minister saying, "I was promised lists on August 13," and then saying that that wasn't a database being developed. Of course it was.

I guess I ask the minister again: did they have this e-mail? This e-mail clearly shows, nine months after the document was put in place, that this list-building was part of a multi–election campaign strategy. How could they have drawn those conclusions about that report if they'd had this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nobody's denied that…. Even in the report it refers to stakeholder lists, event lists and that sort of thing. But no database was ever acted upon and developed for the use of anything. It was not done.

The lists were requested, but there was no database put together, nor was it acted upon to do any databases. That is evidence that's very clear in the report.

[1455]

Now, I can refer the member to page 24, paragraph 2, of the report, and to page 28, paragraph 3, of the report for his own reading. But if he wishes to continue, I'll be happy to read both of them into the record.

A. Dix: Well, what we have is a minister of the Crown who said that this wasn't being done — that this plan wasn't being put in place, that this was a draft strategy document. Then we have the Premier, who said: "Oh, it didn't happen. I never heard it happening. All of my senior staff were at the meeting and never heard anything about it."

We now have the minister of the Crown who was saying that, acknowledging nine months later…. He hasn't acknowledged it, of course, but he says it clearly — that it precisely was happening.

Perhaps the minister could tell us what the Dyble report had to say about the multi–election campaign strategy referred to by the minister himself. On August 16 the minister himself is talking about a multi–election campaign strategy nine months afterwards, right? The minister himself says this.

How is that consistent with the repeated statements by the government that there were some unfortunate excesses in the document put in question? This document was being put in place here, and it was being used to promote the Liberal Party.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll go to page 24 for a couple of sentences, I guess. "Stakeholder lists, event lists and references to the development of lists were all found in the records search." Lists — not a computer database, not something that would be used for the purposes….

I know that the Leader of the Opposition goes to events, and people there often, in many cases, will sign in to the event and give their e-mail address. I'm sure the member opposite writes a thank-you letter to them for attending a function or an event that's official in kind, which is a normal activity of government on both sides of the House. Back in the constituency, as well, where you actually meet people and you meet with groups, you do write them and thank them, and that's the function.

Those are lists. To create a database on a computer system that's a database for all of this to be combined did not take place. So although there were lists of different meetings and people that attended events and stuff like that, it was never developed into a database for any other purpose.

A. Dix: What was the contact list requirement? It's referred to. Just to say: "She has an obligation to you and me and our Primrose" — who was the executive director, presumably, of the B.C. Liberal caucus — "to meet this contact list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign strategy."

This is a cabinet minister talking to a public servant about another public servant, right? This is what this is. I didn't read about this in the report — saying that there is a contact list requirement. So what's that?

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll go back to the member again. On page 28: "No evidence was found that work was underway on an ethnic database. However, lists were being generated to support events and record attendance at events — not uncommon. That way, you can communicate back to people who have participated in something and also get feedback on whether they thought the presentation was worthwhile or whatever the case may be. That's not uncommon in the role of an MLA — I know that — or in the role of a minister or in the role of government.

The issue that was at hand here is that there were a number of e-mails that showed that Mr. Bonney forwarded over 1,100 e-mails from his government account to one of three personal e-mail accounts. That's in the report, Member. It's public. Nobody is trying to hide from them.

The analysis was to create an impression. They were adamant in their interview, however, that they did not share anything inappropriately. Given that, plus the fact that no database was created, the conclusion of the report was that every person interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed. And during our records search no evidence was found of a database being created.

A. Dix: Well, no database was created within government. Presumably, if you're looking at this list requirement as part of a multi–election campaign strategy…. And with great respect, I would be very surprised if the Deputy Premier had ever instructed a public servant to create lists to forward as part of an election campaign strategy in this way. I would be very surprised. I bet he's never done that.

The lists were being presented for someone's database, you bet, but it wasn't in government. The Dyble report, of course, couldn't review any of those questions or the e-mails in question, because they didn't seek to do that. They chose not to do that. So the answer is: we don't know.

The best that the report could argue is that we don't know whether such a database was developed. It wasn't developed within government, but it was being developed by the government as part of a multi–election campaign strategy of the Liberal Party. I think that's the relevant fact. It's perplexing to us how such an e-mail, which speaks to these questions, wasn't, I guess, reviewed by the Dyble investigation group.

I just want to, then, get back, I guess, to understand the search of documents here. I mean, it's pretty plain that this document, had it existed, would have formed part of the narrative on this question. It could not have not done so. The specific meeting and the specific issue of lists were addressed. I am presuming that this e-mail was not produced as part of that document search — even though, of course, it went to Mr. Bonney and it dealt with some of these issues.

I guess the question I have is: as part of the search of documents, what were the keywords that were used to search for the documents? I mean, we might want to search those. Which keywords would have electronically flagged the activities and documents that we referred to in the inducement e-mail, page 2639 of PDF 3? What keywords would have electronically flagged the frequent references to partisan activities on the part of the Liberal government in list collection — on pages 2636, 2637 and 2639 — but not picked up in this case?

That's, I guess, the question we have. They are one part of a proper investigative technique, presumably — such keyword searches. And given the time frame of this investigation, that's what clearly was being done here. That's what the report acknowledges being done here. But it's also critical, surely, to actually read the document. Did the review committee that wrote the report read the documents?

Hon. R. Coleman: Page 81 of the report is very clear. I've actually read page 81 into the record in this House twice today already.

[1505]

A. Dix: I just want to talk about timelines with respect to the report. Initially, when the Deputy Premier referred in the House to the report, there was talk of a one-day report. Then that became a two-week report.

But I guess what I want to know is when, in light of this, the writing of the report happened. We had the interviews, we had the review of the data, and then we had the writing of the report. How did the drafting of the report happen, when was it completed, and who was involved in writing the report?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I should tell the member that on many nights people worked past midnight to work on this report and on this review. They worked weekends. They worked holidays. It wasn't a nine-to-five thing. A ton of work was done.

The ability to start drafting the preamble to the report was there around the eighth of the month. It really was the context of who the review team was, starting the chronology of the events but more so about what already existed in government policy and summary and those types of things to start to get context. Then that context would have filled in the blanks relative to the specific report over the ensuing time, as all the data was taken together and put together, analyzed and compared to the interviews.

The report itself was probably put into its final draft around the 13th of the month and released on the 14th. That was how it was approached.

I do know that the four senior public servants each had a hand in writing portions of the report, in collaboration with their colleagues. They would, I'm sure, rely on other research and information coming from the searches and
[ Page 733 ]
those sorts of things relative to what they were dealing with, with regards to the report, comparing it and bringing it together into a final conclusion as a group as they worked through the entire package.

A. Dix: I guess the question is…. Having read the documents myself, a task made easier by the dramatic extent of the redaction that the government had in the documents…. Even in my own case — working after midnight, which I frequently do as well, so I share something in common with the Deputy Minister to the Premier — it took a significant period of time to go through this material, quite a period of time, in fact, to find certain of these documents.

You'll recall the document we were referring to this morning, where senior officials of the government, the cabinet, Liberal Party MLAs and others were on an e-mail which talked about inducement of another employee or former employee to stay silent and not damage the Premier. It took us, actually, quite a long time to find that document. It was in reverse order in the e-mail. It was after pages of redaction. It was difficult to find.

I guess the question is: did the review team read all 10,000 pages before presenting the report?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: There was a team of people. There were the four senior public servants who were leading the review. There was a war room, for lack of a better description, of people that went through every single document in detail. They would pull out documents that had any reference back into anything to do with this. They would provide that to a member of the review team, who would take home stacks of that paper and read them every night and then come back with questions and follow-up. The team would coordinate that among themselves.

The explanation would be that there was a lot of people doing work to make sure they were coordinated to get the information together. They worked very hard and very late at night and on weekends to accomplish it so that this report could get done and we could actually understand if there was misuse of government funds — which obviously, the member knows was refunded; about $70,000 was the concern — and in addition to that, how these folks were acting outside the rules.

They were disciplined in various ways — things that affected their future careers and what have you for some of them perhaps. But this was all done in order to make sure that we could build some standards around this for the future as to how these things should not be done. That's what the exercise was about. I believe it accomplished that.

Having read the report and having gone through the notes with regards to the information that I have…. About no database ever being developed, things weren't acted upon, and there was this group of people that had come and written a plan that never got acted upon. But the reality is that as they did the plan, their language or discussion and how they thought they would do it were wrong. We said that back in March, when we started this process with the report.

The Premier apologized about it. We said, "We're going to get to the bottom of it," which we did. We came back with this report that gives recommendations on the future operations of things within government, which I think was a valuable exercise for both sides of the House.

A. Dix: What the Deputy Premier is saying is they reviewed 10,000 pages of documents and didn't call back a single witness. They didn't have a single question, either about the inducement or about this or anything else. They didn't have a single question for any witness after reviewing 10,000 pages of documents.

Hon. R. Coleman: The information was being shared in parallel paths as interviews were taking place. I answered this question this morning, as to how the investigation was conducted and how it was coordinated. As interviews were taking place, documents were also being reviewed, and they were used in conversations with the people that were being interviewed. There was, in fact, one person that was brought back for a second discussion, and that is on the interview schedule that is on page 77.

The fact of the matter is: I answered this question this morning. I told the member that they were running in concert and in parallel. I didn't say that one was isolated from the other. As interviews were taking place, documents were being reviewed. Discussions coming out of those were matched up to the documentation so that we would actually be able to confirm that the information we were receiving in interviews matched up with what was going on with regards to the electronic piece. The conclusions are in the report, and the report was published.

[1515]

A. Dix: I wanted to return to the matter that the Deputy Premier referred to this morning that left me puzzled. I asked several questions about document collection and analysis and the failure of the review to query matters raised in the e-mail by calling witnesses back to be interviewed. In fact, on an issue as serious as the inducement e-mail, one would have logically thought that several witnesses who were part of the inducement scheme would have been called back. They, of course, weren't.

What puzzled me was a statement by the Deputy Premier as a reason that Mr. Bonney, among others, was not recalled. The Deputy Premier said this morning: "In addition to that, during the interview with the individual, the individual did not flag this as an issue" — referring to Mr. Bonney.

Am I to take it that those who actually engaged in the misconduct, using government resources for partisan
[ Page 734 ]
purposes — those who had been involved in the scheme, right? — if they didn't voluntarily raise the issue, then the misconduct wasn't flagged?

Hon. R. Coleman: The context, obviously, of that statement was in a broader conversation this morning, but I'll clarify for the member that during interviews, the discussion was about the conduct of people, their duties, what each one was doing within the interview context. Portions of that information are obviously redacted for FOIPOP purposes because that's the law.

I stated previously to the member opposite that the process of the investigation, the information, how the interviews were done and what came out of that, matching up to the database information, the information we collected from e-mails, looking at all the documents…. The report found that…. That particular question the member brought up this morning was not acted on. It would have been included in the report if it had been acted upon.

It's the same thing where I say earlier, on page 24, that no database has been created — because the report found that no database had been created. Therefore, that's the answer to the member's question.

I've already twice explained how the data was being collected and matched up, using forensic methods that are common in doing an investigation on large amounts of documentation and sharing that information — how people were reviewing the information, providing it to the team of people with regards to the pertinent things that they needed to review as part of the reports they were working on and how they came together at the end with all of the information, reviewed it, and made their conclusions, as a team of people, by going through all of this stuff and working long, long hours, seven days a week, in order to accomplish this, to make sure that they met, basically, the test of getting this done as quickly as possible and getting the information out to the public and providing them with conclusions on this particular issue.

We have said — as I said this morning, as I said earlier, have constantly said — that this was not acceptable to us. The Premier made that clear. That's why the review was instituted very quickly after it came to light. The work was done.

Now, the member opposite can argue with timing on certain things, but I think — given what I know and having read the report and gone through some of the information that is provided as a result of estimates — that the process conducted, how it was conducted, and the professionals that did it, even the search side of this thing, the people that reviewed the documentation in cooperation with the team of senior public servants, did, frankly, a yeoman's service to us with regards to getting this done.

A. Dix: The Deputy Premier referred to a war room, going over the documents. Did the war room short-list the inducement e-mail and forward it to the review team?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. I didn't refer to a war room. I said "for lack of a better description, a war room." I mean, you could call it a document room. You could call it a room of people that when major companies are making takeovers, they'll have a room that's shut down so every document relative to the takeover can be in a place and accountants come in and go through it.

We had it set up so that the people we had who were supporting the team of people in the review had a place to go through all the documentation. They would identify pieces of the documentation where information was in it that needed to be passed on to the team doing the interviews, working on the rest of the coordination of what the interview said versus what was collected in data — all of that.

That work was done by a group of people who worked very long hours, as I said, in concert with the four senior public servants that were running the review, plus the technical people we had, whose specialty, really, is to do this. Certainly, I could not describe how that would work. It goes way beyond my technical ability, to explain how you do, I guess, a kind of word search issue — maybe like doing Google but certainly not a forensic review of documentation that these people have the expertise to do.

All of this was done, and at the end of the day, the report was produced. It was very clear about it, and we were very clear, too, that this was not acceptable behaviour, and this is what we're going to change in the future in government to make sure it never happens again.

A. Dix: I know that the minister wanted to respond to his use of "war room." I was just quoting him.

Did they short-list the inducement e-mail and forward it to the review team? Did Mr. Dyble read this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: The review team did read the document. The sequencing, when you're dealing with 10,000 documents as to which time, which day, which evening, which morning — you know, where: "Who had it first or second?" — I don't have that information, and I wouldn't expect that I would. You track the information as it comes in; you track it as it moves. The reality is that it's impossible for me to give you that answer. But I can tell you the review team had the documents. They did it and dealt with it, as part of the report.

A. Dix: Given the nature of the document, can the Deputy Premier provide an explanation as to why Ms. Sarrafpour wasn't interviewed? Why all of the other community outreach workers — whose activity was, in part, to collect lists that were a central part of the plan they were implementing, which was supposedly never
[ Page 735 ]
implemented but was being implemented — why none of those community outreach workers was interviewed by the review team?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: The individual left in September of 2012. We did interview the persons that were responsible for their supervision and what their roles were. Since no database was created, there was no need to interview the individual. Because there was, frankly, no job or contract found within government relative to the individual, there was no activity subsequent to that particular e-mail. They made the decision of who they would interview and how they would coordinate that information through interviews and the 10,000 pieces of documents, and that's how they did it.

A. Dix: According to no less a figure than the member for Richmond-Steveston, and the minister who was directing this scheme, they were doing just that, but it was going to the Liberal Party. Of course, that was beyond the scope of the Dyble report, although the Dyble report does mention that activity — but again, can't draw any conclusions about it. It was beyond their scope.

So basically, all of those people who knew and were developing the databases weren't seen as witnesses worthy of questions in that process. That's an interesting assessment.

I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier if the Premier and others received an advance copy of the report?

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to the member's question, whether the Premier got an advance copy specifically to her: no. Cabinet was briefed in the morning in cabinet on the report by Mr. Dyble, which obviously is not unusual for cabinet — to be briefed on a report like this. There were no discussions about anything other than: this is the information; this is the report. Then it was immediately taken out and released to the public.

A. Dix: Just one final point on the inducement e-mail. The minister, the Deputy Premier, just confirmed that Mr. Dyble read the e-mail. I know that when I read the e-mail, it was striking. It captures your interest. What did Mr. Dyble do?

Hon. R. Coleman: They confirmed through records that nothing had been acted upon and no inducement had been offered.

A. Dix: So it was Mr. Dyble's decision not to reinterview Mr. Bloy, not to reinterview Mr. Bonney, not to reinterview the Premier, not to reinterview Ms. Welch. That was Mr. Dyble's decision?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, given the description I gave the member at the beginning of this debate, now about 3½ hours ago, these three professional public servants were given an independent job to do without any direction or influence from government. So the team made the decisions relative to how they would conduct the investigation. Solely the team made those decisions.

A. Dix: I wanted to move to one of — and this is really quite a heavy competition — the least edifying aspects of all of this. It's touched on in Mr. Dyble's report and referred to…. I think the term is critical of the language used. But it's the statements in the draft document about the use of historical wrongs for partisan gain.

As the Deputy Premier will know, the document came in place in December of 2011 and January of 2012. That issue in this political meeting held in the Premier's office was also an issue in August — August 13, 2012. So on both of those points, it was mentioned. And it was mentioned, actually, and dealt with repeatedly between those times.

The minister, the Deputy Premier, will know that the opposition was contacted in May of 2012, and a proposal was made, a motion was sent. I know because I was preparing to speak on that motion. The government was going to proceed to just such an apology. We had just, in fact, done an apology with respect to the internment of Japanese Canadians in World War II that the then Minister of Advanced Education spoke to and I spoke to, which the minister will know.

The government then decided to withdraw that motion that they had sent to us and that they were going to proceed with. Clearly, we now understand, given how they were engaging in this discussion, including in the Premier's office — seeing these motions not as what they ought to be, which is a collective experience, but as a partisan expression of the Liberal Party — that they withdrew those motions for, presumably, a better time. That better time was going to be in the session leading into the election.

[1535]

Then subsequently, of course, the government ran into this event and then blamed…. No less a voice, a clarion voice, than the Premier claimed that the plan for the apology was cancelled because of the NDP — said that in the Chinese media, said that all over the place, and one of the issues they raised.

Now, since we were going to actually debate that in this House — this question that is dealt with in the Dyble report — and we were going to support that motion in May of 2012 that the government withdrew, obviously what the Premier was saying was false, and she knew it was false.

Then we go through this period. We go through the election period. Remember, we're talking about the implementation of the government strategy that they were
[ Page 736 ]
doing on these issues. What their actions subsequently confirmed is that what the document said is what they were doing, although they're not dealt with in Mr. Dyble's report.

Then the Premier confirmed that in the session following the election the apology would be dealt with. She repeatedly promised this.

So just to begin with…. I mean, it's an extraordinary thing what the document produces and that the Premier herself continued to use it for partisan purposes right through the election, then committed that we would be dealing with it in this session right now.

Are we going to be dealing with it in this session, this fallout from this report?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can't sit back and let the member opposite make a number of falsehoods and statements with regards to that particular apology in the spring session of 2012.

There were issues in and around the time frame within the House at that time. I happened to be the House Leader, so I know. I also know that an offer had been made to the NDP to do exactly what we're doing right now, and that was to sit into three Houses so we could get more business done, including the apology, during that session and handle the legislation.

The NDP at the time refused to go to a third House. They actually said no, and it would be a precedent they would never set. That was made very clear by your House Leader in the discussions in and around this.

I at no time as the House Leader was trying to do any timing of that particular apology relative to any election or any political agenda. So to make the statement the member just made is wrong. I will stand on that on my reputation, and I will not accept that portion of what you said.

We also said very clearly that the quick-win comment in some of these e-mails was totally unacceptable to us and totally wrong, and we apologized to the ethnic community immediately when that came out, and you know that.

Relative to the legislative calendar, I don't have that job anymore, so I can't tell you, Member, what would come before the House, legislation or otherwise. Even if I did, it would be an inappropriate step for me to make. Whatever work gets done on something like that is obviously a situation whereby the two House Leaders would be discussing it, and I don't know whether they are or not.

This is an unusual session. It wouldn't be characterized as a normal session immediately after an election, because it really is about the budget. So for me to get into that discussion would be inappropriate.

I can tell the member opposite there was also other work being done with regards to the language in that apology within another level of government, specifically through one of the other ministries that had the responsibility for legal advice to government. Those pieces there — quite frankly, that work was being done. I can't remember the exact details about how long that was taking or what the time frame was.

To say that I would pull that back for any reason or we would during that session would be incorrect.

A. Dix: Well, a motion for Japanese internment came forward, and we dealt with it expeditiously, as the minister knows. In fact, the Deputy Premier knows it was quite a moving event, and we certainly didn't take any time. We were given approximately 48 hours' notice on it, and we responded to it with the grace the minister will know.

[1540]

It wasn't me who was asserting that the government blocked it in the election campaign. It was the Premier, of course, who was saying just that — saying that it was the NDP that was stopping an apology, something that was completely false. We know it was.

What I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier, given all those events, given that they had an event planned…. They had a motion ready. They withdrew the motion. Then they didn't present it in the next session. We didn't have a fall session, of course, and we continued on into the spring session. They again didn't present the motion.

But on August 13 this group, led by the member for Richmond-Steveston, proposed and discussed the issue of the apology. They discussed it in the context of…. For all the apologies about December, we're now in August, and they're back talking about it in the context of their multi-political strategy.

Are there any explanations as to what the government was doing that came out of the Dyble report? Any questions asked as to what that discussion was?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two responses to that. I'll refer him to page 19 of the report, the paragraph at the bottom, where it says:

"During the period of time covered by the review, regular government business continued, and some of these activities were captured in the strategy. For example, work had been done on the potential development of an apology on the Chinese head tax. This work started years before the draft plan and carried on afterwards. In fact, the planning for an apology had been underway for a number of years prior to the meeting, and a review of the records shows that discussion had taken place between government and the opposition with the objective of providing an apology from the entire Legislature rather than any particular political party. There is no reason to examine this work further, as it is an appropriate use of government resources."

The Leader of the Opposition wrote the Premier on June 28, 2013, with regards to this issue. The Premier has written back on July 3, thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his letter of June 28 on the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Chinese head tax. "This is, indeed, an important issue for us, and I have asked" — the minister, our Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and
[ Page 737 ]
Multiculturalism — "to work with the opposition members on an apology for historical wrongs. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your letter."

[1545]

So she has responded to the member that we're going to work with you on this particular one. Like I said earlier, the reason it didn't go ahead, just to be clear, was no political motivation by the House Leader to withdraw it for any reason other than probably scheduling and maybe something around language that had to be worked out with the Attorney General's office, or whatever the case may be, at the time.

I see the Opposition House Leader is listening intently. At the time, I think there was also a concern that it was moving too quickly. It was short notice, and there was a challenge with that as well because of the legislative agenda. I remember him being particularly strident at one point in time, telling me: "Well, you dropped this, and then we've got this. We've got all this legislation, and now you're going to do…."

Of course, it's one of those conversations we would have as House Leaders that wasn't particularly affecting that particular issue in the House, but there was concern about how we would get there and get it done. At the same time, it was a session with a lot of other stuff going on in it. We did try and get it done in the spring of 2012. Subsequent to that, I was not in the position to deal with any of that, so I have no historical information from there as to how it went after the session in the spring of 2012.

A. Dix: It is obvious, based on our response to the motion with respect to the apology for Japanese internment, that it's not the fault of the opposition. It was the government that failed. And it was the government at the August 13 meeting — where a multiculturalism staff, the professional staff, the longtime staff were excluded — where they were actually discussing this question. They were discussing political issues and the multiculturalism political strategy of the government. So they were following through on the report from December in August on that very question.

I have to say that to describe that as not edifying is to be generous. But I'm inspired by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

The fact of the matter is, given what the minister just said, that the Premier asserted that the plan for the apology was cancelled because of the NDP. Given what the minister just said, that of course was completely false. The Premier continued to campaign on this question, consistent with the quick-win strategy document, right through the election, right? Started in December, continued on, part of their political meetings — continued to do it right through to the election, where she continued to assert that it's the NDP to blame.

Is it the NDP to blame now? She specifically promised it would be dealt with in this session of the Legislature, but I guess the election is over and her great interest in the matter has declined. The letter I sent her said: "You committed to it in the election, and it was not in the throne speech." It was not in the letter of expectation written to the minister, and of course it hasn't been presented in the House either.

Let's just call that a broken promise by the Premier, after a broken promise after a broken promise, but also the Premier executing the quick-win strategy by using that issue of an apology in the election campaign and throughout the period leading into the election campaign.

What they proposed in November of 2011 they continued to do till May 2013, and the person doing it was the Premier. I think it's outrageous for them to do it on this question. For all of the disgraceful activity engaged in here, that one is particularly outrageous.

Someone who has been working on that issue for a long time and writing about that issue and concerned with that issue…. I just find it unbelievable that the government would do that in December and August and the Premier herself would continue with that after and through the election campaign, including misleading comments that we know. Now one more broken promise on the same question, if you can believe it.

I'd like to go on to ask the Deputy Premier about the recommendations of the Dyble report. Can he tell us what follow-through there has been on recommendation 1?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: Recommendation No. 1 is: "The chief of staff should consider the involvement and credibility of each of the political staff engaged in the events discussed in this report and take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action. These actions must consider other appropriate factors, including the level of their participation, authority in the organization and their employment record."

The status: recommendation No. 1 is complete. The chief of staff has taken the appropriate disciplinary and corrective action where appropriate. In most cases, the individuals who were identified as having acted inappropriately had already resigned prior to the outcome of the investigation. It would be inappropriate to comment further on personnel issues, and the member knows we don't do that in government.

Apart from "the employees specifically named in the analysis and conclusion sections of the report, the review team found that other employees identified acted with integrity and in an exemplary manner in all aspects of their work and their involvement with the issues discussed in the report."

A. Dix: As the Deputy Premier will know, there was a specific finding in the report of downloading of e-mails
[ Page 738 ]
by one of the staff, Fiera Lo, and another of the staff, Brian Bonney. Mr. Bonney, of course, has not returned. Ms. Lo, I believe, continues to serve and, arguably, has been promoted.

Can the Deputy Premier, if he's not going to refer to specific disciplinary action, at least tell the House how many individuals violated standards?

Hon. R. Coleman: Those individuals are actually listed in the report under "Analysis and conclusions," under "Code of conduct," on page 26 and partly on page 27 of the report. That was obviously given to the chief of staff, who took the appropriate disciplinary and corrective action as a result of that information in the report.

A. Dix: Can the Deputy Premier tell us the progress on recommendation 2?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can certainly do that. Recommendation No. 2 is: "The chief of staff should set expectations for all political staff to ensure that all financial and administrative policies of government pertaining to procurement, records management and the supervision of government contractors are followed without exception."

The status of recommendation 2 is that it is in progress. The Premier's chief of staff has established his expectations with each ministerial chief of staff with respect to how each will conduct themselves, both in and outside the workplace. He has also made it clear to ministerial chiefs of staff that each of their respective reports will be judged against the same standard. An interim code of conduct has been developed and, once final, will also be made public.

[1555]

A. Dix: Was the creation of ministerial chiefs of staff and the subsequent pay increases, which of course was the first action of the government after the election, viewed as part of the response to the recommendation of the Dyble report?

Hon. R. Coleman: It wasn't in direct correlation to the report. I know that when this was discussed, I supported the change in title.

I think that one of the things that's confusing in government — and has been, as a minister for the last 12 years — is that I would deal with a person doing a similar role in another minister's office, both provincially and federally across the country, and the title of the individual who's doing that same role in my office would be an MA and theirs would be a chief of staff.

I think that it actually does, though, create a single point of accountability for the responsibility of the people in the office. I think it does clarify for the people's understanding, from the outside, what the role is of the individual who's holding that job in a minister's office.

A. Dix: I'll just follow through on this and then return to the report. The decision was made to increase staff pay. Was there a business case presented for that? Was this a decision made by the Premier? The minister refers to his support for the idea of the chief of staff. Did he support the pay increases? Did the Premier support the pay increases, and did she implement those, and why did she do so?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the people that work in government particularly, as the member opposite will be well aware, and the people that work in the role in a minister's office — particularly at the chief-of-staff level, as we call it, which formerly would have been called an MA's position — put in a lot of hours and a lot of work.

I think what was trying to be accomplished here within the budget, because there was no increase in the cost of the budget, was to recognize that — with some adjustment for people's experience and time by trying to do that in a different grid, I guess you would call it, relative to pay.

At the same time, I think we heard loud and clear that British Columbians didn't like it. That was heard loud and clear, and frankly, sometimes leadership is in listening and fixing things. So the pay scales for the chiefs of staff, including in the Premier's office, went back to where they were before, which means that the budget is lower than it was.

The Premier's deputy chief of staff received a 10 percent pay cut and will still maintain her additional responsibilities that she has. The chief of staff, as the member knows, is also a pretty respected, longstanding public servant who has an understanding of the workings of government. The change of the grid, along with the titles, didn't mesh with, basically, what we heard from other folks. So the Premier made the decision that it would go back to the way it was before.

[1600]

A. Dix: To follow on that, though, the position of deputy chief of staff, which went to the Premier's deputy campaign manager, received a significant boost.

You know, one never wants to conflate things unfairly — so just to ask the Deputy Premier whether there was a business case presented of any kind supporting the idea of paying the Premier's deputy chief of staff more than the chief of staff to the President of the United States.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: The deputy chief of staff, as the member knows, was rolled back in this process to a different salary level. The decision to put her where she was would have been the chief of staff's decision, relative to
[ Page 739 ]
looking at the change in the job. The deputy chief of staff saw an increase because her role encompasses not only the work of the former deputy position but also an additional role as the director of policy.

So there is more job work added to this — formerly in the position of deputy chief of staff with a different administrative and oversight role with regards to staff in the Legislative Assembly, which has also changed. There's more work and more responsibility in this role than there was in the past. However, it has been put back at a level that I think is…. Well, it's reasonable for the work and the responsibility we're asking the individual to take.

A. Dix: It was only put back from where they lifted it to, so the extent of the increase was reduced to $30,000. That's what happened. And, you know, I don't need to tell the Deputy Premier that many people in British Columbia do two jobs. This is incorporating policy functions into the job of the deputy chief of staff, which is hardly, I think, shocking or requiring a $30,000 pay boost.

Just to finish up on this — we'll return to the recommendations of the Dyble report — can the Deputy Premier tell me the distinction between the job performed by the director of outreach and the job performed by the director of community and stakeholder relations?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the best way to answer the question…. I'll give the member…. If you can provide me a couple of minutes, I will read in the job descriptions of both positions. That might be helpful to the member.

Interjection.

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, they know.

The director of outreach is a reporting relationship. It reports to the chief of staff. It is responsible for developing the Premier's "vision of creating open government by reaching out to British Columbians." The director of outreach will listen, gather input, ideas and feedback from stakeholders, the public and other parties.

Key responsibilities will include.... Dedicated to removing communications barriers and relaying messages to government from the province's diverse communities. Creating and executing the Premier's office external stakeholder strategy, which would include things like folks that would be wanting to invest in B.C. or trying to do opportunities within British Columbia. Improve public awareness and engagement. Ensure that communications is a two-way conversation between government and the public. Help public concerns be translated into action by sharing with the Premier the challenges British Columbians are faced navigating government.

Coordinate events that make members of the government accessible to British Columbians — i.e., telephone town halls, Premier's town hall meetings and those sorts of things — so people have direct input and conversation with government. Review and update the inventory of stakeholder groups that interact with government. And review invitations to public events to ensure that government is properly being represented — and, by the way, people, I would assume.

The director of community and stakeholder relations. Reporting relationship — the director of community and stakeholder relations reports to the deputy chief of staff, policy and operations. The role is.... They're responsible for the development, coordination, implementation of governmentwide community and stakeholder relations strategies. They will work with ministers' offices on their stakeholder relations strategy, including plans to better communicate, interface with and consult stakeholders.

Develop effective framework for stakeholder relations. Develop targeted communication strategies and work with GCPE to better communicate with stakeholders, including but not limited to e-mail, social media, newsletters and industry media. Work with GCPE on third-language communications. Develop and coordinate with GCPE and caucus media strategy to communicate more effectively in third-language communication media. Establish continuous information of in-language spokesperson and third-party validators. Develop and advise on Premier media availabilities and events with third-language media. Update third-language media lists. Assess structural deficiencies in third-language communications — i.e., translations services, web services and things like that.

A. Dix: The director of outreach is Ms. Pamela Martin. Is that right?

Hon. R. Coleman: That would be correct.

A. Dix: Can the Deputy Premier confirm that Ms. Martin has been contacting or in contact with Ms. Sarrafpour since the election?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know the answer to that question.

A. Dix: Just to move on to recommendation 4 of the Dyble report. The recommendation reads: "The legal services branch of the Ministry of Justice should take appropriate action to secure any government records in the possession of former public servants and caucus employees named in this report and seek an undertaking that these records have not been used for inappropriate purposes."

Can the minister, the Deputy Premier, provide some update as to progress on this recommendation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Recommendation 4: "The legal services branch of the Ministry of Justice should take
[ Page 740 ]
appropriate action to secure any government records in the possession of former public servants and caucus employees named in this report and seek an undertaking that these records have not been used for inappropriate purposes."

The status is it is in progress. The Deputy Attorney General immediately instructed legal services branch to secure any government documents as expeditiously as possible. Most of the work is now complete, although discussions with one individual are ongoing. Two individuals named in the report have provided statutory declarations indicating they do not have any government records in their possession.

[1610]

A. Dix: Can the minister then, Deputy Premier, confirm that records have been repatriated into the government? Presumably, if those records were not in the release of information by the government, can the government seek to provide those records to the Information and Privacy Commissioner so they could be released to the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know the volume of information that would have come back. My understanding is that some has, and others have signed statutory declarations indicating that they do not have any government records in their possession. I would assume that a statutory declaration would have some legal standing with regard to people not being truthful about that. I'm sure the legal services branch would have a pretty solid statutory declaration they would be using.

A. Dix: So on recommendation 5, which is the review of policies and standards of conduct, what progress has been made here? What recommendations have been made for potential legislative changes as per the recommendation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Recommendation No. 5 is: "The head of the Public Service Agency should conduct a review of the various policies in place to govern the standards of conduct for both political and public service staff across other Canadian and international jurisdictions and make recommendations to the cabinet on potential legislative and policy changes in B.C."

The status of this is that it's substantially complete. We've reviewed the policies in place in other provinces and found that they are facing many of the same circumstances as British Columbia. Interim standards of conduct have been developed and have been provided to political staff. Further training and performance management will ensure that they are thoroughly understood.

The Chair: Member.

A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It's good to see you in place there.

I'd just ask on the issue of data in government, the transferring of so much data, presumably on to the Liberal Party, that took place here. There are no recommendations about those issues in the Dyble report, and I'm wondering why not. There was on the use of private e-mail, which seemed to be a practice in this group, which were essentially a group of the Premier's supporters. The practice of using private e-mail — that issue was addressed somewhat.

But there were no recommendations about the creation of e-mail, which the report speaks of, and, of course, we see now the government was actively doing in August. I'm wondering: why no recommendations with respect to that? Has the government taken any steps on the issue of private e-mail? Have they taken steps, including possible recommendations by the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

[1615]

Hon. R. Coleman: Certainly, there has been work done on this. On page 15 of the report there's a paragraph. I'll read it into the record:

"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 that record was located or the medium used to create or transmit that record."

Subsequent to that, on March 18, 2013, the Privacy Commissioner announced that she was going to conduct a review relative to this. I think she recognizes that this is somewhat of a challenge because people do have personal privacy with regard to their own personal communication and they do have personal e-mail addresses, both at home and sometimes on another device, because they're trying to actually accomplish the opposite, which is not to blend personal e-mails on government e-mail addresses but try and keep them separate, which is what I try to do.

This is what she said she's going to do.

"First, I have directed my staff to conduct a preliminary investigation into the activities described in the multicultural strategic outreach plan, including alleged information-sharing between public servants and the B.C. Liberal Party. We will review all relevant records and meet with parties involved in order to determine whether a formal investigation is required under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act, which apply to political parties.

"Second, my office is doing additional fact-checking in relation to my recent investigation report on 'no responsive records' replies by the B.C. government to general access-to-information requests. Staff will also do follow-up work regarding the use of personal e-mail accounts in relation to freedom-of-information requests canvassed in that report.

"Third, my office has today released detailed guidance that describes the applicability of B.C.'s freedom-of-information law to personal e-mail accounts and the risks presented by the use of such
[ Page 741 ]
accounts for government business. I encourage all public bodies to read this guidance and implement policies for the use of personal e-mail accounts by employees as soon as possible."

I know that as a minister I have been personally briefed on the third point, as to the use of personal e-mails, and I know that my staff have as well, because that guidance was part of what the commissioner felt should be looked at here and dealt with. We welcome her work, and we wait for the results.

A. Dix: Just on that point of personal e-mail, it was shown before the Dyble report was commissioned by the Premier that the then Minister for Multiculturalism was using his personal e-mail account. Was that personal e-mail account searched for documents and information?

[1620]

Hon. R. Coleman: As part of the review, all ministry offices were asked for information, including anything of record that would have dealt with government business on personal e-mail.

A. Dix: But the e-mail address — the personal e-mail of the minister — wasn't searched?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we made the request with regards to any government business on personal e-mail, they would have had to provide the information related to that request.

A. Dix: Yet the personal e-mail that we released to the House today wasn't — that we can determine, having read all 10,000 pages and looked through them over and over again — on that list. So is the Deputy Premier saying that the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice didn't forward that e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: When the request is made, the minister or staff have to provide the information they have available relative to any communication on government business on their private e-mail. That's the best answer I can give you to your question.

A. Dix: So the government can't confirm. Presumably the minister, now the parliamentary secretary, wrote the e-mail. He provided it to Mr. Bonney. It wasn't addressed in the report. Presumably, either it was missed, or he didn't forward it. Those are the only two possible answers. Or a third, I guess, is it could have been completely redacted. But it's hard to imagine, reading the e-mail, why that would be.

[1625]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we can't confirm because we don't have the e-mail and we don't know how the individual was managing his private e-mail prior to the request in March, relative to e-mails going back whatever period of time. I would imagine that everybody manages their personal e-mail a bit differently, which is obviously a reason why the Information and Privacy Commissioner was taking a look at this and why we're developing policy around it so that we can have some clear guidelines for people to follow in the future.

A. Dix: Of course, the e-mail was sent, fortunately, to Mr. Bonney on his government e-mail but appears not to have made it, in spite of its significance to the issue at hand.

I'm going to very much disappoint the Deputy Premier and his team right now by asking some questions on some other issues that have captured my interest. I know that, presumably, the Deputy Minister to the Premier would like to hear his own name more in the House, but I'm going to have to disappoint him for the next hour and 15 minutes or so.

I'm going to have to disappoint him, because there are, of course, many, many other questions to be asked. One feels like we should extend hours tonight to midnight or 2 a.m. so that they can all be asked.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I presume we can do that with unanimous consent. That was the suggestion of my friend from Port Coquitlam.

As the Deputy Premier will know, in the fall the Premier did a series of infomercials on skills training. In the subsequent budget, there was no indication that there was any impact of those infomercials or that they learned anything.

Those infomercials were a response to focus groups conducted by Ipsos-Reid for the government and paid for by taxpayers in the fall of 2012. Those focus groups, significantly, involved questions — and a significant amount of time with questions — regarding the Premier's own personal and political image.

So I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier if the government would forward records around those focus groups to us so that we could see them. Secondly, how much time in those focus groups was spent on the Premier's image? Thirdly, how much money was spent on those focus groups?

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: I do not have that information here for the member opposite, because the Premier's office did not do the focus groups. The work was done by GCPE, which falls under the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services, whose estimates have not been brought before the House. I would suggest that to follow that through, he might want to ask the minister responsible at that time. But the Premier's office was not
[ Page 742 ]
involved in the focus groups, and they weren't done by the Premier's office. They were done by GCPE.

A. Dix: How is it possible that focus groups paid for by taxpayers would be dealing with the Premier's image at all? That's the question. One of the follow-throughs to those focus groups was TV infomercials. The Premier was on Global television and, I think, other networks addressing the issue of skills training, which subsequently saw no changes in the following budget in terms of its budget.

If the minister doesn't want to address the focus groups, can he address the Premier's participation, which is within the Premier's vote, in those infomercials? What did the government achieve, other than getting the Premier on TV, paid for by taxpayers? What changes occurred in policy around skills training in the months following those infomercials that justified that government expenditure?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think it's important that we communicate with British Columbians. The February 2012 budget was clear that it would communicate with B.C. during these uncertain economic times. The advertising was a continuation of those efforts. It was also about letting people know of programs that were going to be coming or investments we made in programs with regards to skills training.

Over the next decade there will be more than one million job openings in B.C., of which 430,000 — about 43 percent — are expected for trades and technical occupations. That's why we're committed to building and expanding a skilled workforce.

At the same time we need to let people know, through the advertising and information, where they can get skills advice, find work and learn how B.C.'s economic assets support business investment, and combine that into a focused relationship to attract investment, create jobs and manage the future relative to training right across the broad spectrum.

Obviously, the member would know that we have facing us, first of all, an aging workforce that will come through a number of industries like mining and forestry, which will require people with technical skills. At the same time we have opportunities in front of us like liquefied natural gas that will also require some innovation on training and information for the public.

I think it's important that that is all combined into information that we provide to the public through use of advertising in that way.

A. Dix: Why did those ads, which were supposed to feature programs, feature the Premier instead? Why was there no change…? In fact, the continuation, if you look at the ITA budget cut in 2014-15…. Of course, that's related to the labour market agreement. There are cuts in the Advanced Education budget.

We had the government willing to spend — perhaps out of contingencies; I don't know — to put the Premier on television to talk about skills training but actually cut skills training. That seems unusual. Why was the Premier personally featured in those ads?

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the leader of the province should also be someone that tells British Columbians…. They can be a person that can provide very effective communication on the information to people of the province.

At the same time, just in the first half of 2013 there were 150,000 visits to bcjobsplan.ca, about 800 people per day, to learn about B.C.'s economic advantage and skills-training resources. That's nearly three times more visitors than the same time period in 2012. People are really interested in the future of B.C., and the number of bcjobsplan.ca page views for the first six months of 2013 was 340,000 — an increase of more than 126 percent from the same period in 2012.

Relative to the member's comments with regards to skills training and budgets, we have to not just think about the dollar that's put into something but the effectiveness of the dollar. Are we training people the right way today? Can we streamline how that process takes place? If somebody can get distance education and get a degree from a university….

Can somebody actually be on a jobsite and take it in the evenings — skills towards a particular qualification relative to the industry that they're in? I can tell the member opposite that in the automotive industry, that is commonly done for training for people who want to qualify for air-conditioning and mechanics — whatever. They want to get additional training, and they can actually go into the boardroom of the dealership they're in, go on line, take a tutorial and add to their skills.

We need to wake up to how we deliver that. That doesn't necessarily mean more money; it means more effective training. I know that we've challenged ourselves to make sure that we do that — to make sure that we are streamlining the process to how we do that and how we're going to coordinate across the education system, the post-secondary education and the skills-training system, to get the results we're going to need for the next generation.

A. Dix: The Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Federation of Labour — people were talking about the skills shortage ten years ago, and the government missed the boat. They've been missing the boat in recent years. But they found the cash not to actually train people but to have the Premier personally go on TV — week after week, on Global Television — with expensive ads and talking about it.

The questions we have are: why, when you are engaging
[ Page 743 ]
those kinds of practices, would you waste money that way? Why, when there are scarce public resources, are you using focus groups to promote the Premier rather than address issues of public policy?

I had a question for the Deputy Premier on another topic. As I understand it, the Premier and the Prime Minister haven't met since January 2012. I think that might have been a summit with respect to a hockey game. The Prime Minister was in town for the Seaspan contract, etc.

I want to ask him on the issue of treaties, and it seemed to not be mentioned in the charge to the new Minister of Aboriginal Relations. We have a number of treaties deep into the treaty process, but as the Deputy Premier will know, we haven't had much success in that regard.

Has the Premier been in touch with the Prime Minister's Office with respect to the slow progress of treaties, a lot of which has been related to federal inaction? Has she been pressing and supporting the B.C. Treaty Commission in their efforts to move forward through the treaty process? What update can the Deputy Premier provide me on this question?

[1640]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't take umbrage, but I'll remind the member that in the previous 30 years prior to 2001 there was one treaty accomplished in British Columbia, that being the Nisga'a treaty. Since that period of time there have been four treaties accomplished in British Columbia — one on Vancouver Island with the Maa-nulth, and the Sliammon, the Tsawwassen and the Yale. Treaties still continue to be part of the B.C. treaty negotiations. That's a part of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

The member opposite also knows from the experience of the '90s that it takes a long time to get to treaty. In the meantime, opportunities that could be there for First Nations and economic development and relationships are also very important. We're actually engaged in trying to also have relationships that engage with active partnerships. I'll give the member a couple of examples where First Nations have benefited that may not necessarily have a treaty today.

The New Afton Mine outside of Kamloops is an underground mine that has a fairly significant ore body. It is built. It's in operation. The relationship there was revenue-sharing by government and revenue-sharing by the company involved in the actual relationship with the First Nations. In addition to that, a training and employment agreement has a substantial amount of the workforce at that particular mine as being First Nations. That's an outcome that was accomplished outside of having to tie it into a treaty process.

There are other examples like that across B.C. We think it's important to be able to do both parallels — to work on economic relationships with First Nations at the same time as allowing the treaty process to proceed, recognizing that in order to provide quicker economic opportunities outside of that very complex process, you can build relationships on revenue-sharing and other opportunities for First Nations.

A. Dix: Does the minister — this is, of course, in the Premier's responsibilities for IGR — have any reports about progress around the Yale treaty — which is, of course, negotiated but not finalized?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've ratified the Yale treaty. I don't have the information in front of me about where it is with the federal government. I will attempt to get that information, but it's not in any of my information that I have in front of me. Somebody will get the information for the member.

We've always managed to work with the federal government on the ratification of these. There'll be no difference on this one. I would believe…. It may be done, so I will try and get that information for the member.

A. Dix: The issue is, as the Deputy Premier says, that we've been in the current treaty process for 20 years and there hasn't been a lot of progress. We've had First Nations in negotiations for 20 years. Is the government planning any effort…? I agree with the Deputy Premier that things such as the New Afton Mine and others are encouraging initiatives. But as the minister says, this is one part of the process.

Is the Deputy Premier or the government intending to pursue and give new energy to the treaty process, given the recommendations of the B.C. Treaty Commission as well? This doesn't appear to be reflected, at least in the letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations that the Premier sent.

[1645]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so the member opposite knows, in the mandate letter for the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on the second page, point No. 2, it says: "Continue to work with First Nations to secure long-term treaties that provide economic benefit and security for all British Columbians."

We haven't abandoned any process in and around that. As a matter of fact, there are a number of treaties that are getting closer that I'm aware of, just by discussions I would have had on different committees in government.

They're continuing their negotiations. There are mandates given with regards to each one of these. It would come through the Treasury Board, which I'm also a member of. I've seen the mandates coming through there with regards to the negotiations on a number of these treaties.

Over time we would hope that more will be done. Each one being successful would be our hope. But like I said,
[ Page 744 ]
it is a complicated process. The member is well aware of that. I am too, and I know that that's why you need both to work together. Economic opportunities need to also be available to be able to be done in partnerships at the same time as you're trying to get to treaty in some areas of the province.

A. Dix: With respect to immigration policy, the Premier said: "We want the same deal as Quebec has." As you know, immigration is a shared jurisdiction under the BNA Act and the current constitution. What steps has the Premier taken? What has the response been from the federal government to this declaration made, I believe, at the Council of the Federation by the Premier and supported, I believe, by the Premier of Ontario?

Hon. R. Coleman: For the member opposite's information, the federal government ratified the Yale treaty on June 19.

On the immigration policy, the member opposite will know, because he's like me, that if he goes back in the history of his family, he is the son, the grandson or the great-grandson of an immigrant. This country was built on immigration.

Given the fact that our country has always welcomed, whether it be the South Asian community, the Chinese community, other ethnic communities as well as Europeans to our country, we feel that there needs to be an understanding about how Citizenship and Immigration Canada is going to help with Canada's economic development.

As we know, there are a large number of people that we would call the baby boom coming through, and they did not have as many children or young people as the previous generation. Consequently, we could end up with a skills shortage or a population shortage for jobs that would be needed, for people to fulfil. We've used those programs relative to that in our farming sector and what have you to provide for the ability for those people to function in British Columbia.

I'm not involved in the mandate that would be going on. But at this upcoming first ministers conference — the Council of the Federation, I think they call it now — my understanding is that it's one of the topics on the agenda that the Premiers will be addressing and, certainly, will be having a conversation in and around that.

I do think that in a confederation jurisdictions should be treated fairly, the same as each other, because we are a confederation. That would mean that the ability for one jurisdiction to be successful in attracting, in the future, people we will need in addition to our own population to help build our economy…. That opportunity should be there for all the jurisdictions.

[1650]

A. Dix: Recently on this issue of immigration, the Premier claimed — and I'm going to quote her about the temporary foreign worker program — that it's outside provincial authority. She said: "It is a federal program. I mean, they decide how they let in temporary foreign workers. Those applications are made to the federal government, and they adjudicate that."

In fact there is a provincial role. To quote an immigration lawyer named Richard Kurland: "The Premier…misspoke herself when she implied or alluded to the constitutional fact that British Columbia is impotent when it comes to foreign worker selection. That is patently false." B.C. has "abdicated its responsibility to the federal government."

In fact, there's more than that. Mr. Kurland goes on to point out that in the current Canada-B.C. immigration agreement — the current one, which is obviously very different from the Quebec one — it says that B.C. will continue to have a say in permanent and temporary immigration to the province. It further says, "Facilitating the entry of temporary foreign workers. B.C. will now be able to recommend the issuance of work permits," etc., based on the 2010 agreement.

First of all, does the government acknowledge that the Premier was wrong? Secondly, does the government plan to play a more significant role in this question of temporary foreign workers, who have been increasing, as the minister will know, dramatically in British Columbia — over 330,000 temporary foreign workers in Canada, 74,000 in British Columbia, the second-largest number in the country after Ontario, more per capita than any other province?

We've had cases, obviously, that have been problematic in that regard. There was an issue with Tim Hortons in Dawson Creek. There was the issue of Denny's, which recently was the subject of a class action. Those are the enforcement of provincial laws. But is the government planning to do what other jurisdictions do and play a more important role, given the fact that they have the power to do so, contrary to what the Premier apparently believes?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the program is a federal program, jointly administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. They are responsible for issuing labour market opinions through which the department confirms that employers have made reasonable attempts to fill the vacancies domestically, while CIC, which is Citizenship and Immigration Canada, is responsible for issuing the work permits.

[1655]

We are working with the federal government. We understand that they are doing a review and are bringing changes to this program which I would hope could be discussed, I suppose, at the upcoming meeting, because this issue is on the agenda. As the member knows,
[ Page 745 ]
B.C.'s labour laws and workplace safety standards apply to all workers regardless of their nationality or immigration status in British Columbia, and they are all protected by a number of federal and provincial laws that apply to their situations.

There is work being done within the ministry with regards to discussions with the federal government on this particular issue, obviously, because it's part of our skills training and skills shortage issues. We will create a matrix about all the jobs we anticipate to have, what skills are required. Jobs are there for British Columbians first, as will be the priority, for Canadians next and then….

Obviously, we would like to fill all of the jobs with British Columbians that may come forward, but as the member knows, there are shortages in some labour sectors. We hope to, over the next number of years, solve those shortages by training and upgrading people and being able to provide the skilled workforce that we're going to need for the next generation and, at the same time, also manage the movement of a large portion of our workforce into what I guess would be described as retirement from their present positions today.

A. Dix: Well, on this question, of course, other jurisdictions played a stronger role. In fact, B.C.'s role on the issue of temporary foreign workers, which has been to facilitate even in cases where, clearly, there are people in B.C. who could do the work, undermines wages and undermines skills training in B.C., not the other way around. Other provinces such as Quebec, who exert their provincial jurisdiction, unlike British Columbia, do better in that regard in terms of their own workforces, in terms of the impact of temporary foreign workers.

I presume that when the Premier declares her desire to follow Quebec, some action is being taken on that. Can the Deputy Premier give us an update as to what that might be?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think I described it, in part, in my previous answer. We are creating, in British Columbia…. There's lot of work being done right across the spectrum relative to our future labour force needs and the skills we want — identifying the jobs we'll need, which may not all be identified in today's workforce; where we would find that skills training; and how we would have to change our post-secondary, secondary and training system to match up to those jobs, which we are going to be aggressively doing.

The Premier has given that mandate to the minister responsible, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. That ministry is working very aggressively across government to accomplish this plan, which will come forward in the not-too-distant future and which will form part of our strategy going forward — to actually know the numbers and identify that.

At the same time, the Premier will have this information and other information when she goes to the Council of the Federation or when she has discussions with the federal government about plans for how we're going to do things in Canada and, in particular, British Columbia in the future, all with an eye that the jobs in B.C. will be for people in British Columbia to be the first in line.

A. Dix: Well, what the government is preparing to do is crank up the number of temporary foreign workers and cut skills training, which is what they've done. They've been doing that for years. Our record with respect to apprenticeship programs and completion rates has been in dramatic decline compared to the province of Alberta. I'm not comparing it to an NDP province. The performance has been, shall we say, unimpressive on the part of the government.

Because we're kind of at that time of the estimates, I had a couple of specific questions around the implementation of the missing women's report and, in particular, the replacement of Mr. Point, who, as the Deputy Premier will know, was sought after to be chair of the advisory committee, by the Premier. When will Mr. Point's replacement be announced?

[1700]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'd like to thank Steven Point for his service and his commitment. I know that his decision to move on was a personal one on a number of levels relative to himself personally.

At the same time, the Attorney General has been given a mandate to continue the work on the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. We are working on the replacement now. I can't give the member a specific date or individual yet, but I do know that work is ongoing and being done.

A. Dix: Well, I would just say this. I'm sure if the former Attorney General, the Minister of Jobs, were here, she would agree with this. The progress, frankly, has been, well, nonexistent to date. Seven months, and we haven't seen recommendations put in place.

At the time, in the days following the publication of the inquiry report, I proposed to the Premier that both sides of the House get together to see if we could pass legislation stemming from the report in the session and in a non-partisan way — and just to say to the Deputy Premier and the government that that offer still stands. I'm not sure if it's been responded to yet — certainly, not favourably.

I had a couple of small questions for the Deputy Premier about commitments that the Premier has made. The Premier — and there's no fund for this anywhere — said at the Vaisakhi parade this year that she was supporting and would be delivering what's called an official gate for the Punjabi Market.

She made that commitment, that the time had come
[ Page 746 ]
for there to be one at the Punjabi Market in Vancouver. Interestingly, that commitment had been made by a previous Premier, so maybe this is recycling.

Just to the Deputy Premier: can he tell us what the Premier's office or the Premier has done to follow up on that commitment to the people in Vancouver?

[1705]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm familiar with the previous file. I'm not familiar with this file. In the previous file there were issues in and around design and location within the community itself. My understanding would be, if we're proceeding now with the Premier's commitments, which we will, that commitment will now take a form of, obviously, some consultation with the community — what the gate will look like.

The last time that took place there were conflicting opinions on what the gate should look like and even the materials that it should be built out of. Time has passed, and I think probably folks are at the point where they want to get on with it. I know the Premier made the commitment.

I think it would be a very valuable asset to the market in the area and also to identify the area with regards to that cultural importance of that area of the city. The Premier has made the commitment, and we will endeavour to work with the community on the consultation and come to a design and then proceed.

A. Dix: But just to be specific, nothing has happened since the Premier made the commitment prior to the election.

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is the community has put forward a proposal, or some folks in the community put forward a proposal, and there are discussions taking place with regards to that. That will continue, and I would imagine it would evolve into the broader level of getting to the form design.

Then you've got to deal with your permitting and your approvals within the city of Vancouver. But I would think that, as the member knows, the community would really want the input on what this would look like.

A. Dix: I'm sure the community would like to see some progress and not just commitments.

I just wanted to ask the Deputy Premier a few questions about the core review, given the role of the Premier's office in that review in terms of identifying the team and so on. This week in his estimates the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, the Minister of Energy, said his instructions are to locate $100 million over '14-15 and '15-16, which is different from the $130 million that the Premier's mandate letter seems to suggest.

I just want to know: what is the accurate number?

[1710]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, a quick scan of the minister's mandate letter — it doesn't have a number in it. So I don't know where that information came from.

But if he goes to page 19 of the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2013-14–2015-16, he will note that on that page, at the bottom, it says: "Further expenditure management." Basically, finding efficiencies in government in '13-14 is $30 million, and the core review is pegged at $50 million in '14-15 and at $50 million in '15-16. So directly related to the core review, the minister was correct in his numbers.

A. Dix: Who is being selected by the Premier for the core review team? We understand there are committee members, but who is being selected within the public service for this team?

Hon. R. Coleman: The mandate letter for the Minister of Finance indicates that he will provide the team of people for the core review, and it will be led by the deputy minister of corporate initiatives.

A. Dix: Are there terms of reference for this process? The core review, of course, is different, substantially different than the core review previously done. The terminology is the same — presumably different than the core review previously proposed. Will those terms of reference be made available for public consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There has been a lot of work already done and some significant meetings with regards to the terms of reference for the core review. We would anticipate that in the next little while that will come forward to cabinet. When cabinet approves the terms of reference, they would then be made public.

A. Dix: Presumably one of the tests of this core review process will be to assess existing government initiatives that control costs. Will initiatives such as, for example, the therapeutics initiative be viewed in that sense? If we have some of the lowest per-capita prescription drug costs in Canada, albeit increasing prescription drug costs, would that type of initiative be something considered in the core review?

Hon. R. Coleman: A core review is to look at government efficiencies and programs and, you know, that sort of thing. I can't speculate on the specific one the member brought up, because until the terms of references are finalized and they're there, I can't….

[1715]

I'm not in a position to comment at what stage they are, because that group, that committee, is not one that I am a member of. Although if I was a member of it, I still couldn't tell you what was being said in the committee if it was a cabinet committee.

So they will come up with their terms of reference. As I said earlier, they will come to cabinet. Cabinet will review them and make the decision on their approval. At that point in time my understanding is that they would be made public, and at that point in time the member would be able to glean from those terms of reference what types of things would be on the table.

A. Dix: Well, will there be any role for the public in this process? For example, last year the government chose to spend $16 million out of the contingency funds on advertising. Presumably, most members of the public would think that that was non-essential in a core review. Is that the kind of thing that the Premier envisions addressing in this core review process?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's the same answer to the member opposite, and that is that the terms of reference…. There have been extensive meetings on designing the core review. That is ongoing now. We would anticipate that it's not too far away from having the terms of reference. At that point in time he would be able to glean from that what types of programs or expenditures would be looked at by government.

B. Ralston: I haven't been able to give, unfortunately, advance notice of this question to the minister. It relates to the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat side and, specifically, to the protocol office. Perhaps if I could set out the inquiry. There's no requirement to respond immediately. I just want to have it on the record, and when the minister or the appropriate official is able to respond in the next little while, I'd appreciate that.

I'm advised that the protocol office of Alberta is able to arrange for the representative Liu Chih-Kung of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada and Director General Michael Tseng, who is based in Vancouver, to meet various ministers of the Crown in Alberta. The position of the protocol office of British Columbia says that it will not arrange meetings by saying that the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vancouver is not a member of the consular core.

In addition, I'm further advised that the director general of the Vancouver office and the consul-general of the People's Republic of China are both invited to attend the annual Alberta briefing for consular and other officials.

I'm sure the minister will appreciate that there is some diplomatic sensitivity. Obviously, the People's Republic of China has a certain view of Taiwan. I'm not entering into that debate. This is solely about the opportunity to participate in an economic and business exchange with Taiwan, which, in my view, would be to the benefit of the British Columbian and the Canadian economies.

As I said, the minister may not be able to answer those questions, but I think it is a useful contrast between the view taken by the protocol office in Alberta and the view taken, apparently, by the protocol office in British Columbia. Since we often do look to Alberta for examples, perhaps the minister at this stage or at some point in the near future could provide a response.

Hon. R. Coleman: You're right. I'm not in a position to respond to it. You are on the record, and I will have somebody look into it.

A. Dix: Perhaps I could just propose a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:19 p.m. to 5:23 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition.

A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It's good to be back.

An intergovernmental relations question around the proposed trade agreement with the European Union. Can the Deputy Premier give us an update on where we're at on some of those key questions?

For an example, the Premier and the government, in its platform, said it would work to establish a minimum 20 percent increase in small business procurement from government. Obviously, that would be impacted by any offer by Canada to the European Union.

I'm wondering, given the deadline is continuing to shift, what's the status of the CETA negotiations, and when is the next round of talks involving British Columbia scheduled to take place?

[1725]

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I think the best way would probably be to give the member an update with regards to that. We're very clear — and in our discussions it has been pretty clear — that our concern about procurement does not seem to be an issue, relative to the overall agreement. It's a small piece of the file.

Negotiations started in 2009. Specific outcomes remain unclear. For example, intellectual property, impact on health care and agriculture have not yet been provided in detail to the province and territories. These outcomes will be assessed before B.C. would indicate support for the agreement-in-principle.

Once an agreement is reached, B.C. will, within 24 hours of the agreement being reached, begin to review with the intent to present findings for decision on whether to support the agreement or not. That is expected to take four to six weeks and will be scheduled for a decision at the earliest possible date.

So we don't have an agreement in front of us even to have that portion of the discussion yet. Then we anticipate what is referred to as legal scrubbing, translations
[ Page 748 ]
and ratification of the agreement — expected to take approximately two years. Therefore, the benefits and impacts of an agreement may not be realized until 2015. So it's a ways to go in all the discussions.

Some of my other previous files, concerns of British Columbians, were accepted relative to some of the protection of things like our wine industry and that sort of stuff. We were in the discussions back when I was dealing with other ministries. I know that there's been a pretty reasonable conversation about those things.

However, on the specific issue the member brings up, that will be assessed when we get the agreement-in-principle to get a look at. Like I say, some specific outcomes still remain unclear, and we haven't been provided the details for either the provinces or the territories at this stage to be able to respond.

A. Dix: Subnational procurement is clearly within provincial jurisdiction. It's one of the reasons we're at the table, obviously. Government has made a new commitment to increasing, essentially, local procurement. Has the government's position within the CETA discussions with the federal government changed subsequent to the Premier's commitment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Only in the form that it's been articulated to the tables, our position. That position will continue to be our position as we go through the rest of the discussions.

A. Dix: On the issue of prescription drugs, the costs of pharmaceuticals, we had the discussion of this the last time we were in estimates, I think. Is the B.C. government continuing to work with other jurisdictions to address the obvious severe impacts on provincial budgets stemming from changes — at least, the proposed changes — to the patent rights of pharmaceutical companies proposed in CETA negotiations?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually on the Premier's agenda at the Council of the Federation. We have been working hard to address the cost pressures with regards to generic drugs in the province. Anything that affects the province and territories — access to generic drugs — is an issue that needs to be carefully considered. That's why, like I said in my previous comments, the piece with regards to intellectual property, impact on health care costs and agriculture has not yet been provided in detail to us.

Once that is done, we're going to assess it very quickly. We closely monitor this issue and are working with the B.C. Ministry of Health to address the potential impacts that CETA could have for the province. Our Minister of International Trade has spoken directly with her federal counterparts regarding B.C.'s concerns about the potential for increased drug costs.

We will formulate our position once we know they've gotten to somewhere that we can actually have the discussion. In addition, of course, the Premiers and the Prime Minister will be discussing this at Council of the Federation.

[1730]

A. Dix: Did the Deputy Minister to the Premier meet with each of the health authorities subsequent to the election? And if so, what was discussed at those meetings?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, he has. He's had discussions. He has met with them. He's identified for them — obviously, there was a change in the Deputy Minister of Health's position — his expectations relative to the budget, obviously, building that working relationship, and will continue to meet with them on health issues going forward.

A. Dix: In terms of building that relationship, did he suggest to them that there was an expectation on the part of the Premier and the government that no further letters critical of the government's position come forward from the health authorities and that there would be consequences should such letters come forward?

Hon. R. Coleman: Certainly, part of the discussion was communication with the deputy and the Deputy Minister of Health. Basically, that conversation was in and around that the one size really doesn't fit all in each health authority in the province of B.C., so communication about health issues would best come from the individual boards and the CEOs directly and build that relationship for direct response and ability to deal with issues on a region-by-region basis in the communication versus trying to….

In some cases they would all write one letter together, but as the member knows, having been a critic, that really doesn't cover health care globally, because what the issue of health care is in Quesnel or Fort St. John or even Penticton is totally different than what it is in Langley or in New Westminster or Vancouver or Vancouver Island.

So it was really an encouragement to improve cooperative and good communication between those levels, because we have a new deputy minister to build that relationship between the parties.

A. Dix: Did the Deputy Minister to the Premier, on behalf of the Premier, express concern about leaks from health authorities to media or the opposition?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, he did not indicate that to those folks, about meeting with the opposition.

A. Dix: A question about the change…. It's obviously a central issue in the Premiers' meetings and the relation-
[ Page 749 ]
ship with the federal government, which is cuts to federal health transfers.

[1735]

The Premier has recently…. Well, the government has expressed changing positions on this question, but I don't think there's any dispute that in the three years starting 2014-15 and ending in 2016-17 we're going to see very significant reductions in the Canada Health Transfer to British Columbia — this after ten years where we've seen very consistent increases that the government has benefited from and indeed British Columbians have benefited from.

The Premier has expressed concerns about this. Can the government inform us as to how often they've met, how they've pursued this issue with the federal government, and are there any expectations of success? Is the government's view the same as mine that these cuts in the Canada Health Transfer will have potentially serious impacts in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: This discussion isn't solely in the hands of just the Premier. It's in the hands of the Minister of Health. It's with their counterparts federally — with the Premier, with her colleagues across the country, who have similar significant concerns about how the federal government is looking at this.

It is actually the Minister of Finance who's also met with the federal Minister of Finance, and their officials, with regards to it and made our position pretty clear that we're very concerned about the change in the formula and what gap could be created if that were to take place.

The federal block for health care right now is fully accountable to British Columbians because it's in our health care budgets for how it's invested in health care. That transfer currently increases by 6 percent a year. The equalization transfer to us is about $4.3 billion relative to health care, about 14.1 percent.

The thought federally is to think about changing how they would do their funding and how they want to do it per capita, and there are some discussions in and around that.

We're very concerned about it. Every minister who has a relationship with a federal minister makes sure they bring it up and makes sure they're aware that British Columbia has concerns. The Premier will be very much articulating those concerns as we go through with the Council of the Federation and continue to work with the federal government to make sure that there's not a disproportionate financial hit to British Columbia.

A. Dix: Specifically, has the Premier done anything? I mean, they've voiced the concerns. The Premier is responsible for intergovernmental relations. Has the Premier done anything — met with the Prime Minister, taken steps to ensure that this issue of significant interest to British Columbians is followed through on, other than expressing an opinion?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the list of the Premier's conversations with the Prime Minister or people in Ottawa, but I know that she has been raising it for well over 18 months since she became the Premier, and she will continue to do that.

At the same time, our Finance officials are working with the federal government pretty aggressively to make sure that this is dealt with fairly and to let them know we do not like the change across government that they're proposing.

[1740]

This is one of those ones, I think you'll find, that won't be just the Premiers across the country. It will be Health ministers. It will be Finance ministers. It will be ministers of the Crown collectively who will talk to their counterparts federally to let them know our concerns and to work on finding a resolution to the issue, not just one individual person.

A. Dix: Of course, except that the change in the formula benefits some provinces and doesn't benefit others. Is the Premier proposing to meet with the Prime Minister on this central question of federal-provincial relations?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, she's planning to have an additional meeting with the Prime Minister, and it will also be brought up by her and others at the Council of the Federation in a week.

A. Dix: When will that meeting take place, and will the issue of the Canada Health Transfer be on the agenda?

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, it's a matchup of schedules. I don't know her schedule, and I certainly don't know the Prime Minister's schedule. They will work out when it's convenient for the two parties to meet, and then it will be arranged.

A. Dix: Just to be clear, there's no meeting scheduled per se, but if there's a meeting scheduled, the issue of the Canada Health Transfer will be on the agenda.

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely that would be the case. As the member knows, the federal House will rise in the month of August. It's usually not a traditional time for meetings of the Premiers and Prime Ministers. I honestly don't know what the Prime Minister's schedule will be or what his plans would be for August. But it is the intent that at the soonest possible moment for the parties to meet, it would be on the agenda.

A. Dix: Just a couple of brief questions. The Premier was the principal promoter within government as part of
[ Page 750 ]
an international trip that she engaged in seeking something called the International Indian Film Awards in 2012. Obviously, we didn't get those awards. We got another award called the TOIFA awards.

Can the minister confirm that it was the government of British Columbia that sought to change the date of those awards from after the election to before the election?

[1745]

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that no Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training representative requested that the international awards be held before the election and that the Times Group and the provincial government mutually agreed on a date. We did not choose the date. TOIFA is the Times Group's responsibility. We were willing to accept whatever date they ultimately settled on, and that was the date they gave us.

A. Dix: I'm referring to the Premier's negotiation that the Premier led. She announced this personally — the intention to seek the International Indian Film Awards.

Representatives of the International Indian Film Awards were pretty clear that it was the government of B.C. that wanted to see their awards, which would have been held later in the year, in April. The Premier obviously met with that group. Who in the government suggested that to the International Indian Film Awards?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Premier did not participate in any negotiations with regards to TOIFA.

A. Dix: So the discussions…. The Premier did not promote this question on her trip to India. She did not address this question on her trip to India — the issue of attracting the International Indian Film Awards. She did not raise this issue with people on her trip to India. Is that what the minister is actually saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: She announced our intention to pursue the opportunity on her trip to India, but she did not participate in any negotiations with regards to TOIFA.

A. Dix: Presumably when you announce something that's the subject of a review, there would have been a business plan. The benefits to the province would have been laid out. Before the Premier announced that they were pursuing this option, there would be a whole business plan, a submission paper behind that.

Is there any information that guided the Premier to decide that that would happen when she made that announcement and that decision — a decision that ended up in the expenditure, of course, of significant money in this fiscal year?

Hon. R. Coleman: The range of the opportunity, what it would cost to bid, what range we might go to, to bid were all discussed within government prior to the Premier making the announcement. We knew, basically, what that opportunity could be. Our strategy was part of our overall strategy with regards to India. I've met with some very significant companies from India recently who want to make, or are interested in making, some significant investments in British Columbia.

It's part of our long-term strategy on India trade — outreach strategy, which includes the largest trade delegation in B.C. history with India; opening two new trade and investment offices, which nearly tripled our presence in India; and opening a new Forestry Innovation Investment office in India to support our forest industry. Right now our exported goods to India has increased by 104 percent, and our tourism has grown by 11 percent.

[1750]

We also hosted the B.C.-India Global Business Forum to support B.C. businesses that are interested in exploring new markets in India, which would not have been possible were we not in our agreement, in our opinion, with the Times of India, because that brought another opportunity along with it.

The Premier, when making the announcement, did canvass, within government, the opportunity. It was actually led by JTST, which was the ministry responsible at the time to identify the opportunities for things we might want to pursue in British Columbia, and this was one of them. She made the announcement, fully aware that she had the support of government.

A. Dix: Is there any paper? Surely, there's paper — a plan, a significant plan about the opportunity — prior to the Premier making the announcement, which I believe she made in India. There's something there substantial. There's paper — either a business plan or a business case paper — that the government would be able to provide to us to show the work that was done prior to the Premier making this significant announcement. It ended up costing $11 million in public funds.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have an extensive list of freedom-of-information information that has been released. I do know that there were discussions within government with regard to this. I can't discuss what cabinet or Treasury Board presentations were made, because it'd be breaching confidence on those particular forums of government. Obviously, the member knows that.

But I can tell the member that there was extensive discussion and information, and we've released a lot of the information under Freedom of Information and Privacy.

One more question.

A. Dix: Because we're reaching the end — not the end of time but the end of our time — I was just going to thank the Deputy Premier and his officials for another interesting — not illuminating but interesting — session of estimates.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1755]

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

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

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2013

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2013, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

S. Robinson: Madame Speaker, I am rising at the earliest opportunity to reserve my right to raise a matter of personal privilege arising from the remarks made earlier today by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

C. Trevena: Just continuing. As I mentioned before lunch, I have one last question. I have many more questions, but as we discussed yesterday, I will submit them in writing.

I would hope, since the minister's staff has already got all the briefings material ready for estimates, that we'll get responses quite quickly. They will be largely on subject matters that we have talked about through the last couple of days, just filling in some of the blanks that we weren't able to cover.

My last question refers to an item in the service plan that states that they want to implement "a state-of-the-art regional transportation management centre." I would like to know what this is, where it is going to be, how many people it's going to employ, what the cost is and under whose authority it is going to operate.

[1435]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, as we start this section of questioning for the afternoon, I just wanted to make an offer to my critic. I've heard a theme through yesterday and this morning with respect to just how much time there is and a concern on the member's part about whether or not she would be able to canvass questions within her own constituency. I know she's allocated lots of time for her colleagues.

I want to make the offer to you that following this estimates process, if you would like to sit down with our team to discuss any of your local projects, we'd be more than happy to do that. Further, I would be quite prepared to send the ADM for highways up to your constituency in person to spend some time with you to talk about projects in your neck of the woods. Just wanted to put that out there.

With respect to the Regional Transportation Management Centre, as the member knows, it's in Coquitlam. It's a multi-agency building. It is built. It is in use. The whole point of pulling all of these agencies
[ Page 752 ]
together, really, was to build on the success of doing the exact same thing during the Olympics — where all of the different agencies involved in traffic management and response and so forth are all in one building to ensure a much more timely and coordinated response.

All aspects of highway operations and incident management will be managed out of this building when it is 100 percent complete. We're talking about things like managing the counterflow on the George Massey Tunnel and the Lions Gate Bridge, everything on the Drive B.C. website, all incident response, the message signs that are out on the highways. All of the above are managed from this one facility.

I should point out that there are approximately ten employees that are in the Regional Transportation Management Centre component, but there will be other tenants. There are other tenants in the same building.

As far as the question in relation to costs, I don't have the breakdown of the actual costs on the building. However, we'd be more than happy to provide you with that breakdown at some point in the near future.

[1440]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister, and I thank him also for the offer for further follow-up, which I will pursue with him and his assistant deputy minister. It would be very useful.

With that, I'd like to thank him for my period on the estimates. I will be handing over to my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview, to look after TransLink. Then, as I mentioned, we will be having a number of other MLAs come in.

G. Heyman: I'd first like to begin by congratulating the minister on his appointment.

The work you have ahead of you…. I have been observing some of the estimates discussion, and I noted, as many of my colleagues did, the sincerity and the effort you were putting into providing fulsome answers and detail as requested.

Notwithstanding the fact that we obviously disagree on some approaches to issues about TransLink, I'm hopeful that that trend will continue in terms of answers that will be useful for the public affected in the Metro Vancouver region. And who knows? Perhaps, even, some of the questions I ask or some of the points that I raise will lead to some ideas that may be useful to you, as you move forward.

I want to begin with some questions about TransLink governance. The minister has stated that working with the Mayors Council and Metro Vancouver and discussing governance issues is one of his priorities. I'm sure it's also a priority for the mayors.

There has been a lot of concern about the governance structure since the change in 2008. There was enough concern about the governance structure that the Mayors Council actually commissioned their own review of the governance structure to provide some input into whether it was working, not working, a good design, a bad design.

That study had a number of comments to make. One was that the unelected system that was set up was "unique in the world, and not in a good way," in that key measures that ensure effectiveness and accountability were missing, in the opinion of the people who did the review.

They went on to say that…. They cited a discussion paper that says:

"…where regional transportation planning and service delivery…have been severed from Metro Vancouver and…where regional economic development has effectively not been taken on by any regional body, there have been concerns that the existing governance structures, perhaps in ways that are unique among B.C. regional districts, are not capable of meeting the challenges of increasingly complex issues in the greater Vancouver region."

Now, obviously those issues have to do with moving both people and alleviating congestion on roads; meeting the government's own goals, as laid out in its 2008 transportation plan; and in impacts on the economy from the movements of goods and people.

I'm just wondering if the minister or the minister's staff can identify any costs to the ministry or to TransLink that could be attributed to the governance structure, both direct — in so far as there has been some conflict inherent and failure to agree on funding models — and indirect, in the delays and investment that, I think we all agree, need to take place over time to add capacity to the system and meet the needs of the people in the region.

[1445]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, to the member opposite, I too would like to extend my congratulations. We're both rookies in this. I know we're probably going to spend some time together, moving forward. I appreciate your forthrightness as well, and I look forward to working with you.

In terms of the question, on the specific piece of the question relating to if we believe that there have been costs attributable to the current governance model that in some way have constrained or caused some pressures on TransLink's ability to deliver on its operations, we don't believe that that's the case any more than it was with the last governance model. Governance has a price tag, and I think it's part of running an organization. Those costs need to be factored in.

I will step up one level, though, and I will acknowledge — and I have said this several times over the last five weeks — that we in government believe, as the mayors do, that the current governance model is broken. It doesn't work well. The previous governance model was broken also and had its challenges.

My offer to the mayors in Metro has been clear and consistent from the moment I was appointed the Minister of Transportation. I think we have a unique opportunity with a new government, a new minister, to sit down
[ Page 753 ]
and have a frank and open discussion about how we can fix the governance model, put a new governance model in place at TransLink that will ensure decisions on continued improvements and enhancements are made in a timely fashion and to the best interests of those who live in the Metro region.

At the end of the day, we all want the same thing. I know the member opposite does and, certainly, our government. I know the mayors are sincere as well. We all want to see continued investments and improvements in the transit system throughout the Lower Mainland.

I'm pleased to remind the member that I met with the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council last week. We had a very frank discussion about the challenges facing TransLink, including governance. I'm pleased that we came out of that meeting agreeable on one important first point, and that was that we're going to roll up our sleeves and work together on the governance.

Finally, I will note that we, as a government, have committed to making changes to governance from a legislative perspective, assuming all of the parties can come to an agreement, as early as the legislative session next spring. I look forward to working with the mayors as we head down that path.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Let me see if I can come at it from a slightly different angle.

[1450]

Before I do this, let me say that I, too, met with the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council, and they talked about the challenges being faced. They talked about having some hope that with a new minister they could move forward. But they were frankly very disturbed by delays and problems that were facing TransLink, as well as the ongoing issues about the governance structure, and what I think…. Well, I won't put words in their mouths, but I would characterize it as critical levels of dissatisfaction within their constituency.

Having said that, let me go back to a recent Auditor General report. First of all, if we go back to the 2008 provincial transit plan, there were a couple of quite lofty goals in that plan. One of them was to double ridership and market share in the province by 2020 and to achieve a 4.7-million-tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by continuing to grow ridership and, rather than have the use of greenhouse gas–emitting vehicles grow, by getting people out of their cars and into transit. At that point, that had a $14 million price tag.

The Auditor General's recent report on B.C. Transit simply stated that the government is not on track to meet the ridership targets in the plan, that ridership growth has fallen short of targets and that clear targets and collaboration are lacking. I would put forward that this is a result of continued stalemates between the provincial government and the mayors and the fact that every opportunity to advance a funding model to improve the system has been, essentially, quashed by actions of the provincial government.

Having said that, and noting that the Auditor General said that the government can't meet the targets it set in its own transit plan, can the minister say what steps he and the ministry will be planning to actually address that shortfall in the targets, to revise the targets or to step up activity in a last-ditch effort to meet those targets?

[1455]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I don't want to put words in the member opposite's mouth, but I think at the beginning of his question he alluded to whether or not TransLink and transit generally had the dollars necessary to operate, let alone expand.

I want to make it very, very clear. We believe that TransLink today does have the resources they need to meet their current obligations and their current service levels. In fact, very recently TransLink very publicly stated that they believe they have the resources they need at the present time to maintain the service that they currently provide.

At a higher level, our government continues to be committed to the transit plan and the goals that were established in the plan to double ridership. We canvassed this a bit earlier today. Ridership is increasing across the province. We're going to continue to make strategic investments, where it makes sense across the province, in transit expansion.

There are a good number of success stories that I know the member is well aware of. The Canada Line has been a raging success. With the Port Mann Bridge, we now have transit going over that bridge for the first time in 25 years, carrying 50,000 passengers per month.

We've got transit to Langley for the first time. The Evergreen project is on time and on budget. That will be a new, exciting piece to our transportation infrastructure in the Lower Mainland.

The Cowichan-to-Victoria intercommunity bus service has been very successful. The residents there are clamouring for an expansion of that service.

One of the best examples of all — again, I really like to highlight the examples outside of the Lower Mainland — is in Kelowna. The rapid transit service which was recently introduced there has been very warmly welcomed by the people of Kelowna and Westside. The initial projections on ridership were that there would 10 percent growth in transit ridership over a three-year period. In fact, the ridership increase has been 9 percent in the first year.

There are lots of success stories. Ridership is generally increasing across the system. Is there still work to be done towards meeting our goals? Absolutely. That's why we're making these strategic investments. Some of the timing of new capital projects that are required in some of the
[ Page 754 ]
cases on the transit expansion side of things is dependent upon our partners — both our federal partners as well as local government partners — making decisions on their end and coming to the table with their contributions.

We're very pleased with the progress that we're making towards our goals in the B.C. transit plan.

G. Heyman: While I respect that from your perspective, as the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, you're actually dealing with all the transit issues in the province, I am forced by my critic role to restrict my questions to TransLink. I'll be focusing mine on those, and my colleague will be asking questions outside the area of TransLink's responsibility.

I'm going to reserve for a few minutes some response to the minister's commentary about ridership and expansion and growth in the system because I want to finish my questions on governance, and then I'll come back to that, if I may.

[1500]

I appreciate that the minister has said that one of his priorities is to work with the mayors to advise the governance structure. The minister has also made it very clear that his government has a firm commitment, as outlined in the platform, to hold a referendum on TransLink funding out of, as they claim, respect for democratic processes.

This seems to be me to be at odds with the fact that they've actually removed democratically elected local politicians with responsibility for transit from direct input into the board itself. The mayors have been united in their dislike of this structure. It has caused tension.

How does this commitment to hearing the voices of local people, with respect to TransLink funding through a referendum, square with a five-year history of removing their elected voices from direct input into the governance and decision-making at TransLink, except by a very indirect means of saying yes or no to particular slates of directors?

[1505]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, back to the governance. I thank the member for his question.

We've been consistent in saying, as a government, to the mayors of the Metro region: "Let's work together on this." I think we all acknowledge that there is an opportunity here to make improvements to the current model. The former model had a number of flaws. The current model, without question, could be improved.

I think it's also worth noting, for the record, that last year we did offer the opportunity — in fact, we did it through legislation — to provide the chair and the vice-chair with seats on the board at TransLink. The mayors, through their own deliberations and for their own reasons, have opted not to assume those two board seats. That's their decision.

Again, I want to focus on the future. I want to focus on where we go from here. We've got an outstanding organization in TransLink that is doing some exceptional work in Metro.

The report that the member has referred to also had a significant amount of praise for the current TransLink structure, in terms of its operations and governance and even the wide variety of funding options that TransLink has in comparison to most other transit systems of comparable size around the world.

I'll quote a couple of these findings from the report.

"The scope and mandate of TransLink — including not only transit but roads, cycling, goods movement and transportation demand management — are still seen as state of the art internationally."

That's pretty good. Secondly:

"TransLink's funding sources are enviable in the eyes of many others because they are diverse and appropriate in that they reflect the user-pay principle."

Further:

"The achievements of the present structure, in the form of the development of the urban transport system, are considerable and a source of justifiable pride."

I think there is a tremendous foundation to build on here in terms of what TransLink does and how TransLink does what it does. We need to figure out a way, with the mayors, for what improvements make sense so that the mayors, who are democratically elected within their respective communities, have a much greater say in prioritizing the transportation and transit improvements within Metro. That's ultimately where we want to get to with this.

I do believe that the first step…. The vice-chair and the chair and I came to a common understanding on this. We all agree that the first and most important step that we should try to take here, as we head down this path, is to discuss new governance options, a new model for governance — perhaps improvements to the existing model, perhaps an entirely new model.

I've said to the mayors and I'll say here again that I'm not ruling anything out. I'm all ears. Let's talk about this and wipe the slate clean and start from scratch if we need to.

I believe that the governance discussion will provide us with the path to discussing the funding options.

Ultimately, we were very clear in the election campaign. It was documented in our election platform. The Premier was very clear about it on the campaign trail, and we received a very strong mandate from British Columbians, including many in the Lower Mainland, that there will be a referendum to give the residents of Metro a say in any new funding options that are to be pursued.

When TransLink is talking about $20 billion to $24 billion, potentially, of transit and transportation improvements, most of which…. I'm sure the member is familiar with the draft planning that's underway and what a good amount of those transportation improvements look like. I think we can all agree that it's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when. Then it's a matter of how. How do we pay
[ Page 755 ]
for these improvements?

[1510]

I believe, and our government believes, that the people of Metro have a right to weigh in on that decision.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your response. I think I would agree, and my colleagues would agree, that TransLink is a good system and an enviable system but a system with challenges that, in the words of the Premier with respect to the Massey Tunnel, we need to address because there is "not a moment to lose." That is actually the thrust of my questions.

I also note that in the response you gave with respect to praise for TransLink, I'm not sure that any of them directly address the governance model. Notwithstanding that, I do appreciate that you have made change in the governance model a priority.

While I might disagree with you that there were flaws in the old model, perhaps the main flaw was that one of your predecessors simply did not like the fact that the board disagreed with a project to which he was committed. That's in the past, and we have the future to move on to.

My last question on governance is…. I appreciate that both your mandate letter and you have said directly to the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council that revamping the governance structure is both necessary and a priority and that you're committed to it and that you want to work openly with them to that end.

I would not want you or me to prejudge the outcome of discussions that you would have with the Mayors Council, but you did reference the rejection of the offer of two seats on the board that was made by your predecessor and which the Mayors Council rejected. I think, again, that is just a signal that nothing short of fundamental reform to which they can agree will satisfy the mayors and enable us to move forward with the system.

Two of the number of flaws that have been identified with the current governance system are — and these are very substantial areas of governance — one of accountability, the other of transparency.

I'm wondering if you, Minister, through the Chair, could tell us on our side what options you might consider or you might think would be good ideas to address these two issues in particular — accountability and transparency with respect to a new governance model — and any other ideas you might float to the Mayors Council with respect to governance or which you might be willing to entertain if they came your way, not to rule out anything else.

Also, I think, very importantly…. What would you say your timeline is for both having the governance discussions and reaching a conclusion to those discussions and implementing a new model of governance? I think we can both agree that if governance is key to moving ahead with the system, and if moving ahead with the system is key to addressing transit needs in the region and the government's own transit plan, then time is, in fact, of the essence.

[1515]

Hon. T. Stone: I absolutely appreciate the member's question with respect to accountability and transparency. These are two of the most fundamental principles that I think any well-functioning governance model must have.

With that in mind, I'm not, however, going to prejudice the discussion we're having with the mayors by saying what I'm in favour of or not in favour of, what I'm willing to do, not willing to do. Truthfully, I haven't come to any conclusions in my mind yet.

I have said very forthrightly to the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council…. In fact, I've had a number of conversations with other mayors — the mayor of Delta just a week ago, a very fulsome discussion on this, as an example. She has committed to working with us as part of the process, moving forward.

I don't want to predetermine what might be considered and what might not be considered here. I am a man of my word, and I said to the mayors that we would work on this together, roll up our sleeves, and we will get this job done.

I would like to underscore that the TransLink file, this particular challenge — a new governance or improved governance for TransLink agreement on funding options and putting all of the above to a referendum — is one of the top files that I'm focused on right now.

From a timing perspective, I absolutely agree with the member in terms of where I think he's coming from on this. There's not a lot of time. In order to come to agreements on some pretty challenging issues relating to both governance and funding, the chair and the vice-chair and I have agreed that we are going to have some discussions through August into September. We're going to meet again as early in September as possible, and we're going to do what it takes, working through this fall, to make as much progress as fast as possible on this.

Regretfully, I was not able to attend the Mayors Council meeting yesterday, due to, obviously, responsibilities here in estimates. But I will be attending the Mayors Council meeting in September when they have it. As I said, we'll be doing everything we can on our end to expedite the process here.

Ultimately — and I may or may not have said this yet today, but I'll say it again, just in case I haven't — the changes on governance, I really believe, will provide us a path to what the question should be on the referendum and the discussion around funding options.

Governance and funding are intrinsically linked. They need to be discussed and understood and worked on simultaneously. We're going to continue to encourage the mayors to engage with us one-on-one and in groups. We'll be talking primarily about governance in the short-
[ Page 756 ]
term, but the whole discussion around funding needs to be linked into that discussion as well.

G. Heyman: Thanks to the minister for the answer. I just want to clarify a little bit. Hopefully, these are two yes-no questions. One of them is: would I be correct in reading into what you're saying that your goal would be to bring forth any legislative changes needed on a governance structure by spring session — or a fall session, in the unlikely event that it isn't cancelled?

[1520]

The other question is: did I misinterpret what you said as the possibility that the decision on a referendum and how it will be conducted and will be worded could be made before the governance structure is actually changed? In other words, those discussions would happen concurrently.

Hon. T. Stone: Another very good question from the member opposite. Again, the intent here is to provide the municipalities within Metro with greater authority over the decisions that are made in relation to transit and transportation improvements in Metro.

I would put it out there that I don't believe that authority should come without accountability. I think we would be setting ourselves up for another failure if we were to just deal with governance in isolation from funding or funding in isolation from governance. I think the two matters are very tightly linked together.

[1525]

My earlier comments about dealing with governance first is an attempt on my part, as someone new to this file, who's not from the Lower Mainland, who doesn't have an axe to grind…. I'm not from White Rock or Surrey or Vancouver or Langley. It's an attempt on my part as the new minister to suggest a starting point for the discussions.

Let's talk about governance. Let's see if we can come to some agreement around improvements to governance. That was my initial message to the mayors.

I believe that following out of that discussion, shortly thereafter, a pathway towards consensus on funding may present itself. I don't believe that it would happen the other way around. But I'm certainly not suggesting significant months of time between discussions on governance and discussions on funding. I think the two need to be dealt with as concurrently as we can possibly make happen.

The last thing I'll say on this, as I think I've been clear thus far, is that I don't want to prejudice exactly what this process looks like. I have said to the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council, and the other mayors that I've talked to since, that I'm all ears in terms of any ideas that they have as to process moving forward. I do not intend this to be a provincial-imposed process on the mayors.

We are committed to a referendum for the people of Metro to have a say in funding options on potentially upwards of $20 billion to $24 billion of improvements. How we get to that referendum question — the question itself, the process that we engage in as partners moving forward — is something that I very much want to work on together, collaboratively, with the mayors.

I'm pleased to reiterate, again, that I feel good at this point that the walls are starting to come down. We're starting to see engagement from mayors in the region on this. That gives me great hope that we can get this done.

G. Heyman: I simply say that I think your attitude of building a good relationship is commendable. But I would say that if, on the one hand, we would have mayors who are profoundly dissatisfied with the governance model and, on the other hand, mayors who are profoundly dissatisfied with the proposal to put funding options that they've been trying to tie down for a number of years now to a referendum, time would really be of the essence in moving both of these discussions forward.

Let me now move on to some questions about TransLink funding in general and how they relate to the referendum.

You stated earlier, in answer to one of my questions, that ridership was increasing and TransLink is meeting current service levels. If you'll indulge me for a minute, I want to give some, I guess, information that is at odds with that from TransLink's 2013 base plan, issued in 2012.

First of all, TransLink states that it was only able to go through with 1/5 of its planned upgrades in 2012 and only one-quarter of its planned increase in service hours; that ridership growth in 2012 was 2.4 percent over 2011; that the ridership numbers are lower, as 1/5 of the planned service was implemented in 2012 — that is, 1/5 of what they had originally planned to do in TransLink; and that they'll only be able to deliver one-quarter of additional, planned bus service hours.

In fact, the 2013 base plan notes a number of areas that they had planned to do earlier, in a plan that was issued barely over a year prior to that. Despite the fact that they've tried to aggressively cut costs and find efficiencies, TransLink faces a $472 million shortfall between 2013 and 2015, and they have to make these following adjustments to what was their plan for expansion to meet growth in new areas of the province, plans for increased transit ridership and reduce overcrowding.

They had planned to add 306,000 annual service hours to meet U-Pass demand and accommodate population growth and overcrowding on key routes. They have had to jettison that plan to add those 306,000 annual service hours.

[1530]

They have had to cancel the Highway 1 rapid bus project. They have had to cancel the full King George Boulevard B-line to White Rock plan. They have had to
[ Page 757 ]
cancel the extension of SeaBus service to every 15 minutes and an upgrade to Lonsdale Quay. And they have cancelled full funding for major road network and cycling upgrades.

TransLink has been very clear both in their Base Plan and Outlook as well as in public comments in public meetings and with elected officials — meetings I have attended with representatives of local government — that it's all they can do over the next three years to maintain what they have now. In fact, they are having to reduce frequency in some areas and move bus hours from certain areas and routes to areas that they perceive as having a higher need because they're in more transit-densified areas.

They have said that until they are assured that there will be funding of some sort or other available to them, they simply cannot proceed even with plans they made as recently as the last year or two. These plans were consistent with the provincial government's 2008 public transit plan, as well as the 2040 regional transportation goals.

My questions to the minister are: have the targets of the province's 2008 transit plan been jettisoned? Have they been altered? Are they under review? Will they need to be reviewed? Will they need to be changed? Most observers believe they can no longer be met.

Of course, I ask these questions because the public wants to know what the new plan is and when they can expect to see a commitment to increased and improved transit service on existing bus routes, on existing rapid transit routes as well as the addition of new rapid transit where it's needed, both south of the Fraser and in the Metro Vancouver area as well as in other areas of the province.

[1535]

Hon. T. Stone: The 2020 B.C. Transit plan that was last updated in 2008, which the member has referenced, does contain our goal of doubling transit ridership. We do believe that we're making good progress on this plan. We've actually seen 59 million more rides since 2008, so over the last five-year period. That's a significant increase in ridership.

Our government has worked collaboratively with TransLink and the Mayors Council over the last number of years. Every opportunity that we can to work with our partners on the funding side of things, we take.

The member mentioned the two-cent increase in the gas tax that was approved last year. That was directly at the request of the Mayors Council. That was funding that was required to complete the Evergreen project as well as to invest in some other additional expansion projects.

[1540]

We have been responsive to the request from TransLink for additional funding over the years. We're continuing to be responsive moving forward. Since 2008 our government has actually invested $900 million in transit. As I've mentioned several times now, Canada Line is wildly successful. We've got transit for the first time over the Port Mann Bridge — the first time in 25 years. We've got transit out to Langley for the first time in 25 years. There are many more examples that I could cite.

At the end of the day, however, there remain some significant capital projects with significant expansion items. I know we all share the vision to make those investments. TransLink has detailed in the ballpark of $20 billion to $24 billion of additional improvements in the Lower Mainland. We would like to work with TransLink and the Mayors Council to realize that vision.

That brings us back to the discussion on governance and funding options and ultimately providing the people of Metro with a say in the funding side of the question.

We're making good progress. There remains a lot of work to do moving forward, but we're committed to getting to our goal of doubling transit ridership.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer from the minister. Before I move on to the issue that in many ways is at the nub of all of this, the issue of the referendum, I just think it's important to read into the record part of TransLink's base plan.

TransLink's 2013 Base Plan and Outlook shows, from 2012 to 2015, 8,000 fewer hours of bus service. If you extend it out to 2022, as they do in their outlook, it's 35,000 fewer bus hours.

If you look at all forms of transit combined, there is in fact an increase from 2012 to 2022, but out of over seven million hours, it's an increase of only 58,000. So I would say that we all have a lot of work to do to actually meet the goals of the plan and meet the needs of the region. I think we all need to take that work very seriously.

I've talked somewhat about the Broadway corridor. We know that when the Evergreen line comes on stream, we're going to get added pressure at Broadway and Commercial. There are upgrades that are needed to that whole hub, that station. Those are capital upgrades that need to be funded, or we're just going to have even more of a nightmare than we currently have, with the lines snaking around the block waiting for the 99 B-line.

People south of the Fraser point out that they have great needs. They currently have about one bus for every 4,000 Surrey residents, while the Metro average is one for every 1,700, and Vancouver is probably a little bit less than that — somewhere around one for every 1,500. So there are significant needs south of the Fraser, and it too is a growing area.

Let me move on to try to clarify some questions about the referendum. Earlier in your answering questions, you said, if I recall correctly, that it's not a question of if; it's a question of when. I took that to mean when we're going to meet the funding needs for expanding and investing in the TransLink system and infrastructure.

You've stated in the House, I believe, and you also
[ Page 758 ]
stated in a CKNW interview, that you did not want to predetermine the outcome of the language on the referendum — whether it would be a yes-no choice or whether it would be a range of options.

The Premier stated during the election campaign that she thought that the citizens should have a say on whether they wanted to fund transit. It sounded — period — a yes-no question.

During estimates last week the Minister of Environment, the former Transportation Minister, said that it would not be a yes-no question; it would be a range of options and that there was agreement of both the Premier and current Transportation Minister on that point. You've stated here, in response to questions, that you don't want to predetermine the outcome.

[1545]

Unfortunately, this is sowing confusion not only for me and my colleagues but for the mayors, for the citizens of the region and for anyone who's concerned about funding for TransLink in the future.

I'm wondering if you could clarify for us if the government has a unified position on whether the referendum is wide open or whether it will be restricted to options and not a yes-no question.

Hon. T. Stone: I would be more than happy to provide the member opposite with the clarity that he's looking for on the referendum question.

Five weeks ago last Monday I was sworn in as new the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, and it's a tremendous honour. Shortly thereafter, literally within hours, I was provided a mandate letter from the Premier.

I will quote for the record my specific mandate as it applies to this matter and the question that the member has posed. "Working with the Mayors Council, develop improvements to the governance structure at TransLink and identify funding options to provide additional resources to fund transit in the Lower Mainland while remembering that any new funding source would need approval from voters through a referendum no later than the 2014 municipal election campaign."

[1550]

I have been absolutely consistent — as the minister responsible for this file, for the five weeks that I have been the minister — that I have not made up any predetermination on this. I have not made up my mind. I haven't prejudged the question.

I was very clear with the Mayors Council chair and vice-chair that we are going to work on this together. We're going to roll up our sleeves, and we're going to develop a path — governance, funding options, right in the centre — towards this referendum question.

Then we're going to come up with a question that meets the criteria of the mandate that I've been provided — and, in fact, the mandate we were provided by British Columbians through the last election. We were specific about this commitment. The question, at the end of the day, would be one that was the result of the hard work and ingenuity of the mayors and the provincial government.

That's what we're going to do. I'm not going to speculate any further here in estimates. I've been consistent through every media request that has been made on this subject, in the House, that we're not predetermining what this question is going to look like. We're going to work on it together with the mayors.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister's answer, for as much clarity as it's able to give. I will just assume from the minister's answer that the former minister had not carefully reviewed the mandate letter or had not had the necessary discussion and that it was not an accurate answer, through no fault of her own.

I'll now go on to ask some questions about some of the mechanics of the referendum, just to test whether the minister and/or the ministry have put their minds to these issues yet.

There will be costs involved in a referendum. There'll be staffing costs, advertising, administration, possible arbitrating of disputes that may arise in the framing, consulting. Are there plans to fund those costs from government? Will there be spending limits? Will there be registration of sponsors? Similar to the provincial initiative act, will there be a minimum-turnout threshold required for a final decision?

[1555]

Hon. T. Stone: The mechanics of this referendum…. As with any referendum, costs and spending limits — there is a whole range of things that the member mentioned in his question — I agree are details that will need to come to light very, very soon. The staff in my office are working diligently on the mechanics of this referendum. It's too early at this point to speculate or to divulge any details because, frankly, we haven't finalized any of those details yet.

I can say that, recognizing the tight timelines that we're all operating under here, it's critical that…. As with making progress soon on discussions around governance and funding as well as the referendum question, we need to make progress quickly on this question of the actual mechanics of the referendum itself.

I expect, and I'm advised by my staff, that we should have those details, those mechanics worked out over the next couple of months. There are certain aspects of those mechanics that the member mentioned that I'm very much looking for some input from the mayors on as well. I'll be discussing those points further with the mayors in the weeks ahead.

G. Heyman: There are two possibilities here. The minister hasn't foreclosed either. One is that the referendum
[ Page 759 ]
will be held in conjunction with the 2014 municipal elections, and another is that it will happen sometime before then. Has an assessment been done in the ministry of what the costs of holding the referendum separately might be?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, referring back to my mandate letter and the specific language as detailed in the mandate letter, it very specifically states: "Through a referendum no later than the 2014 municipal election." The municipal elections…. Doing all of the work required to prepare the question and come to agreement on governance and funding options and so forth to hold the election in November of 2014 is a tight timeline as it is. But if we can all come to agreement on the matters at hand before that, holding a referendum sooner than the municipal elections is certainly something that we're not going to rule out at this point.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the answer, but the minister may have misunderstood the question. I just asked if the ministry was engaged in any assessment of the costs, the actual dollar costs, of holding a separate referendum. I would add to that: whether the ministry was contemplating absorbing those costs, seeing as the municipalities and TransLink likely have no capacity to do that themselves.

[1600]

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to what the cost would be of holding a referendum separate from the municipal elections, again, back to my last response, the details and mechanics of holding the referendum are being worked on by my staff. I do expect to have further details to be able to provide on that in the next couple of months.

With respect to who would bear the cost, I absolutely appreciate that the mayors are looking for some clarity on that point, and I certainly intend to provide them with that clarity in the very near future. It did come up in our first conversation last week, and I do want to address that issue with them and provide that clarity as soon as possible.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister. I would just like to enter into the record that if and when the ministry has completed work on either details of the referendum or costing of a referendum separate from the municipal elections or options with respect to that, that can be provided to me as the critic, I would appreciate receiving them.

I will ask if the ministry has been doing any of its own work on looking at various funding options for TransLink, or whether the identification of options has been left to TransLink or left to the Mayors Council or to a working group. Given that the Mayors Council really has no resources or staff, has access or will access be given to the Mayors Council to ministry staff that are working on these questions, if in fact they are working on funding model questions and options?

[1605]

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you to the member opposite for his question with respect to funding options. I believe, if I understood correctly, that the member was inquiring as to whether or not the government has done any work assessing potential new options — or options that would be considered or not considered and so forth.

Again, I want to go back to our discussion around governance and around the referendum itself. As with funding options, we have not predetermined anything here. It's a very unique opportunity that we have — with a fresh mandate, a new minister — to reset this relationship and come together for an open discussion on funding. That's certainly what I intend on doing as the minister.

I would like to highlight for the member opposite that my predecessor, the former Minister of Transportation, made some excellent progress with the Mayors Council on the question of funding and, in particular, in defining with the mayors some principles around new funding options. These were very much developed in…. It wasn't the province imposing this. This was a very collaborative effort —the former minister and the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council.

The four criteria were quite straightforward. The agreement was that these principles would form the foundation of more detailed discussions, moving forward, on potential new funding options.

The principles were as follows: (1) the funding options must be affordable for families; (2) they must be regionally sourced; (3) they must avoid negative effects on the provincial economy; and (4) they must include land value capture. I believe that these principles are still very sound and form a good foundation for more detailed discussion on funding options.

With respect to the second part of the member's question — namely, would the Mayors Council have access to ministry staff and resources as part of the work, moving forward, on governance and funding and a referendum? — the answer is yes, within the context of the working group, which was, I believe, another success that my predecessor was able to achieve, with the Mayors Council, of course.

The working group consists of the chair and vice-chair of the Mayors Council and the minister. It's through that working group that the continued discussion will take place directly between the province and the Mayors Council.

Certainly, I am supported and backstopped by a tremendous team and tremendous resources. I'll be bringing the full weight of my office to those discussions in support of whatever the mayors feel they may need so that we can make progress on the critical decisions, moving
[ Page 760 ]
forward, with respect to both governance and funding.

G. Heyman: To the minister: thank you for your answer. Your answer leads me to, one, a comment, and secondly, my next question.

My comment would be that I appreciate the criteria that any new funding source shouldn't have a negative effect on the economy. I think there are ample studies available that show that improvement in both transit and some of the other road and bridge infrastructure, for which TransLink is responsible, is actually critical to the economy. Part of the need for TransLink funding is to ensure that there can be expeditious movement of goods as well as people.

I think this just further buttresses the case that we need to move forward for economic reasons as well as social reasons as well as reasons of quality of life and the environment.

The other comment you made was that the funding should be regionally sourced as one of the criteria for funding. My presumption, then, is — and I will ask the minister to confirm that my assumption is correct — that the intent is to hold a regional referendum, not a provincewide referendum.

[1610]

I'll ask that the minister confirm that. If, in fact, that is the case, has the minister or anyone else in government reviewed provincial legislation to see what changes, if any, would have to be made to allow for a regional referendum that was conducted by anyone other than the municipalities that comprise the TransLink region?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, to answer the member's question. The referendum will be a regional referendum in which the voters that live within the current boundaries of Metro will have a right to vote.

With respect to the second part of the member's question — do we anticipate any changes to provincial legislation to allow for a regional referendum? — again, that very well may be the case. We don't have the finalized details on that yet. As I said in a previous answer, my staff are working diligently to understand exactly what the mechanics would look like to hold this regional referendum.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister. I am going to ask the minister's indulgence for a moment. One of my colleagues has a question on a different topic that I was getting to and will get to, but I'm not quite done with these. He has House duty in a couple of minutes, so if I may, the member for Surrey-Whalley.

The Chair: Before the member goes, I'd like to ask if members are okay with having a short recess.

Okay, two minutes. We are recessed.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I have a couple of quick questions on the handyDART service. They are constituency questions, so I can consolidate them into one question.

I'm asking the first question on behalf of my constituent Sarah Neufeld. She's age 79, has serious mobility issues and uses handyDART service to see her doctor, visit her daughter and go to her church for Bible study. She has some home support, which enables her to manage her daily tasks.

She has expressed her concern that if the service…. There are rumours, and I think my colleague will be addressing these, that the service may be ended or a taxi service substituted.

[1620]

What she has found, on the rare occasions when she does use taxi service, is that the drivers don't get out of the car. They don't help her. She walks with a walker. It's generally, she feels, unsatisfactory service and not something that she would look forward to or that would meet her fairly simple needs. That's the first constituent, who lives on Park Drive in my riding.

The second concern is raised by Imtiaz Popat on behalf of his father, Nurdan Popat. He lives on 114 Avenue in the Bridgeview area of Surrey. His father has Alzheimer's and largely lives with him at home. Occasionally, once a week, he goes out, I think more for socialization than anything else, to a session at an agency called PICS, Progressive Intercultural Community Service. He takes the handyDART.

Imtiaz tells me that in the recent past he has simply been denied service. They've requested it, and the service has not been provided. He's concerned. This is, again, once a week and meets his real needs as a person with that condition. Otherwise, he's housebound.

Both of the constituents have asked me to express their concern about what they regard as actual deterioration in the quality of the handyDART service or potential deterioration of the handyDART service.

I don't know whether the minister wishes to respond now or would wish to respond in writing at a later date. When Mr. Lekstrom was the minister, I did raise similar constituency issues. There was actually a direct intervention by the ministry, and a solution was found. That's obviously what I'm seeking here, but I'll leave it to the minister whether he chooses to respond now or at some future point.

[1625]

Hon. T. Stone: I want to thank the member for Surrey-Whalley for his questions. First off, as the member is well aware, TransLink is an independent operating agency, so to the extent that we can in the ministry, we can certainly
[ Page 761 ]
pass the information along to them about individual customer experiences.

I will say, however, that my understanding of this pilot program — the use of an increased number of taxis as opposed to the traditional handyDART vehicles — is that it is indeed a pilot, and it does have an expiry at the end of this year. My understanding is that TransLink will be reviewing the success or lack thereof. They'll determine that at that point and will make a decision as to whether to continue the program.

I want to make something very clear for the record. TransLink has made very clear to me, with respect to this pilot program, that no one will ever be denied a handyDART vehicle if a handyDART vehicle is requested, notwithstanding this increased use of taxis.

On the specific constituent concerns that the member raises, I would encourage the member to…. If he would like to, he can certainly forward those details directly to me, and I would be happy to move them forward to TransLink and ensure that there is appropriate follow-up as quickly as possible for the member's constituents.

G. Heyman: I'm getting short on time, so I'm going to lump two questions together. My question is: what contingency plans does the ministry have if there is a referendum on funding, if it is a yes-no question and if it fails?

TransLink, as you know, is covering their operating deficits this year and next by dipping into their reserves, but they cannot allow those reserves to dip below around 12 percent, which is likely to be where they'll be in 2014. At that point, TransLink can no longer cover deficits from reserves and will need to either find funding, which is subject to the referendum, or deal with existing service and maintenance.

[1630]

The second question is: what is the ministry's engagement in the changes to the federal gas tax fund and the Building Canada fund that will result in a new Building Canada fund in 2015?

I am told that there is around $120 million a year available for capital projects and infrastructure that TransLink cannot commit to matching. And if it cannot commit to matching, that money could well be reallocated to other projects that are put forward before TransLink has a chance to do that. What is the ministry's contingency plan for that if money is, in fact, left on the table in such a significant amount?

[1635]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you for the question.

First off, the member made a statement that TransLink is dipping into its reserves at a rate that may mean operations won't be sustainable for the long term. In actual fact, when you look at TransLink's own financial documents, they clearly show that from 2015 forward the reserves are quite stable. So I'm not going to accept the assertion that TransLink is dipping into reserves at an ever-increasing clip moving forward. They have suggested otherwise.

In terms of the other part of the question, with respect to any contingency plans that may be in place should the referendum not be successful, again, I'm not going to speculate on a failure. We are working with the mayors to ensure that this referendum is a success.

This is why I've had very open and frank discussions with a number of the mayors and why we had a very good first meeting last week with the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council. This is why we're focused on rolling up our sleeves and working together on the matters of improvements to governance, the funding options themselves as well as the specific question that we will put to the voters of Metro.

I would encourage all of the mayors of Metro to work with us on this. The people of Metro are looking for leadership from the mayors. They're looking for leadership from the province to come together and solve the long-term transportation and transit challenges that face the region.

With respect to the final part of the question, on the gas tax and the new Building Canada fund, we are actually in early-stage discussions at the moment with the federal government as related to the gas tax, the criteria for the gas tax. Later this fall we will be in discussions with the feds with respect to the criteria related to the new Building Canada fund.

G. Heyman: I'm running a bit short of time, and some of my colleagues have questions, so I want to briefly respond to the minister's comment about rejecting my assertion that there won't be a funding problem for TransLink.

I'm a bit surprised at that comment because when the board received a recent budget update, the forecast deficit was actually a little over $10 million higher than what they had originally budgeted for. They are extremely concerned about dipping into the reserves further and the impact that will have. They believe, in fact, that after 2014 they will not be able to cover any further operating deficits. So we disagree on that point.

Again, I would like to reiterate that mayors and people at TransLink are extremely concerned that without the ability to offer matching funds, to approximately $120 million a year over ten years, that money could be reallocated and off the table for TransLink, which would simply make the funding issues that much greater.

[1640]

I have a series of questions. I am going to read them. I do not expect an answer today, but I would appreciate an answer in writing from the minister or from ministry staff.

The first one has to do with the Golden Ears Bridge. I understand that payments on the bridge are fixed until the contract runs out in 2041, that TransLink will be forced to make up any shortfall annually out of its operating budget and that, in fact, toll revenue that was expected has failed to materialize to date. Can the minister or the ministry outline how ridership numbers look on that bridge going forward and if they think there will be a problem and a debt ultimately transferred to TransLink?

The second question is with respect to AirCare. The Ministry of Environment announced last year that AirCare would be discontinued, even though the program is run by TransLink. Can the minister outline steps being taken with respect to the phase-out of the program?

With respect to the Evergreen line, is the minister satisfied that the summer 2016 target will be met in terms of construction progress, or are there difficulties, as there have been with other projects around the province, in finding skilled labour for the project? Are there any skilled labour shortages anticipated that might affect the pace of construction?

Finally, with respect to handyDART, I have looked at a response from TransLink to a freedom-of-information request with respect to handyDART denials that says from the time period July 1, 2012, to December 1, 2012, there were 19,091 service denials. Those would be requests for service that handyDART could not or would not meet.

There were, in addition, 4,558 refusals, which generally occur when somebody has to get to an appointment and back at a fixed time, so handyDART offers an alternative time, and the person refuses the service because it simply doesn't work for them. Can the ministry confirm that those numbers are, in fact, accurate and how they compare with the year 2011?

I would ask the minister if the ministry has a system for tracking complaints about handyDART service. If TransLink tracks complaints about handyDART service, are the complaints brought to the ministry's attention?

I also understand that there has been a pilot project conducted with using taxi service in place of handyDART service. In fact, taxi usage between July 1, 2012, and December 1, 2012, was 12,645. Has a cost-benefit analysis been done in advance? What particular efficiencies were being sought by substituting taxi service for handyDART service, and which, if any, were found?

Finally, handyDART drivers receive specialized training for dealing with the clients of handyDART. They receive regular refresher training. They get specialized training such as the use of ventilators. Can the ministry or the minister tell me whether this training is also provided to taxi drivers who are providing alternate service?

Finally, what controls, if any, does TransLink or the ministry have in place with respect to the TaxiSaver program and the issuance of vouchers? Do we know the value of money represented by the vouchers that are issued?

Oh, I have one last question. The TransLink police board is also appointed by the province, as well as the TransLink board itself. Similarly, there are issues about local accountability. Will there be any concurrent discussions around the appointment of the police board and how that takes place? Are any changes to the appointment of the police board contemplated, along with discussions about appointments to the TransLink board itself?

With that, Chair, thank you. I thank your predecessor, and I thank the minister for answering my questions. I look forward to the answers to the questions I have entered in.

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member opposite: thank you very much for, I think, what was a very good exchange here today.

I certainly can commit to you that the questions you just read into the record — we will absolutely provide you with written responses as quickly as possible. Should you have any further questions in moving forward on the TransLink file, by all means, my door is open. Let me know, and we'll look forward to working with you on this.

I do want to touch on the comment that you made at the outset of your last questions there about the reserves and the financial outlook for TransLink. Again, for the record, I do not dispute that there are long-term challenges moving forward in terms of meeting the needs of what is the fastest-growing region in the province.

We expect a million more people in the Lower Mainland, I think, by 2030-2031. The $20 billion to $24 billion worth of transit and transportation improvements that TransLink has identified, which have been widely discussed for many years up to this point, I think, are very important for the region. The question, as I said earlier, is going to be: how do these projects get paid for? And in what order do these projects get done?

I want to restate that the projection on TransLink's reserves from 2015 out shows the reserves remaining quite stable. We have demonstrated a track record, certainly over the last couple years, of being responsive to the mayors. Last year, when they asked for two cents additional gas tax to fund the Evergreen project and some additional expansion items, we stepped forward and we met that challenge head on.

I quoted earlier the report that you mentioned several times today. Ken Cameron, a former regional planner hired by the Mayors Council to pull together research comparing other city transportation plans to that of Metro Vancouver, made some very strong and very positive statements about TransLink. One stood out for me. That was that today TransLink has funding sources which are second to none in relation to a number of other cities around the world with comparable transit systems.

Just this morning on CKWX on line a former
[ Page 763 ]
TransLink board chair Doug McCallum, who I know the members opposite know well, very clearly stated: "I would rate our system right at the top with other systems around the world."

Back to my comments earlier. We think that there's a good foundation in place with TransLink and the work that TransLink is doing and the work that the Mayors Council is doing. So let's roll up our sleeves, and let's work together to improve governance, agree on funding options and seek the approval of the people of Metro Vancouver as we move forward to make these very important transit and transportation improvements in the Lower Mainland.

S. Robinson: I have a number of questions, but the first I'm just going to read into the record and ask if I could get a written response back so that I can get back to my community with the responses from this minister.

During the election the Liberal candidate in Coquitlam-Maillardville spoke about park-and-ride systems all along the Evergreen line. I just want to find out from the minister if that really is the intention — to have a park-and-ride program throughout the Evergreen line. That would be really helpful, because it's not something I'm that familiar with.

My questions for today, which come from my community. There are two of them. One of them is related to road signs on the Highway 1 corridor. Back in February the mayor of Coquitlam, Mayor Stewart, brought to the attention of the minister at the time the fact that the signs on the new highway did nothing in terms of providing accurate direction. They were told that it would be looked into. Here we are in July. Nothing's been done.

I just want to hear from the minister what the plan is for road signs. It actually means something to people. For example, they keep referring to Highway 7 and Highway 7B. If you were to ask anyone who lives locally, those are meaningless numbers to people. We call them the Mary Hill Bypass and the Lougheed Highway. It's now front-page news this week. We'd love to hear from the minister on that one.

[1650]

My second question — just in terms of time, I'm going to give you both of them — has to do with the Bailey bridge. It's an intermunicipal roadway. The single-lane bridge has most recently been determined not to be able to carry the loads that it requires, given that it's down in industrial lands. It links two communities, New Westminster and Coquitlam. It creates this huge bottleneck in the neighbourhood, and it's a real challenge both for the businesses down there and also some concerns around access to Royal Columbian Hospital.

Recently there was a major accident that closed North Road, which is the other way to access the hospital. It was closed for nine hours, and that left us with just this one-way Bailey bridge, which a fire truck couldn't even go over because of the load-bearing challenges.

We'd really love to hear from the minister if this government has any intention to help sort out these challenges that currently exist around that corridor.

[1655]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, I'm happy to first assure you that we will respond in writing to the first question that you posed. We'll do that as quickly as possible.

With respect to the other questions, first, on the concern raised by the member with respect to the signage along Highway 1 and reference to the Lougheed Highway and the Mary Hill Bypass, I understand that this is, indeed, something that is well understood within the ministry.

I believe several meetings have been held with Mayor Stewart of Coquitlam. He has conveyed very strongly on behalf of the people of Coquitlam just how important this is. A number of signs actually have been switched out, and we're working on the balance of signs that the city has identified as the key signs that would make all the difference in the world for the residents in the region.

We actually just received an invite this morning from Coquitlam city council for Ministry of Transportation staff to come and meet face to face. We've accepted that invitation.

I can't tell you exactly when the meeting will be held because I don't think they've worked that out. It will be as soon as possible so that Coquitlam can share with the ministry its perspective on the status and let us know how we're doing on the progress to improve the signage. If there are any further questions in relation to that issue, please let me know, and I'd be happy to follow up on that.

With respect to the Bailey bridge, unfortunately it's not a provincially owned bridge. It's municipally owned, so there's nothing that the province can do to accelerate any improvement there. However, I would say for the record, and I'm sure that you probably share my sentiments here, that I strongly encourage the city of New West and the city of Coquitlam and TransLink to put their heads together and fix what is obviously a challenge in the infrastructure in that part of the region.

M. Karagianis: I have a question about transportation here on the south Island and am here representing my colleagues on the south Island, the members for Juan de Fuca, Victoria–Beacon Hill and Victoria–Swan Lake. I won't speak for Saanich North and Saanich South, because they are both here. They can speak very ably for themselves.

I couldn't help but notice in the minister's opening speech in the House that there was a very direct reference in your comments to a transportation strategy for the south Island here. My colleagues and I have long been advocates for better transportation solutions here for the south Island.

That would include some kind of transportation authority, although hopefully not necessarily mimicking TransLink or the problems that have occurred there; certainly looking at better use of the E&N corridor; looking at the concerns we have for the traffic congestion on the Trans-Canada Highway coming from the West Shore — to include things like HOV lanes, to look at the congestion around the McKenzie overpass, to look at expansion of transit itself, to perhaps look at a commuter rail system both from the West Shore and possibly the longer-term planning for rapid rail or rapid transit in some form in the inner city.

All of those things we know are very crucial — lots of pressure here on the south Island around them. I was very fascinated to hear the minister make very direct reference to a transportation strategy for the south Island. If it's possible for to you expand on that, that would be terrific, understanding the things that we have been advocating for here on the south Island for quite a long time.

[1700]

Hon. T. Stone: I would like to thank member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads for her question. Speaking of her colleagues, I had a very good discussion with her colleague from Juan de Fuca just the other day. He was very direct with me in terms of the priorities, as he sees them, certainly for the southern part of the Island.

At the end of the day, we made a very clear commitment in the platform for the recent election to develop a Vancouver Island transportation strategy. I saw that very clearly detailed for me in the mandate letter that was provided to me shortly after being sworn in as the Transportation Minister.

At a very high level…. While I absolutely appreciate that the member will be first and foremost interested in improvements that could be made for the southern Island, it will indeed be a strategy that will address the transportation priorities for all of Vancouver Island. We're not limiting the scope to just land or just air. It will be a broad approach. It'll include road, rail, air and water-based transportation. We're not just going to focus on the movement of people. We'll be focusing on the movement of goods as well.

I'm well aware that on the southern Island there are some tremendous challenges, particularly in the Victoria approaches, and lots of discussion over the years around everything from bringing the E&N back….

We're certainly committed to that as a government. We've put $7½ million on the table. The feds have put money on the table. The Vancouver Island corridor group has indicated a desire to work with both levels of government. I'm keen to determine exactly where the bottleneck is on that project, to see if we can't make some progress on it.

I understand that there's been discussion around improvements at the McKenzie intersection, the potential for HOV lanes, the potential for expanded transit.

Again, we're going to look at the entire Island. It'll include the ports in Port Alberni and Victoria. It'll include the airports. It'll include the road network across Vancouver Island.

In terms of timing and process, moving forward…. I'm thinking the member might be interested in that as well. I'll just go a minute longer here. We are in the early stages of mapping out the scope, but it is my intention to do everything we can to have the scope and the process nailed down so that we can launch this strategy this fall.

[1705]

We won't be looking at a one- or two-year process. I do not want this to be an effort at just having a whole wide range of conversations over a long period of time and creating a nice report with a shiny cover and putting it on a bookshelf somewhere.

I intend on this being a more iterative process, meaning a shorter consultation period and very clearly defined short-term, mid-term and long-term goals. I think there are some short-term measures that could be very quick wins on some aspects of congestion on the south Island — which I don't think we need to talk about for more years; I think we need to come to some consensus and move forward — just as one example.

I hope to have more details on this, in terms of the scope and the process moving forward, and to make some announcement on that this fall.

D. Eby: In my constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey we have a very unusual area known as electoral area A, which is where UBC is located. There are a number of different neighbourhoods there — the university neighbourhoods, the endowment lands and the UBC student groups themselves.

The point of all this is that it's provincial jurisdiction and responsibility for the infrastructure and transportation infrastructure out at UBC, by which I mean roads. Recently the Ministry of Transportation installed a roundabout at 16th Avenue and Wesbrook Mall that everyone agrees is unsafe for children. The Ministry of Transportation wouldn't have done this if they'd just come to the community and asked the University Neighbourhoods Association: "What do you think about this plan?"

Now the Ministry of Transportation is involved in an expensive retrofitting scheme, putting in lights and contact pads and these kinds of things to try to fix it. The neighbours are still concerned that it's not going to be fixed, and they're calling for little islands between the two lanes so that the cars can see the kids as they go through the roundabout.

What I'm asking is pretty straightforward. The minister has been given a clear mandate to save money, to be wise with taxpayer funds. It seems to the people in my constituency that the smartest use of taxpayer funds is to
[ Page 765 ]
consult before installing new infrastructure or replacing existing infrastructure and, in particular, to consult with the only body there representing the university neighbourhoods, which is the University Neighbourhoods Association, or whatever body replaces it.

My question to the minister is quite simple. Will the ministry consult with the University Neighbourhoods Association, the University Endowment Lands group, the Alma Mater Society and UBC — all of them — before installing new transportation infrastructure or replacing existing infrastructure? This means physically going to the community, showing them the plans, getting feedback and then incorporating that feedback.

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Vancouver–Point Grey: thank you for your question. The short answer is: yes, we are committed to ensuring that there's every effort made to consult with all of the stakeholders in electoral area A.

I'm sure the member is aware that UBC held a meeting recently, on March 18, to discuss the roundabout and a number of other related pieces. My understanding is that that meeting was very well attended and very well received.

Based on feedback from the various stakeholder groups — again, as the member, I'm sure, is well aware — there has been a focus on improving safety on 16th Avenue, including reducing the speed limit from 60 kilometres to 50 kilometres.

My point here is that I think the relationship at this point is in a good place. To keep it there, we need to ensure that appropriate consultations continue to be at the centrepiece of any decisions that are made that affect the stakeholders in electoral area A within the member's riding.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask a question, and I'll leave it with you. You may have some partial answer. For the most part, I'm expecting that probably I can get written answers later.

I want to ask some questions about the people that live at Swansea Point and the terrible problems they've had with Hummingbird Creek. In June of 2012 the community of Swansea Point was devastated by a major debris flow of water and debris from Hummingbird Creek that came down through their community. There were millions of dollars of damage created by this provincial creek.

The banks were eaten away. Hundreds of houses were affected. For months the province refused to do anything about it. Coincidentally, when I made a visit there to meet with the people and local reporters on February 6, 2013, on that very day government sent a letter in the morning, saying that they were going to do something about it, which was good.

Some work was done in March and, I believe, in May digging out the debris that was left there and some riprapping, and some other work was done. The Transportation Ministry personnel said that this would be sufficient to set things right.

The spring freshet has now happened again. There was no major debris flow this year. It was just a normal freshet. But in fact, what has happened is that once again, even in a year where there was not a major event, we now have debris that has again flowed down the creek. The banks are again being eaten away. The people of Swansea Point that are anywhere close to Hummingbird Creek are very concerned that their homes are not safe. They're actually afraid that they are not safe, and the levels have again risen.

Although I believe that Transportation Ministry personnel are going to take a look at it, it looks like the debris is back up, essentially at the place it was last year when there was a major event. I'm seeking some assistance from the Ministry of Transportation on this.

I know, just before the minister responds, that there was an opportunity several years ago for the people of Swansea Point to get a culvert, which is what they're looking for — or a bridge and a catch basin.

[1715]

I know that I have been told by previous Transportation Ministers that they were offered that and that they turned it down. But they turned it down because the province, as a precondition of that, told them that they were going to have to pay for the maintenance, and they didn't want to set that precedent. In fact, that was a precedent that the new member for Shuswap has said he agreed was not a good precedent to set.

I guess my question is, essentially: is the minister, is this government going to finally do what needs to be done, which is to go in and fix the problem? There has been extensive logging above this creek. Some fixes have happened, and the people appreciate it, but they are essentially very close back to where they were last year after the devastation.

They want to know where the material is coming from and want to know what can be done to finally stabilize it. They want to get information with regard to the forestry work that has happened above where they live. They are essentially looking for a permanent solution to this problem.

What I'm going to leave with the minister is if the minister wants to make any comment now, that's fine, but I would like a response about what the long-term solution is. This is a provincial creek. The people of Swansea Point do not want to set a provincewide precedent of undertaking the maintenance of this creek.

This is a provincial responsibility, and they want some assurance that this government is going to do the right thing and is going to fix the problem so that the hundreds of residents that live there do not go to bed worrying about whether or not they're going to be swept away by a raging current sometime during the night.

[1720]

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for the question. I know this is an issue that she has pursued on behalf of the residents of Swansea Point and those along Hummingbird Creek for a number of years now.

I should start by acknowledging the member for Shuswap, who has raised this matter with me several times as well. Obviously, as he lives just down the road from this location, he is well aware of the terrible flood that took place last year.

As a government, we take the concerns of the local residents who live on this alluvial fan seriously. In terms of this recent spring we did monitor the flow, as the member mentioned quite clearly in her question, twice a day beginning in April. We're quite pleased that the work that was done last year withstood the conditions for this year.

That notwithstanding, the ministry did commission Golder Associates to undertake a review of the capacity of the culvert in place right now. The test is really: can this culvert withstand a one-in-200-year event, yes or no? My understanding is that Golder Associates will be providing that report to us very, very soon, likely in August, and we will see what it says.

At the end of the day, we are committed to ensuring that the provincial infrastructure, which would largely be the highway through there, is well looked after for the residents in the area.

If the member has any further questions on this or requires any further level of detail, I would be happy to provide that to her either in person or in written form.

K. Corrigan: I don't require any further answer because I have colleagues…. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the great work that Tina and Dan Keely and Steele Jordan and the other residents have done on behalf of that community.

Thank you very much for your response. I may put some more written questions to you. Thank you, Minister.

L. Popham: I have two questions, two separate topics.

My first question is to the minister. Does the minister show $90 million as an accounts receivable for the Tourism Vancouver portion of the Vancouver Convention Centre sitting with the Ministry of Transportation? If it's not $90 million, what is the current total at this point?

My second question is in regards to my constituency. I do represent Saanich South, which is home to one of the most dangerous intersections on Vancouver Island, Pat Bay Highway and Sayward Road. I have been working very hard since I was elected in 2009 to try and bring some focus onto that intersection.

It is great that there are improvements underway now. I want to confirm with the minister that there are adequate funds to continue and to complete the safety improvements at that intersection, and to ask if the coloured flags hanging around the intersection on the power lines are an initiative of the Ministry of Transportation.

[1725]

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for Saanich South for her questions.

On the first question that she posed, that is an issue between Tourism Vancouver and the Ministry of Finance. I would encourage the member to direct her inquiry to the Ministry of Finance office.

With respect to the local issue that she raised, just an update on the improvements being made at the Pat Bay Highway and the Sayward intersection. The $3 million was announced for that project. I'm pleased to confirm for the member that there are adequate funds to complete the project, so there are no concerns there at all.

With respect to the coloured flags that are hanging on some of the lines in the area, those are markers that are used from a safety perspective to mark the utilities for the contractors. They will be removed when the work is done.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and his staff for being here to provide the information that we are all seeking to get.

I've worked closely with some of your staff, and I appreciate the improvements that happened on Highway 4 between Port Alberni and the west coast — Tofino, Ucluelet and the Nuu-chah-nulth territories. There was a bad accident there with paramedics, and that actually spurred on some significant changes. I appreciate that and the work and the time your staff put into that.

[1730]

Highway 4 going to Port Alberni from the east side of the Island is what I'll ask about. One of your predecessors, Kevin Falcon, said I was like the salmon coming back — asking the questions. But it is of concern for the city of Port Alberni, certainly. Their hopes and aspirations for economic diversification are — partly, at least — around highway improvements. There's just the one access now. It is a bottleneck. It gets shut down.

Always, previously, whichever minister it has been in the place…. The studies have shown, I've been told, that the traffic numbers do not warrant an alternative route. I don't know about any of the other Highway 4 connector accesses, or whatever, but the studies have shown that it's not feasible — at this time, at least.

I know the mayor and council have still been pushing very hard, so I'm back again, like the salmon, pushing hard. Have there been any changes of thought because of the economic plans that the city of Port Alberni has? Maybe that's a good reason to rethink this — about an alternative access or a highway connector for Highway 4.

Hon. T. Stone: You can be the salmon for as long as you want. My goal here, to the member, is to answer your questions and, hopefully, help you with projects that are important to the people in your constituency. So I ap-
[ Page 767 ]
plaud you for continuing to come back and make those priorities known.

With respect to the specific road in question, Highway 4 from east of Port Alberni, obviously we are all well aware that there have been a number of studies done. One, quite recent, has looked at the economic viability of this and whether there was a strong business case or not. Clearly, we know where the city of Port Alberni stands, and a lot of the business interests in Port Alberni.

My suggestion at this point…. Let me back up. A new route is not in the ministry's plans at the present time. That being said, it's exactly these kinds of projects that I encourage people to bring forward as part of the Vancouver Island transportation strategy. We will be launching that process this fall.

[1735]

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the critic for allowing me to take a bit of her time to ask an infrastructure-related problem. And congratulations to the minister for his new appointment.

I wanted to bring the minister up to speed on a specific infrastructure project, and in return, I hope that he'll be able to give me some answers on government direction on this project. That is the Hazelton recreation centre. This is a project that is slated to replace an aging ice arena in Hazelton, an ice arena that services numerous First Nation communities, two municipalities and a regional district. The issue is that it was built by volunteers decades ago and is in a state of perhaps not being insurable for use. So this could be as soon as next year.

There has been a lot of work done on the project. The community has done a lot of work on it. There has been money spent. There have been community meetings. There's an advanced-concept plan in place. The structure being proposed is a wood structure, which fits in with the concept of "Let's build out of wood" in this province. It's a unique project, in that it is a partnership between First Nations in the area — Gitxsan, mainly — and two municipalities, New Hazelton and Hazelton, plus the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. Things have come together quite well. It has taken a lot of work to get to this point, but they need some help.

I think that the help that's needed is not unreasonable. We know the northwest has been tagged by the Premier and this government for contributing to the economic well-being of the entire province. I think it's not unfair, in return, to see some investment in these kinds of projects that lead to the health of remote rural communities and, therefore, the ability to recoup more economic benefits for the entire province.

This is along the lines of Greg Halseth's point of view, from the University of Northern B.C. He said that if you don't reinvest, then you will actually end up breaking the bank.

If you don't reinvest in remote rural communities, we will eventually not have remote rural communities, and that will impact the entire province in being able to recoup the economic benefits. So my question would be….

They need some help to take this advanced-concept plan to the final stages and to have the project…. It is near shovel-ready.

In the budget estimate process for this coming fiscal year are there capital funds in place for projects such as the Hazelton recreation centre? Are there funds available to assist communities, which have already spent their own money, to complete the plans and allow them to leverage private dollars from industry, which is available too, if they can get some commitment from the province?

[1740]

Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Stikine: thank you for the question.

With respect to whether or not there may be some infrastructure funds available for the Hazelton arena, there are no funds at the present time. In fact, we don't have any specific infrastructure programs for these types of projects. Typically, they're funded municipally, which the member clearly indicated in his question.

But the federal government has recently announced a new Building Canada fund, and we will be in discussions with the federal government very soon. I understand that as early as this fall we'll be finalizing criteria with the federal government as to how those infrastructure funds will be allocated. There may be some opportunity here to expand the scope of those infrastructure funds to potentially include community projects such as the one that the member has raised.

I certainly understand and support these kinds of investments in sports and culture and so forth at the local level. We will be encouraging our federal counterparts to work with us on expanding the scope of the new Building Canada fund.

I'll make one final offer to the member. If the member would like to make the details of this specific project known to my staff and, specifically, the ADM for infrastructure, Mr. Richter…. I would be more than happy to encourage you to meet with Mr. Richter. He would be very much willing to take the project and bookmark it for reference when we understand where that scope is in the new Building Canada fund.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question to the Minister of Transportation. I had forwarded a letter to the ministry a couple of weeks ago. I think some error happened. It disappeared in the office of the ministry, so I'll just ask the question here.

[1745]

Specifically, it's regarding the Stanley Park Causeway. As the minister will know, there was a horrible accident which led to the loss of life of a North Vancouver woman when riding her bike along the pathway, ending
[ Page 768 ]
up in traffic.

I have ridden that route myself many times. It could be great route for tourism. It could be a much better commuting path between North and West Vancouver and downtown Vancouver. However, in its present state, it is dangerous. One can pick up a lot of speed. It's a narrow route, and there are challenges with the signage as well as with the pathway itself.

Some have suggested a barrier so that people can't fall into traffic. There have been other suggestions made. I'm curious if the minister could share with us what the Ministry of Transportation is going to do to improve cycle commuting and pedestrian commuting along that route so that we can green the environment and keep people safe.

Hon. T. Stone: Thank you to the member for Vancouver–West End for the question. The tragedy that took place on the Stanley Park Causeway obviously gave us all pause. Certainly, our thoughts are with the family of the person who lost her life.

The Ministry of Transportation actually had a very good meeting recently with the Vancouver park board and the city of Vancouver. I want to assure the member that the Ministry of Transportation is absolutely committed to developing a plan for improvements. Those improvements could include barriers, sidewalk widening, separate pathways for pedestrians and cyclists. When it comes to safety — which is the most important, number one priority, as I've said over and over inside and outside the House — let's not rule anything out.

Certainly, my instructions to my staff have been to expedite these discussions and make sure, in concert with the city of Vancouver and Vancouver park board, that we're in a position to actually implement some improvements as soon as possible. The review our ministry undertook several weeks ago is very close to being done. Again, in concert with the city and with the park board, we will make the results of that known very soon.

I would like to say, on a final note, that it would certainly be my intention to be in a position where we are making that known by the end of the summer, and we can take some action to actually improve that corridor as soon as possible thereafter.

Vote 45: minister operations, $812,278,000 — approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

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

Hon. P. Fassbender: Perhaps if I could, hon. Chair, I just want to introduce, for those present, the individuals from the ministry who are joining me today. We have our deputy minister, James Gorman, and we also have Rick Davis, our deputy superintendent, and Doug Stewart, assistant deputy, who is behind me.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister a few questions. Then I know that a number of other MLAs will have local constituency concerns that they wish to ask about this afternoon.

If I could just begin, maybe, by asking some questions about data management projects in the Ministry of Education. There have been some well-canvassed problems with the system that government procured in as far back as 2002-2003 and has purchased all sorts of patch systems to maintain over the years.

The last time I checked, we were well in advance of $100 million worth of public money on a data system that was supposed to be unique to British Columbia. It was not an off-the-shelf product, and it ended up costing a considerable amount of money. Its performance was the subject of budget estimates questions in the past.

I don't want to go into performance deficiencies this afternoon. I want to look, I think, ahead and just begin by asking the minister about how much funding in this budget there is to run the BCeSIS data management program this year and how much districts are paying into the system.

[1435]

Hon. P. Fassbender: This year we'll be spending $10.563 million, of which half, roughly $5.563 million, is recovered from districts, which means the remaining half is borne by the ministry.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could quantify…. Now that government has had so many years of experience with the system and has audited year-ends to create
[ Page 769 ]
a total, I wonder if he's in a position to be able to disclose the total cost and the total amount of investment into the BCeSIS system since it was introduced.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Before I give the figures that have been asked for, I think there's context that's important in this discussion as well. I clearly remember, as I'm sure the member does, ten years ago things like Netscape; Lotus 1-2-3; WordPerfect — all of the technologies that we all have seen and the evolution of technology to where we are today. The reality is that technology keeps changing.

Our challenge, of course, is that we have well over 650,000 students per year, tens of thousands of users that use the system that tracks all kinds of information and ensures that we have the kind of information that we do.

I know that the member is well aware that we are in the process of replacing that system, because we are at the place where it has lived its usefulness. In our discussions with the provider, they no longer are going to be continuing to support that in the future. Therefore, we're in the process.

[1440]

That being said, the total capital cost from 2003-2013 was $16,899,598, and then the remainder were operating costs. That came to a total of $97,418,074. So significant investment, but significant usage over that period of time. We're now at the place where we need to bring in a new system that is going to serve us into the future to meet all of the needs that I've referred to.

R. Fleming: I appreciate what the member…. We're talking about a subject that has been the source of considerable examination over its entire lifetime, but particularly in the last few years. The Ministry of Education conducted something called the Gartner report, which reviewed the IT and information systems that the ministry uses. It concluded that BCeSIS is not meeting the business, technical or operational needs of B.C. and is not a viable future alternative.

That was three years ago, almost — September 2011 — that that report was delivered to the ministry. We've had shifting timelines about when the replacement of that outdated system and low-functioning system would be achieved. His predecessor as the Minister of Education last told the estimates process that it would be replaced by 2014, without a precise date. Can the minister be more specific at this point in time?

Hon. P. Fassbender: To put again, I think, the entire process into perspective, in 2011 the review was done by Gartner, who are very reputable and have done work around the world in terms of systems analysis and making recommendations. I've had the opportunity to sit with that group on another initiative that I was involved with, and I have a lot of faith in the work that they did and the recommendations they made.

In 2012 — as the member is, I'm sure, aware — the ministry began a request for proposals. As well, what we did was had significant consultation with all the user groups, because it was important that when we went out to the request for proposals, we really had a clear understanding from the users what they would like to see within the context of a new platform and within the context of the recommendations that Gartner made.

That has been done. Requests for proposals for a new information system to replace BCeSIS were issued to 16 pre-qualified organizations in December of 2012. Six responses were received by February of 2013. The evaluation process was just completed in June of this year, and the transition to the new student information service will begin in 2014. We anticipate full provincewide implementation by 2015, and the existing system will be decommissioned early in 2016.

[1445]

I'm sure the member understands that what we want to do is make sure that the critical information the system is going to provide to the users — that there is no loss or any hiccups in that transition process. That's why the current system won't be decommissioned until 2016 — to ensure that the new system is meeting all of the needs as it gets ramped up and through the provincewide implementation.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to hear from the minister that in moving forward, the ministry feels that it has adequately consulted all of the users of the data system and extensively solicited their opinions about what a better system will look like.

We know from another IT disaster in a different ministry, the integrated case management system, that that was not done. Front-line social workers and managers were not adequately consulted. Consequently, we're dealing with an overly expensive, underperforming system that completely failed to understand what narrative social work case data looked like.

We don't want to repeat that again in the Ministry of Education, so in terms of getting this right…. The minister said that the evaluation process is going on right now. One of the recommendations from Gartner was that we have an off-the-shelf program that is used in other jurisdictions so that we do not repeat the mistakes that we did ten years ago in B.C. of trying to create our own education data system.

Is that the case, without giving away any commercial secrets — that likely the successful bidders are going to be ones that offer tried-and-tested products that are used by education departments in other jurisdictions for British Columbia?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member did say himself that I'm not going to reveal any confidential elements of that yet because we're still in the process of finalizing a lot of
[ Page 770 ]
those details. But what I can say is that the entire process, right from the time we started through to where we are today and where we will get once we start implementation and transition….

The stakeholder engagement piece went through…. We had over, I think, 1,400 stakeholders that were involved in the discussion. We then developed, along with the Gartner report, the business case.

I think what's important here is that in any situation what we need to do, based on the consultations, is to ensure we have a made-in-B.C. solution for our system but not that it necessarily be a system that is solely for British Columbia — that it looks at best practices and platforms that can be integrated that meet the needs that we've identified.

We went through that. That formed the basis of the request for proposals, so that was built into it. As the evaluation committee is going through their work…. Of course, I don't get involved in that. That is up to the evaluation committee, and it's a very confidential process, of course, because of the nature of it. We are convinced that where we are going is going to ensure the delivery of a very robust and functional system that meets the needs of all of the stakeholders that were identified by the stakeholders.

R. Fleming: The minister outlined the timeline for moving towards a new system. A number of school districts who had become frustrated and fatigued with the cost overruns and the poor performance of BCeSIS began to develop their own software solutions. I guess they'd lost confidence that the ministry would adequately transition to something differently.

[1450]

They have some kind of a shareware system called openStudent that they're proposing to use. The last I had heard is that as many as five districts plan to use this system.

I wanted to ask the minister: how many districts are planning to use openStudent, going on their own? Also, given the timeline you've evaluated — you discussed provincewide implementation of whoever the new vendor is for the government system — how are those groups going to be integrated who are currently in the process of implementing their own IT solutions?

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

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

The Chair: Thank you. For the better.

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the question: I have no hesitation in saying to the member that everyone in the system has had frustrations with the information system up to now. That's one of the reasons that we said we need to take a very deep and a very broad look at it.

In doing that, as I said in the description of the process, we involved administrators, principals, teachers — everyone who interfaces with a student information system. We do know that there is a school district that is looking at another option. There are five. I think they represent a total in excess of 31,000 students, and I think it's reflective of their frustration with the system up to now.

What I am proud to say, in the briefings that I've had, is that the ministry has recognized that. The last thing…. In these times of economic challenges that we face throughout the ministry, throughout every school district in the province, it would make no sense whatsoever to have 60 different systems or scattered systems that don't talk to each other.

The Gartner report — and I'm assuming the member has read it — clearly speaks that one system that ensures communication between all districts and so on is the ideal solution. That's what we're working towards. That's why we're working so hard with all of the school districts.

I'm quite optimistic that those districts that may have looked at another alternative as a result of some frustration will see the value of this system and why it will serve their needs and, indeed, because of all of the school districts in the province using it, that it will save them money and provide good-quality information and communication amongst each other.

R. Fleming: I would ask the minister if we can switch to international education goals. I just have a few questions in this section. There's a recent round-table report that was done for his ministry, and of course, the jobs plan of government placed quite a lot of importance upon international education as a source of revenue and job growth and taxation.

[1455]

It set very ambitious targets, I think, to increase international students here in British Columbia by 50 percent by 2015. That's not very far from now. It was acknowledged at the round table that the Ministry of Education did that that's a completely unrealistic figure now and that British Columbia would be lucky to achieve something like 16 percent growth.

That part of the jobs plan, presumably, will be amended by one of his colleagues somewhere else in a different ministry. What I wanted to ask about was the round-table report that's in his possession.

There are a number of findings and recommendations there that probably require careful consideration by the minister before moving ahead. I think one of the controversial items that came out of the round-table report was to suggest that the Ministry of Education look at putting a per-student levy on top of all the international student fees that boards of education currently charge.

Unsurprisingly, that's not popular amongst boards of education. They feel it will make the cost of tuition go up even more and make international education products that they are marketing around the world less competitive.

Can the minister, basically, answer the question about whether the ministry is moving ahead with that recommendation? Is it likely that there will be a per-student levy assessed provincewide on all of the districts that have international education programs?

Hon. P. Fassbender: No.

R. Fleming: There was another finding that came out of the round table that I think was interesting. It found that one of the barriers, perhaps, to the growth that's in the jobs plan target — and was suggested by the ministry that 50 percent international student enrolment increase could be achieved — was that currently it was felt that there was an overreliance on too few markets for students, that Korea and China in particular had been heavily tapped.

Efforts to market Dogwood certificates and regions of B.C. that would provide international education had perhaps undermarketed to other potential sources of students here.

I wanted to ask the minister, given the fact that there's a bit of a laissez faire system…. Boards of education can go forth and start their own limited companies and pursue international education opportunities. Some do it well. Some have difficulty doing that. Probably northern B.C. has a lot more difficult time marketing itself than some southern cities.

Where is the role for the ministry, coming out of this round-table report, to have a more coordinated marketing effort that is more diversified internationally? Is that something he's considering? And what new markets, if any, is he looking to assist boards of education to access?

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member: thank you for the question. It gives me a chance to speak about a number of things that have been happening since I have been fortunate to be asked to serve as the Minister of Education.

I can tell the member that that is exactly why the round table took place. More importantly, round tables define some of the potential opportunities that we have. I can assure the member that this government is absolutely committed with our jobs strategy, with our desire to grow the economy and provide the secure future for the people of British Columbia for not only the current generation but for future generations as well.

One of the things that we have been doing is there have been a number of interministry meetings with Jobs and Skills, Advanced Education, the Ministry of Education, Aboriginal Relations — all of the various ministries who have a direct involvement in preparing for the future opportunities. These are not down the road. They actually are in front of us.

[1500]

One of the things we have focused on is how we broaden the markets that we can attract students from and, more importantly, also provide the kind of growth that we need. We clearly recognize that we do not have enough capacity in the province of British Columbia to meet the job needs.

Part of that is education and immigration, which fits into that. We'll also be discussing this with our federal counterparts to ensure that we develop a marketing strategy at every level so that we can meet the needs and, indeed, broaden that base.

One of the keys, and the member spoke about it, that I absolutely believe and that I know my colleague in the ministry of community affairs…. We have talked about how do we market communities outside of the metropolitan areas, to the north, and talk about opportunities for people to have tremendous careers, great educational and skill training opportunities and to build communities in those regions where a lot of the jobs that we see in the future are going to be.

R. Fleming: I think I heard as categorical a rejection as you will ever hear in an estimates process. The minister suggests that there will be no provincewide student levy tacked onto boards of education that run the international education programs. Okay. I heard it again through a nod.

I want to ask about another area that the round table touched upon that I think some boards have concerns with, and that is around tuition fee rates across the province — whether they would be regulated and standardized. Currently there is quite a variance between what West Vancouver and Richmond and Kamloops charge international students.

The minister has just talked about the B.C. brand around high school education here. We have quite a differentiation when international students investigate and look at what B.C. offers. On that discussion around fixing tuition fee rates across the province, does the minister have an equally unequivocal answer about whether he's pursuing that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The province of British Columbia and the Ministry of Education have avoided and will continue not to regulate tuitions around the province. The reason for that is the cost of delivering education in the Stikine is much different than it is in my community of Surrey.

We recognize that local jurisdictions and our co-governance relationship with them are the ones that have to make the decisions as to what it does cost them to provide that education and to set their fees accordingly.

However, what we do and will continue to do as part
[ Page 772 ]
of our strategy moving forward is talk about barriers to some of the issues that we have and work with them and encourage them to find as many ways as they can to ensure they provide the level and the quality in that community while they are responsible for setting the fees. As the member knows, the cost of housing in some communities outside of, say, Surrey, as an example, is much different in smaller communities. All of those factors have to be taken into account.

It is not our position that we are going to dictate tuition fees to those communities and those local school districts.

R. Fleming: I'll switch topics. There's an element in the service plan that talks about performance management and incentives in the ministry. Not too many years ago somebody ran for the leadership of the minister's party campaigning on merit pay for teachers. It's a controversial idea. It didn't go very far, and ultimately, that individual didn't become the leader.

[1505]

I want to ask the minister if he can explain a section under the service plan, "Objective 2.2," which references improved support for teachers and "improving oversight for the teaching profession, including performance management and" — again, that word — "incentives."

I just want to ask the minister to zero in and comment on the incentives and ask if it means that there's extra funding in the budget for incentives, what exactly is meant by incentives and whether this would qualify as what's commonly referred to as merit pay.

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the things that's happened over the years is that the ministry has worked very carefully and closely with teachers. We've encouraged the B.C. Teachers Federation to be involved in the process of defining how we move ahead in terms of improving the quality of education in the classrooms, the environment for teachers, and all of those things.

What we've done in that, and what is meant in the service plan, is that we want to define where the areas are where improvement can be brought. How do we provide that to teachers in the classroom? How do we provide them with the support that they need in order to help them to move ahead and to grow within their profession?

The word "incentives" is not merit pay. It has to do with other forms of support that we can give them to help them to be able to feel satisfied that they have all the tools they need to provide the quality teaching and environment for their students.

R. Fleming: Bill 22, which of course replaced the bills that were struck down by the court, had a provision in it to pay teachers additional money for having more than 30 students in their classroom. I'm just wondering if this provision in Bill 22 is deemed an incentive, under the service plan area that we've just been discussing, for teachers to take on larger classes.

I guess the question I'd really like to ask the minister, if his staff can provide it, is: how many teachers in the province did actually accept extra pay last year for having classes that were outside of the Bill 22 thresholds?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We know that there were 1,300 classes throughout the province, out of a total of 68,000 classes, that exceeded 30. That means there were 1,300 teachers who were eligible for a small stipend for the extra work that they had as a result of that.

At this stage we won't know the actual number that took advantage of that — because they, indeed, have to take advantage of it — until the financial statements are finalized in September. Should the member want to know that number at that point, I'm sure that contact with ministry staff…. They will be able to provide it once the financial statements are finalized.

R. Fleming: If I could just ask a question about trades training. There's a target, again, to increase enrolment in trades and technical training through the ACE IT program and other apprenticeships that begin in high school, to increase the number of students involved by 50 percent — 6,000 students per year.

[1510]

I know that apprenticeships cost money. There's a low student-to-teacher ratio, and there are obviously capital costs and program costs. It's a valuable program.

I'm just wondering if the minister could talk about where in the budget funds that essentially subsidize the apprenticeships are contained. If the ministry is to complete its goal, I'm not seeing in this budget document where that money is going to come from, given the very small amounts that are projected provincewide to increase the overall Education Ministry's budget.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The question is timely both in terms of the challenges we face but also some of the discussions which I alluded to already with the various ministries, including Advanced Education, and looking at other parts of the government and our funding for it.

Let me perhaps give you some statistics, just to put it into context. We have roughly 935 students across the province that are registered in secondary school apprenticeship programs. Now, when you think about the future job potential and the growth that we hope to have in our economy and where it's going to come from, that's not a good enough number by any stretch.

We also know that there are about 2,065 students that are registered in the accelerated credit enrolment in industry training, the ACE IT program. We allocate about $450,000 — and we have in this budget — for scholarships for students who want to move forward into that area. More importantly, the Industry Training Authority allocated $5.1 million towards that.

I sat in on a meeting this morning, along with the Minister of Skills Training and also Advanced Education, with some industry representatives. What we talked about is: how do we change the paradigm? Quite honestly, if I look at some other figures…. From 2004-2005 we were at 854. Today we're at 714. So we've had a net decline in terms of the number of students that are in those programs. We had a high in 2007-2008 of 1,078.

One of the realities that we've seen and we continue to see…. That's why the world economic situation and the economic climate…. Why our government has worked so hard for a balanced budget, for maintaining our triple-A credit rating is so that we ensure that we keep business moving ahead.

[1515]

I know, clearly — and I've seen it in my own community — that when we have economic challenges, a homebuilder who has an apprentice employed…. If they're not selling homes, the first people that are let go are the apprentices. That is a trend. That's why our economy is so important. That's why we're working so hard to build a strong economy and a secure future — so that we open those things up.

In our discussions this morning amongst the ministries, we recognized clearly that we need a very comprehensive and very detailed marketing strategy on how we open the doors to the thinking of parents — about their children, about young people, about thinking about other careers, that there are going to be opportunities.

We know we're going to have a million jobs in the next decade that are going to become available. We need the people to fill those. We're going to continue to work with all of the partners to make sure that we create the environment where those opportunities are available and realized, and where students see that a career doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have a university education.

They need the training and the skills to get jobs that pay very well. And as I said earlier, opening up other parts of our province, building communities — not camp mentality, but actually building communities — where people want to live. We do that through an integrated program, and we're committed to continuing to do that.

R. Fleming: I wish I had time to follow up here on apprenticeship programs, but we are running short on time. So I'm going to have to, in order to cover other topics, just move on for the time being.

I just wanted to ask the minister about the library line item in the budget. Municipal libraries are now within the Ministry of Education. In Budget 2012 the line item for library funding was no longer specifically broken out and reported.

Local governments which fund municipal libraries were, not surprisingly, concerned about this. So at the Union of B.C. Municipalities last year a resolution was passed that strongly urged the government of B.C. to reinstate the library fund as a separate line item within government so that it's transparent and they can have some certainty — over a three-year service plan, for example — of what funding is going to look like on that horizon.

That has not been done, and again, I think the issue remains. I guess I would ask the minister if the budget for library funding is going to remain frozen for the next three years. There was an announcement made in Budget 2012 that $42 million over three years, $14 million per year, was going to be provided to public libraries. Could he — since it's no longer disclosed in a separate line item — confirm if that is also the case going forward in this budget?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, to the member: I almost feel like you were in my office at a meeting I was at today talking about libraries. As the member may be aware, I have been a passionate supporter of libraries. In my municipal career I was the chair of the Fraser Valley Regional Library and, as a matter of fact, in that capacity joined with other library organizations throughout the province. I came and spoke with the then Minister of Education about the whole issue of library funding.

We are proud of the fact — I'm proud of the fact, as the minister — that in the next three years the library funding will remain at $14 million per year for each of the three years in the fiscal plan.

R. Fleming: Well, I appreciate that answer. I guess the question, then, would be: if the government is holding the line and having three successive years of frozen funding on libraries, why not accept the recommendation of the Union of B.C. Municipalities? I ask the minister as a former mayor, again: why not accept that recommendation, which is very strongly supported, and just reinstate the line item in the budget?

[1520]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is correct. That was one of the questions that I had. I remember the discussion as the chair of the Fraser Valley Regional Library: "Has that line item been removed so it can be tinkered with or played with in the budget and so on?" What we have is a great relationship with libraries and with local libraries and the various organizations like the Fraser Valley Regional Library.

I think the important thing here is that it remains an item in our budget. It's not in the blue book, but our communication in our relationship with the libraries is that that item is remaining at the level that it is today and will for the next three years. We will continue to dialogue with them in the future. I think that whether or not it is a separate line item is only an issue if someone is concerned you're going to do something with it, and our commitment is that we're not.

R. Fleming: I don't want to, really, turn up the heat in the Birch Room, because it's quite a warm place, but I did want to talk about sex education next, if I could, because it's in the news again. There's a new report out about British Columbia youth in published journals, peer-reviewed. It comes from a fairly involved study by the University of B.C. that is based on the provincial adolescent health survey, a very large sample — 30,000 students.

There were some, I think, interesting findings for public health officials and for government around cultural differences and some of the efforts, as to whether they're effective or not, around helping young people whose first language in the home may not be English to be informed about sex education.

While I may not expect the minister to have digested this full report, although it does have an impact on his ministry, of course, I just wanted to…. It seemed to me, in reading the article, that the obvious question for him today would be if the ministry is actually tracking whether schools are providing sexual health education to B.C.'s adolescents.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I read the same articles. I have not read the whole report. Our ministry staff and I are going to read the report with interest. I think that from what I see on the surface in the media reports, there are some interesting questions that are asked, particularly with certain cultural groups. Within the ministry curriculum local school districts, of course, are charged with providing and the assurance to work in their communities with their cultural groups.

I come from a community that has 160 different languages spoken, different cultural backgrounds. Each of them is unique. Very often with new students who come, where English is a second language, the whole issue of fluency and the language that's used to communicate some of the issues throughout the curriculum…. Each school district is charged with working within their various communities to ensure that they do that.

We are very clear that sex education is part of the overall curriculum at the appropriate times, at the various levels throughout their school experience, and we continue to look at issues like this. We work with the local school districts to make sure that they continue to work with the various groups within their communities. But because of the diversity that we have throughout the province and within communities, even neighbouring communities….

[1525]

I know that the city of Surrey and the city of Richmond have different issues that they deal with, and we encourage them to make sure that they stay sensitive to that. As I said, we will be looking at the report in more detail.

R. Fleming: I must admit I was surprised. In 2013 the researchers' conclusions about the lack of standardization in B.C., as well as culturally appropriate strategies…. The minister has just said that basically, it's up to the boards of education and the schools themselves to decide how they fulfil a curriculum requirement, but I'm just wondering if there are any standards that schools have to meet.

I mean, for example, if a board of education were to try and employ a discredited form of sex education, like an abstinence-only type of program that you see in the United States, which have been proven to be ineffective and even counterproductive and against broader societal and taxpayer interests around effective strategies for public health dollars, wouldn't the Ministry of Education be able to have some kind of minimum standard that would rule out strategies that are demonstrated not to work and at least set a bar that boards of education have to meet?

Hon. P. Fassbender: What is very clear for the Ministry of Education is that local boards are in the absolute best position to reflect the needs of their communities and their constituents. Of course, the ministry does provide information through the superintendents of achievement and will work with boards, providing whatever background information and material, but it's not been a problem for the Ministry of Education. It will not be a problem. I don't think getting into a hypothetical discussion on the issue is going to bear any value other than….

I totally support, and our ministry does and our government does, that local boards of education best reflect their communities. They best reflect the desires of their community, and they have that debate at the community level. I think that's where it should stay — in communities, with parents, with the local community to ensure that they reflect what the desire of their community and the various groups within it are.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for answering my question concisely. I'm predicting. I'm looking into the future.

I'm just curious what the cost of the ERASE Bullying strategy is. Has the program required additional funds or costs to school boards? What would those be?

[1530]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I've had a very comprehensive briefing since I've become Education Minister, and I think this is one of those areas where we clearly heard from the public that there's a need — the unfortunate situations that we're all aware of.

What I think is important is that we found that the response from everyone in community was overwhelming, to the point that we, to date, have trained over 4,000 people — that have already been trained as part of the strategy.

We had more sessions than we planned for because the uptake from educators, whether they were in the public, the independent, the First Nations communities…. Each of them became partners in this process because,
[ Page 775 ]
as we were talking about, each community reflects a different dynamic. First Nations have different issues. So we've seen tremendous response, and that's only on level 1 and level 2.

We have committed to $4 million over the next five years on this program, but that only reflects the investment we're making in the training. Local school districts, as an example — the release time that they give people to go to the training is a cost that they bear. But I don't even look at it as a cost. I see it as an investment in changing a culture in our schools and in our communities.

What we have seen, and I have personally have seen, is that this program has not only affected the school climate, it affects the whole community, because the community is getting engaged — community partners, who see this as a need. So the value of what we bring to community through this program is felt by many people across the spectrum. That's why we're going to continue to support it and even see it grow within community.

One of the things I feel very strongly about is that if community embraces a change in culture in this area, then community will be the winner. It shouldn't be a program mandated; it should be a program that we all participate in. We've provided the catalyst with this funding and with the training programs, and as I said, we've only touched levels 1 and 2 so far. The other two levels, 3 and 4, are yet to come. We're excited about the response that we've had so far.

And by the way, Jennifer McCrea from the ministry is the person who is very passionate about it and is working with communities. I just appreciated the briefing that I got and what is happening at the community level.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister. I think the answer showed that it's always unwise to predict the future.

I'm still…. If possible, it would be helpful to get the cost. I've read a lot about the program and followed its development. Hopefully, others will have as well.

But if the minister could commit to providing, if it was an obligation — he said it was not — of school districts to participate, what the costs would be of participation. A number of school districts already had very effective bullying strategies, very effective programs, and some questioned whether or not this would be an additional cost to what they already had, potentially forcing them to cut back on programs they'd already developed. So if that's possible, I'd appreciate it.

I wonder if the minister could…. As a business person, he would know — as a politician, he would know — that there's a common refrain: if you can't measure it, you can't change it. What kinds of measurements are being done to show if this strategy is effective?

We know that there's a lot of talk about it and there's a lot of learning and work in schools, but what are the baselines? Are we doing a survey of all students every year to see if they've reduced the number of bullying incidents, the number of racist incidents or sexist incidents? How do we know if this is working?

[1535]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member was correct. Part of my business career was in the whole area of social marketing and behaviour change. I had a lot of experience in that, and what I realize is that in a lot of areas — unlike the number of people that smoke which was able to be tracked within certain parameters, not totally — for something like this, there are no baselines that we're starting with. We are anecdotally aware, as I'm sure the member is, in our own community about issues that come up and incidents.

What this whole program does is establish some of those baselines through a number of things that are part of the training component. That includes using some of the reports in the training that we're asking the community or the schools, our safe schools coordinators, to do. We're establishing some of those baselines and also the reporting tools that we have. As we get reports, we can start to track over time what happens with incidents that might be happening today that start to diminish. I mean, that is ultimately our goal.

We also want to ensure that in the case, for example, of research that has been done with First Nations communities who feel unsafe in their school environment, we are going to be measuring, through surveys that are done, how that perception and that feeling changes.

We're also encouraging local school districts and community organizations to establish some of those parameters within their own community because, again, there may be cultural issues that need to be reflected in that, the diversity of cultures in various communities.

We're doing everything we can to make sure that this program sets the baseline. That's what it started to do. It builds on the baseline, both with what we can do and our safe schools coordinators can do but — more importantly, I think — what communities do to see a change in attitude and behaviour as a result of that. That is going to take us, I think, into the future, but we're working very hard to encourage that at every single level.

S. Chandra Herbert: Will the baseline be publicly reportable — say, on the ministry website — so that the public can see how their school district stacks up or how the ministry is doing with the program? Secondly, will this also be reportable for private schools?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The satisfaction survey is already on line. We have an on-line reporting tool. We will be showing the results of that. The challenge in something like this…. This is not a mandatory program; it's a volunteer program to some extent.

[1540]

The other part that, of course, we will hopefully be receiving feedback and information on is at the community level, because we want to see a program like this. I think I've said this before. At the community level, organizations, recreation commissions and all of the other agencies that are involved start to gather information to see where the problems are, where some of the cultural issues are, and that community works on it. Anything that we capture, we will be reporting.

I think there is one thing that I would say. It's not about comparing an independent school to a public school or one school against another school, because the dynamic of culture in any of those is unique to that environment. I think we would be almost bullying by saying, "Well, this school's doing better than that school," when, really, what we're encouraging them to do is to take this seriously — and that any form of bullying, no matter what it is, becomes unacceptable in the communities and the schools, and that we work together to find paths to change that attitude.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm guessing, based on that answer, that the minister also does not agree with the Fraser Institute's studies on schools and comparing them back and forth — potentially a form of bullying.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: "No assumptions," he says. So maybe he does support that.

My question is…. I've raised for years in this House the challenges that lesbian, gay, bi and transgender students face. Many school districts do not have specific codes of conduct which specifically speak about policy to support lesbian, gay, bi and trans students.

The previous Minister of Education was quoted as saying that there were going to be changes to fix that, potentially, to make sure every school district had to do that, but then, when questioned again, said no, he did not support such changes.

So it's very unclear to me when we're going to actually ensure that every school district, and also independent schools, will make it so that lesbian, gay, bi and trans students are supported, are reflected in the curriculum and also have the right to start gay-straight alliances in their schools should they need to. If the minister could provide a specific response for lesbian, gay, bi and trans students.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Let me say this. The first baseline for every single community, for every school, is the B.C. human rights code. We support that as a government. We think that the content of that and the wording behind it and the wording within it covers a variety of potential discriminatory practices, and we do not support discrimination at any level.

Our message to local school districts is: that is what you should be using. We do know that every single school district in the province has a code of conduct. We encourage them to continue to review that and to look at what they can do to improve any form of discrimination that is unacceptable.

We have seen some school districts in the province that have taken the initiative at the local level, with the involvement of the community and their students and their teachers. As an example, Prince George has a gay-straight alliance club that's led by an openly gay teacher. The ministry believes that that's where it should reside — within that community and with people who want to stand up passionately and talk about discrimination that they may be feeling, no matter what it is.

That's where we go. That's the position we're taking. The province is not going to pick out any particular category, because the minute we do that, where do we stop?

[1545]

The human rights code is very clear. The local communities and their codes of conduct are very clear. Every school district has one. I just encourage people in communities to stand up and advocate for those things that they feel their community, again, should reflect within their cultural context as well.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister whether he's aware of the situation facing the Nanaimo school district, where they're considering school closures and consolidations that seem to be based on a shortage of resources, and what his plan is in terms of helping the district deal with those challenges.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I was aware of the people that were in the gallery today. I'm glad they came down. I saw the petition that was brought forward.

I think one of the first overriding principles that I believe as minister is that any school closure in any community is a very emotional situation. I faced one in my own community that I, as mayor at the time, became passionately involved with — not because I didn't realize the reality that the district faced in making some decisions.

Quite honestly, in the case of this particular school district, since the last ten years we've had a decline in enrolment of over 3,500 students. Currently the district has capacity for 15,585 students, but the enrolment is 13,698, so there's a difference of 1,887 students. I recognize that any school district and the board of trustees who are duly elected by the community to make decisions and who are accountable to the community for the decisions they make, have to make some hard decisions.

I also recognize that the Nanaimo-Ladysmith district has a ten-year plan of enhanced education through facilities through a learning plan. They have worked hard. I am also aware there were criticisms of a lack of consultation, and yet I know that they spent a significant amount of time with the community, getting feedback from the
[ Page 777 ]
community, and then made the recommendations that they have brought forward.

The community rose up and said they were not happy — or some members of the community — so they've extended that particular consultation period up till December to look at some of the individual decisions that are made.

You know, when I asked staff to give me some sense of what we've done in that community…. We have worked with the district, of course; we've provided another $22.6 million for seismic upgrade in that particular district; we have, since 2001, invested more than $13.1 million in a new school, an elementary school, and additions to one other elementary and two secondary schools. In addition to that, they have received over $5.8 million for building envelope projects in five elementary schools and one secondary school.

But because they are faced with an enrolment decline and there is no short-term sense that that enrolment is going to turn around quickly, the board, as it is, is charged with looking at: how do we look to the short term and to the long term, and what decisions do we have to make? I think they have worked hard to do that.

I do not think it is the place of the minister or the ministry to intervene in a local decision unless we felt there was something that was significantly off the rails. From what I can see here, this board has worked hard.

They're facing tough decisions. I remember in my own community, when we had the challenge, people were calling for resignations and all of those things. I just don't think we can start to intervene in local issues like that, and I think the community should do what the community is doing: express their points of view. The local trustees have to make their decisions, and they'll be accountable for those decisions at the next election cycle, which is not that far away. It happens to be in 2014.

D. Routley: With time running short, I'll beg the minister to be concise with his answers, because the community has a number of questions it would like me to ask, and I'm sure they'd appreciate my opportunity to ask all of them.

[1550]

One of the problems with the consultation process is that the Snuneymuxw First Nation claims to have not been adequately consulted around the education of their children. They contribute over $1 million per year to the school district's operation, and they have a great concern about the lack of consultation they've experienced. Is there anything the minister can offer to the Snuneymuxw First People?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Concise is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's important when I'm asked a question that has significant import and potential for misinterpretation that I'm very clear. So I will be as pointed and as complete as I feel I need to be on the record in order to be understood.

The second point is I am a strong believer, as is the government, that local communities make decisions and are accountable for them. I also encourage a community like this to be open and welcoming to any sector of the community when they debate an issue like this.

I'm not going to speak to the specifics, because I wasn't there. I don't know who was invited. From my understanding, and at least in the information that I have, it was an open, public process. It's been extended. I think community and the First Nations community should take the opportunity to express their points of view, as should any other sector of that community, as to what their concerns are.

My message to the community is: keep putting the pressure on your local board to make the decisions. They are charged with doing that. Your responsibility is to do exactly what they're doing: have their voices heard.

D. Routley: I appreciate the concise nature of that answer.

The empty spaces that the minister refers to. Do any of those numbers include spaces that are not currently considered adequate classroom space? In other words, space in schools that have been closed but have not yet been disposed. Or does he mean actual desks in classrooms?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The numbers that I used is the actual operating capacity of the school district. If a district has closed a school, that number is taken out of that number. There aren't schools that are closed or classrooms that are closed that are calculated in that number, because it is only the ones that are within the operating plan.

D. Routley: Well, it's the understanding of some people in the district…. They were told groups that were leasing closed school facilities and had been leasing those for, in some cases, over ten years, that the district needed to dispose of those sites because they were being considered in the inventory of empty space.

As a result, deals and negotiations were undertaken for those groups to purchase that space. In a couple of cases, that's happened, much to the benefit of those organizations. But the indication was that the ministry was considering those spaces, which could never be reopened as classroom space. One is a theatre; another is a group that serves disabled adults.

But the district had a mandate to get rid of those spaces, because they were considered empty space. Is that a misunderstanding?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Concise. That is a misunderstanding. That has never been communicated to the district and nor would we, in those kinds of situations.

D. Routley: Is the minister aware that one of the schools that has been closed, by the result of a vote on a bylaw a couple of weeks ago, was in fact one of the schools that has received funding for seismic upgrade?

[1555]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don't have the list of all of the approvals and when they were done over the last decade. As the member knows, the seismic upgrade program has been working for quite a while. There may have been approvals for seismic upgrades on certain schools that may have been done, but then the planning envelope changes within a district and a school may be closed. Those are the realities of a shifting environment in school districts.

Again, I don't have the list, and staff doesn't have the list here, but if you would like to do a follow-up with the ministry staff, they can give you the figures of which ones were done and what the effect has been on the schools that are currently under consideration.

D. Routley: I can let the minister know that South Wellington Elementary, which has been closed, was approved for a seismic upgrade this year. It also receives an outlying school grant because of its distance from the board office. I understand that the outlying school grant will continue for a couple of years if the school is closed.

What I would like to know is: will the seismic upgrade funding then be available to the district for use in other schools? In other words, the parents in that school feel as though their school is being closed and the approximately $1.5 million total from those two programs will be taken and used elsewhere in the school district. So they feel unfairly targeted.

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member, I'm sure, is aware, the seismic program is done project by project. It becomes part of the seismic program.

[1600]

If a school is closed, that funding does not shift to somewhere else, because it was for a specific project and it had a particular parameter around it. However, I will say this for the benefit of the member's constituents.

We know that Nanaimo-Ladysmith has a number of seismic issues. What happens in the program is that we then move to the next priority. We absolutely are committed to meeting the needs of the seismic program in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, and we will continue to work with the district in meeting those needs.

D. Routley: Given the fact that the community is showing quite an overwhelming reaction to the ten-year facilities plan…. I've yet to speak to a single constituent who supports it — not one — and I've heard from hundreds who don't. The petition I introduced today, I think, was 1,849 signatures, collected in 24 hours from a community that is a postage stamp in size. So there's a very significant push-back.

Given the fact that the Snuneymuxw First Nation feel outraged over a lack of consultation, would the minister consider appointing a special adviser to step into the district, review its progress and give advice — and also provide extra time for the community to respond to this plan?

The minister has indicated a delay in consultation, but that delay is around schools that are either not targeted for closure or are simply being reconsolidated. The schools targeted for closure will not benefit from that extension.

Basically, I'm asking: would the minister consider appointing a special adviser in these circumstances — which I hope he would consider — and what are the criteria for appointing a special adviser?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The short answer is: no, I won't. But the longer answer to that, and why I won't, is — I go back to what I said earlier — that I believe in the democratic process. I believe in the autonomy of local governments. I believe that they have a responsibility to communicate with their communities, to engage their communities.

What I would do, and what I have said publicly in this regard…. I think the local school board needs to continue to engage all sectors of their community. I don't have the legal authority to intervene in this situation, nor would I even consider it. I think it is absolutely critical that the citizens of the community do what they're doing.

The First Nations community, the other people in the community, the 1,800 signatures — I believe they need to take that to the school board to say, "Here are our concerns," if they haven't already. Maybe they already have, but to ask the Minister of Education to intervene I don't think is appropriate, and I'm not prepared to do it.

V. Huntington: Thank you to the minister and his staff. I'd like to take the first opportunity, if I can, to congratulate the minister on his appointment. It's a big and interesting department. I'd also like to thank his staff, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Dirksen, for meeting with me fairly extensively on the busing issue, which is what I'd like to canvass with you and your staff today.

I was extremely appreciative of the time they took. It was a very extensive discussion, and I was pleased to see that there was some consideration of movement on a couple of the factors — not the one that I think is the problem, but Mr. Stewart did say that there was, perhaps, some room to relook at the rural factor and how it applies to Delta South and perhaps the geographic factors as they apply to Delta South.

[1605]

We know that that won't solve the problem, however, so I'd like to just discuss the busing issue and the decisions made by the department and how they've impacted
[ Page 779 ]
my community.

Let me start by saying that I understand fully probably many of the answers that you would likely give me. That is that the initial review of the student location factor was requested by the provincial school trustees. I understand that. I also understand that they have block funding and they can move the funding around as they choose. That's certainly one of the issues that the ministry is constantly advising me of.

But I also have said to the ministry, and I think the Delta school board has too, that they have looked at every single option they can come up with, and they have decided that for them to pick up the costs to continue the transporting of students by bus would severely impact their classroom funding. They've chosen not to do that.

So at the moment we have what has amounted to be one of the two or three biggest issues I've encountered in my time both in local government and here. It's causing some of the most distress I've seen with parents in the school district.

Delta, Minister, and certainly for your staff — and I'm sure that with all the letters the school district has sent you, you know this — is unique in the Lower Mainland. It's the largest municipality in the Lower Mainland. It has 22,000 acres of agricultural land, 10,000 acres of bog land. It is criss-crossed by Highway 17; Deltaport Way; Highway 91; Highway 99; River Road — probably the busiest industrial road in the Lower Mainland. It's got the new South Fraser perimeter road coming on line, Highway 10.

The students in the outlying areas…. There are three distinct population areas. You know Delta well. The students cannot get to school unless they are bused, particularly the elementary school students. They cannot go across those highways. The smaller ones cannot walk along the ditches. There's a section of North Delta that's severely impacted by the lack of busing too, and that's that area around Watershed Park where they have to walk right alongside a forested area.

Delta has received a 47 percent reduction. That's how the review on the student location factor impacted it. It's the fourth…. Only four other districts in the province received less money.

Delta South…. It's kind of like the issue I'm sure you've heard from the members for Peace River South and Peace River North. They're having the same problem. How do the students in the agricultural areas get into the residential areas safely? The only way they can do it is through busing. There is no transit, not in the agricultural areas.

The costs to the parents, if they were to pick up the cost of a busing system, are outrageously high. The school district and the school board have told me it's $1,700 a student. I know your officials felt that was somewhat high and that they would discuss that issue.

The issue here is how the algorithm has been applied and how the student location factor is impacting the decision on Delta's school busing funding. My request to the minister is (a) I'm very pleased he's committed to meeting with the school board, but (b) will he take another look at how this review of the student location factor has impacted just a few of the municipalities and districts in the province? We just simply have a situation that is so unsafe for the students in Delta that we're not sure how to resolve it.

[1610]

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is correct. I know Delta well. I've had many discussions, in my former role, with the mayor of Delta about transportation issues, which impact not only school students but seniors and other people who need to get places. Transportation is a significant issue throughout the province in communities — not just in the Lower Mainland.

That said, we do recognize there are probably six districts in the province that have some unique issues as it relates to the transportation issue and the way the population is dispersed because of things like agriculture in some areas. In other areas it's other factors.

We have a technical review committee that we have asked to sit down and take a look at those unique issues and to determine whether or not some adjustment in that formula is warranted because of those. Of course, that would be looked at.

I think it's important for the member also to know, so that we don't miscommunicate back to your constituents, that if we make an adjustment, for whatever the reason might be, that money is going to have to come from the overall envelope, so it means we take something from here and we move it there. That is always the challenge of local school districts in making those tough decisions. We just talked about a previous one a few minutes ago.

I will say that I'm well aware of some districts — like even here in Saanich — where they have come up with a formula where parents have to pay an additional fee for busing, because as the member knows, busing is not a requirement under the School Act. It is not a legal requirement. Because of that, that creates those kinds of challenges.

We are going to refer to the technical review committee. It's made up of a number of individuals, including superintendents, who could sit down and take a look at that and say: is there perhaps some adjustment that should be made in some of those areas? That work will be done. We are committed to referring that to them, and then we'll see what comes out of that.

V. Huntington: I can't ask for much more than that. I'm really pleased that the lobbying, I guess, the pressure that has been put on the ministry and yourself, has at least had that opportunity to have the technical committee look at it. It's very important. I think it will make a difference.

We're fully cognizant that a fee structure is likely to have to be put into place. It's how much that burden can be asked of the parents. I look forward to that review. I hope it's sufficient, that it solves some of the problem, and I thank the ministry for its consideration.

[1615]

The Chair: Welcome to the member for Surrey-Newton.

H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair. I would like to take this opportunity on camera to congratulate the member for Surrey-Fleetwood. I want to congratulate him for the portfolio.

A question is, now that the minister is from Surrey…. We have some serious issues with the classrooms in Surrey. I think if the member would know…. Hon. Chair and I had the opportunity to attend a walkout by students in Earl Marriott School — and the Tweedsmuir School also walked out — because of lack of space.

The parents are all concerned. The teachers are concerned. There's no expansion. In those two schools there's no room to place portables, even if they wanted to. It's not the walkout itself, but it's what's behind it — that it took the students to take this action. I mean, it is not common in this part of the world that students in high school have to take that kind of drastic action: walk out of their classrooms and try to make a point to the government that we need more classroom spaces.

Now, the minister will know that the Surrey school board in 2009 actually wrote to the Minister of Education at that time. They mentioned a number of things, saying that since the 2005-06 school year 2,700 new students had been added to the Surrey school district.

Since that same time period, 2005-2006, the Surrey school board had not received government approval for additional-space projects — since the 2005-2006 capital plan. As a result, as they were showing in that letter, they had to add more portables to the existing portables, and they were talking about more students coming on line in the coming years.

At that particular time when the letter was written, in 2009, there was no commitment coming from the government that, yes, there would be some capital available to the Surrey school board. Having said that — that's a little history on the background for the minister to absorb — the issue hasn't gone away yet. I remember — I believe it was 2011-2012 — the government did announce a capital plan. In part of that — I believe it was $300 million for the province — Surrey would get, we were told, about one-third of that.

Perhaps the minister could tell us: what has the Surrey school district been promised since that time? How much actual capital expansion money is available to the Surrey school district? And what's in this particular budget as far as adding more classroom spaces to ease the problem of portables in Surrey school district?

[1620]

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member for Surrey-Fleetwood, and Surrey-Fleetwood being an integral part of the city of Surrey, the member knows that I'm acutely aware of how fast Surrey is growing. The challenge with growth always is trying to stay up with it and project it properly and know where the pressure points are going to be.

The one thing that is very clear, of course, is that when growth happens and we see that it isn't exactly where we thought it was going to be, we need the flexibility to provide classroom space. Portables, while they are not the ideal solution, at least provide the space in the areas where students are. Then transportation issues are not as critical because it is in their local community, so we work with that within the planning environment.

But we have been working and will continue to work closely with the city of Surrey, as one of the fastest-growing areas in the province, if not in the country. Our challenge with them is to project as best we can. We know — I know — the parents are concerned about the future. The commitment I made running in Surrey-Fleetwood was that I would work to try and plan for the future growth — not just what we've already had but what we know is still coming. That is going to be a challenge.

We've already purchased land for future secondary schools in Grandview Heights and Earl Marriott Secondary, as an example. We recently announced a new secondary school in Clayton North, and we also are going to be looking for future elementary schools both in Clayton North and in Grandview Heights.

Construction is already underway, as the member I'm sure is aware, of two new elementary schools — Katzie and Goldstone elementary — and construction has started on additions, permanent additions, to Panorama Ridge and Fraser Heights Secondary.

I think the important thing for the member and for the people of the city of Surrey to know — and I appreciated, when I got into this myself and asked a lot of questions — that since 2001 the province has invested more than $276 million in 49 capital projects. That also includes some very necessary seismic upgrades and also included 12 additional site acquisitions so that we can prepare for where we know today the growth is going to happen. That includes the potential for ten new schools in Surrey school district.

Just to give you a bit of a sample, and I could rattle off a list going back to 2001, we've had Creekside Elementary since 2001, Dogwood, Green Timbers, Ray Shepherd, Serpentine Heights. I can go through the entire list, but as late as two thousand…. I've got a number of pages of projects that have been done since 2001. But as I mentioned, in 2013 Clayton North area secondary — we acquired the site. Clayton area elementary — we also acquired a site.
[ Page 781 ]
So we're getting strategically placed.

I think the more important thing, the message that I send to the people in our community, is that when additional capital dollars become available, Surrey is one of those pressure points that we have to respond to. It is a priority, will continue to be a priority, for the ministry, and we'll continue to work with the school district to make sure we plan as effectively as we can.

H. Bains: I appreciate the answer that the minister is giving, but at the same time, I'm disappointed that minister after minister goes back to the same message — what they have done since 2001. That's not the question. Parents out there know that; teachers know that. We know what went on from 2001 till 2005-2006.

What I was referring to was the period after 2005-2006. Not a single dollar in capital was approved to add additional classroom space in Surrey district. That's the whole issue. That's why we are falling behind. The minister talked about: "Well, we didn't know the expansion was going to be this, so we had to make some temporary measures." Everyone knew. In the 1990s they knew. In the 2000s they knew that Surrey was growing.

[1625]

It's growing to the tune of a thousand new citizens every month, and the forecast is that it will continue to grow. It wasn't news that all of a sudden, more students came than we expected. But the issue here is that from 2005-2006 until this letter was written in 2009, and even going further to 2011, not a single dollar in capital was approved for that period of time.

Yes, there were some schools built. Yes, there was some capital investment that occurred during that time. But that was approved prior to 2005-2006, so we're talking about that period where, for whatever reason, there was no capital available to Surrey school district.

I was hoping that we would go in a different direction, because the minister is from Surrey, than the previous ministers, who would go with their political rhetoric. I think what we need to do is…. I want to work with the minister, and I know that the other members from Surrey want to work with the minister to make sure that we deal with this very serious issue.

We know this problem isn't going to go away. We will get more people coming in. More students will come in. It's an anomaly in the province. Surrey is one of the only districts that have seen growth in school students.

My question. Maybe the minister could give me some numbers — for the people, the members, the ad hoc committee. The Surrey Board of Trade, the Surrey city council are all on that ad hoc committee — the students. They know what is available to them out of that $300-some-million that was announced in 2011. We were told that one-third was for Surrey. Perhaps the minister could confirm those numbers. Of that number, what was the total number available from that announcement? Will that announcement continue on, year by year?

I'm looking at the budget here for the Ministry of Education, 2013-14. The capital for public schools is $469 million, and then it goes down in '14 and '15 to $423 million. Then it goes down further to $415 million. My question is whether what was promised to Surrey in that announcement will continue on. Will there be any increase?

The Surrey school board said — at that time, when that announcement to deal with the needs of Surrey came — that it would go toward about one-half. They're looking for $270 million to have ten schools to deal with the current situation. My question is on how far that announcement goes to deal with that issue and whether the commitment continues on. Is it going up this year, next year, the year after? Is it staying the same, or is it coming down?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I hesitate to continue what the member deems as political rhetoric, but I want to talk about political realities. The reality is that as part of the $353 million that was announced in 2011, there were eight approved projects for Surrey. That totalled over $100 million. Included in that were two new elementary schools, two secondary additions, purchase of land for four future schools to accommodate the projected growth that we have.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

That is part of that future-proofing. I think what's important in that context is that there is a fiscal reality that we face. When I was in the community — as I am in the community now — I've had the mayor, I've had the board of trade, and I've had everybody talk to me as well. We need to ensure that our economy moves ahead so that we have the capital dollars to invest in the growth that we know is coming. We know where it's coming. That's why we've acquired the land to build those capital projects.

[1630]

I can assure the member, as I've assured the people in the community, that as soon as more capital dollars are available than what we've already invested, Surrey is a priority in that. We have many other pressures from other communities throughout the province, but Surrey is the fastest-growing. Clayton and a number of those areas are growing. We also know that here in Langford, per capita, it's the fastest-growing in the country. We've made some investments there.

We are looking at the pressure points, and Surrey is absolutely one of those. We're committed to doing that.

H. Bains: There are so many questions there, but I know there are time constraints here. There are so many members who have issues from their districts, so I'll be short.

My question, then, would be, quickly…. The minister talked about $100 million out of that $300 million announcement that was made. Is that the only capital available to Surrey now? Is there any additional? As I said, it goes to deal with only half the problem that Surrey has — one-third or one-half.

Is there any plan, for this coming year or next year, to add to the $100 million? Or is that it right now — that Surrey has to wait until the new dollars are available?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The amount that I talked about is the amount that has been announced and allocated. We continue to work with the district, and as soon as additional dollars become available, we will be dedicating those to the city of Surrey as one of the fastest-growing areas.

At this point, the $100 million — the announcement that has been made for both expansion and for site acquisition — is it at the moment.

J. Kwan: Congratulations to the new minister.

I'll get right to the point. I'm asking questions about Lord Strathcona Elementary School. This is a school that has been designated for seismic upgrading for more than eight years — almost longer than I've been here. I've written to the Premier and to his predecessor on several occasions regarding this project, just to update the minister in terms of the history around this.

The school has continued to receive delays in the approved renovations and seismic upgrades for Lord Strathcona Elementary School. The Vancouver school board has acknowledged the need to act on this. It has long been identified by the Vancouver school board that Lord Strathcona Elementary School is of the highest priority for seismic upgrading as a capital project.

Back in 2005, as a response to the findings of the province's seismic assessment program, the former Premier, Gordon Campbell, committed to upgrading all seismically unsafe schools and announced a list of high-risk schools that he pledged would be upgraded by 2008. Strathcona Elementary School was identified as a high priority for seismic upgrades and ranked number one on the Vancouver school board's list of priorities.

The government then made a second announcement, in September of 2008, making Strathcona Elementary School one of the three pilot projects, the neighbourhood centres of learning schools in Vancouver. The other two schools, as it happens, belong to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey: General Gordon Elementary School and Queen Mary Elementary School. All three of these schools were included in the 2008 pilot project because, after extensive study by the Vancouver school board, they were prioritized as a priority requirement for upgrading.

In October of 2011 the Vancouver school board approved the project definition reports for all three of the schools in this pilot project and submitted them to the Ministry of Education for approval. Since the submission by the Vancouver school board, General Gordon Elementary School has proceeded to the design and construction phase. Funding was approved in 2012. Construction is expected to begin later this year. Then, similarly for Queen Mary Elementary School, that has proceeded to the next stage as well. The ministry has announced its project agreement with the Vancouver school board on November 29, 2012, at an estimated cost of $16.7 million.

[1635]

The seismic upgrade at Queen Mary, which is of similar vintage to the Strathcona Elementary School, is to begin later this spring. The ministry's press release stated: "The exterior of the 1914 portion will be preserved, while the interior will be renovated to provide a new, functional, 21st century learning environment for students," including LEED-standard upgrades.

So of the three schools, the two schools in Vancouver–Point Grey have been approved and have proceeded and moved on to the next stages. Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, somehow, for some strange reason, continues to lag behind. We have not yet received the final approval.

Of course, just prior to the election, after much work has been done — documentation has been submitted from the Vancouver school board to the Ministry of Education — they were told that they had to go back and do another value analysis. That was never asked for 20 months ago when this was actually going through with all the process.

That said, the community was hugely frustrated, as the minister could well imagine. The Vancouver school board could not understand why this was being done. I then wrote another letter to his predecessor who then told me the value analysis would not take long. It's now after the election — more than eight years of waiting with many announcements and approvals in process.

Just exactly where are we at with Strathcona in terms of the seismic upgrade? I'm really hoping to hear from the minister that the approval has been finalized and that the Vancouver school board and the people in the community will be notified of this so that their children can actually get on with knowing that their school is going to be upgraded and the chaos that's going on there right now will soon be gone.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm sure in the history that the member has in front of her, she is also aware, or may not be aware, that this project was not brought by the school district to the ministry until October of 2011.

Now, I fully recognize, in the work that I've done so far and the briefings that I've had, that the project has been talked about in community and by the Vancouver school board, but until they actually bring the project to the ministry, we cannot put the wheels in place in terms
[ Page 783 ]
of making sure that the approvals move forward and we can get the final approval. I hope that in the coming weeks we will be able to look at that.

I think the other thing that's important in this project…. There are five buildings on the site. It's a very complex project. It is not one that is a simple project to engineer. We've had the engineers society involved in this in terms of what is required, because each one of those buildings has a unique attribute to it as well.

All I can say is that we are on it. When it came to us…. We are moving it ahead as quickly as we can, and I am optimistic that we will be in a position where final approval can be found in the coming weeks, but we're going to have to wait for the detail part of that to be taken.

[1640]

J. Kwan: I know time is tight, and there are many MLAs who wish to ask questions.

It's interesting when the minister says that the information was not passed on to the ministry until 2011, yet the announcement from the former Premier was made in 2008. It was announced and announced and announced again. Documentation was submitted. Then the ministry — actually, about 20 months ago — asked for a value analysis, which both the Vancouver school board and the school committee challenged, why that wasn't asked for 20 months ago. In any event, it's been delayed and delayed.

Can the minister then confirm that the value analysis is now complete and he's saying that the announcement is coming, potentially, in the coming weeks? If the value analysis is not complete, can the minister tell me the date when it would be completed? If it's been completed, then is the only thing we're waiting for at this juncture final approval?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes, it's complete, and we are moving ahead. The announcement, I hope, will be coming in the coming weeks.

D. Eby: The parents at Bayview Elementary are incredibly concerned about the state of their school. The school would be reduced to rubble in the event of an earthquake. Not only that; the youngest constituents in my riding go to school in a dank basement that has pipes overhead literally wrapped with warnings that say: "Beware: asbestos." The top floor of the building has a classroom full of mold. There's no access for children with disabilities in the neighbourhood; they have to go elsewhere to learn.

Parents have been waiting for years for improvements to this school. They've been very long in coming — because our school board has to choose between basic maintenance and actually providing teachers to teach. Despite these dire conditions, their teachers and administrators there are some of the best in the province.

My colleague for Mount Pleasant mentioned that at General Gordon, funds have been approved for capital upgrades, and for that the community is certainly very grateful. But unfortunately, our school board's been hamstrung again by the approach of the ministry.

There aren't sufficient funds to take the approach that was planned, which was to upgrade General Gordon while the students were on the site at an annex building. Now the students are going to be bused to two schools very far away, near the University of British Columbia, for two full academic years, leaving not only the kids and parents in limbo but also the Jericho Kids Club, which is a vital after-school program.

Neither host school is large enough to accommodate everybody, so they've actually been split into two separate groups. This is also of great concern to the parents at Queen Elizabeth Elementary and Queen Elizabeth Annex, who are worried about yards being full of portables for two years and also scarce resources at the schools as well.

Minister, I only have a few schools in my riding, and yet many of them are incredibly concerned about underfunding issues. You've heard from my colleagues. I have modest expectations about this budget, and so my question in relation to this budget is a very minor one, with hopes for next year's budget.

Will you commit the necessary budgetary funding, come to Vancouver–Point Grey and meet with the parent advisory councils for Bayview Elementary, General Gordon Elementary, Queen Elizabeth Elementary and Queen Elizabeth Annex to hear these problems from them firsthand so that in the 2014 budget we can make some progress on these issues in a non-partisan manner?

[1645]

Hon. P. Fassbender: First of all, I am planning on meeting with the Vancouver school board, which is, I think, the appropriate meeting for me to have initially, because I need to hear their priorities and discuss issues that they have throughout the entire district.

My understanding is that Bayview is part of our seismic mitigation program. I don't have the detail in terms of the sequence and where that is. It is a priority. I think the concerns that you've raised have been brought to the attention of the ministry through the Vancouver school board.

We will ensure that it moves ahead, along with literally dozens of projects that I see on the list for this school district in the city of Vancouver. We're going to continue to work with them, prioritizing and making sure they happen.

A. Weaver: I have a few questions for the minister. The first one concerns what is, apparently, a growing trend within many public sectors — a burgeoning administration and overall administrative costs relative to the front-line delivery costs, whether it be in health care, advanced
[ Page 784 ]
education or education. While I recognize that you won't have the answer to this question today, I was hoping to seek the following information.

Over the past decade, up to and including the budget, what is the percentage of managerial and administrative costs compared to front-line operating costs in the K-to-12 system? I'm looking for trend data on an annual basis over the last ten years showing, essentially, the percentage of costs associated with teachers' salaries and services in schools, relative to the ratio of that with managerial costs.

I recognize that it'll take some time, but the trend I'm looking for is an increasing percentage going into management as opposed to education. The reason why I say that is that I've constructed such a trend in advanced education as a former chief negotiator for the faculty association, and the trend's rather disturbing. The money is going into administration and less to the front line.

As a follow-up, then, a question: what provisions, directives or guidelines have been implemented or are being considered to mitigate and reduce top-end administration costs as an overall percentage of the Education budget?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely, it's an issue that the ministry has been looking at.

One of the interesting figures that I'm aware of is that across the province we have 220 district administrators. If you divide that by sixty, it's less than four on average now. That's an average number, but my sense is that we have not had a growing trend.

[1650]

As a matter of fact, when you look at what used to exist when I was a school trustee, we had district principals that travelled around the district who weren't actually front line. I know from personal experience that I am now seeing vice-principals in classrooms teaching much more and even principals in schools that are teaching. So we are looking at that, as part of efficiencies, as something that we need to continue to encourage.

As part of our new education plan, we're also looking at issues like shared services, which are the backroom things, where we can reduce costs that provide more resources going into the classroom. This is absolutely, fundamentally what we need to do — to have more dollars dedicated to individualized learning and education of students right through the continuum, including skills training and so on. It is a priority for us.

We will provide you with some of the statistical data that you've asked for. It'll take the ministry staff a bit of time to collect it, but we will provide that to you subsequently.

A. Weaver: This is a question with respect to school boards. All ministries are undergoing a core review to achieve a balanced budget. In the Ministry of Education…. The question is: will this review include the potential efficiencies in top-end administration costs at the district level? In fact, the question is: are you considering amalgamating some of the existing districts, particularly in some of the urban areas of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think it's a very good question. Number one of what we are doing is working with school trustees.

As I said earlier, and I don't know whether the member was here, I fundamentally believe in the three levels of government. I also believe that one of the keys in that, as we are doing in the core review within the provincial government, is working with local school districts, with the trustees, to look for efficiencies in every area we can. I just mentioned the backroom shared services — those kinds of things.

I don't think the issue of amalgamation is something that we've talked about, in terms of the government mandating amalgamations. But I think, like everything, if there are, as part of our discussion and looking for efficiencies, things that become obvious to the ministry and to local governments and trustees, those things will come to pass because they will be obvious.

The philosophy of looking for efficiencies is absolutely at the heart of where we're going in every single area and every corner of every area so that we find every dollar we can to invest back into the classroom.

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. The reason why I raise it, of course, is that every school district in the province of British Columbia has a payroll. Every district has a human resources. Every district hires its own software, and there must be some efficiencies. So I'm glad that the province is actually looking for some of these efficiencies. Combined with my earlier assertion that there has been growth as a percentage of overall budgets….

There may have been cuts in administrative costs, but there have also been cuts on the front line. My assertion is that the administrative costs as a function of total costs have actually gone up, as it has in advanced ed in the education system in British Columbia.

A question with respect to attracting teachers. There are elements in the school system where there is an insufficient supply of teachers, particularly in some high-school levels of mathematics and physics, and particularly in rural regions.

My question is: is the ministry considering introducing any incentive programs to actually be included in any potential contract bargaining or, with universities, to introduce, perhaps, programs whereby you might pay the fees of students going through university under the condition that they actually work in a particular school in a particular rural area in a particular subject field?

This sort of process does exist through military training of medical practitioners and in the training of medic-
[ Page 785 ]
al practitioners in other provinces as well. So the question there was: are you considering that for teachers in rural regions or in subject areas where there's low demand?

[1655]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you to the member. I'm noting that we're getting to a particular hour and that we need to move on.

This is a large issue, and I want to make it very clear that one of the reasons that we're looking at a new framework for education in terms of our negotiations and our collective agreements….

We don't have a supply problem. We bring in about 600 teachers a year from other provinces, that move here. There are about 400 that come from other markets internationally, through immigration. We graduate 2,000 teachers every year, and we have 850 jobs. So it's not a supply issue. It's a distribution issue, and the distribution issue is largely affected by collective agreements.

The member may or may not be aware that clearly, a teacher who teaches in a northern district for five years doesn't have a leg up when they want to move to another area. They start at zero again.

In terms of that whole collective bargaining process and some of the issues about the future of education, ensuring that we have the right people in the right place is one of the reasons that the government has agreed with the BCTF to start bargaining some of those key cost drivers and some of the issues that affect the very teachers that they represent.

My commitment on behalf of the government is…. That's why we want to be at the table and start looking at a new way of doing business in the future.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer there. My final question comes to, again, trying to work across ministries with respect to school bus fleets across the province. These are not in scope under the carbon-neutral government.

My question is: to what extent is the ministry working with, or considering working with, the Pacific Carbon Trust and the natural gas sector to perhaps transition these away from diesel to either biodiesel or natural gas, for which they would earn carbon credits that are out of scope? That would actually use carbon offset money in the public sector, as opposed to possibly using it outside the public sector.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This was a discussion that we had this very morning about the future. We are looking at things like common specs for vehicle replacement. We spend about $20 million a year on bus purchases.

We recognize that as we build a new liquefied natural gas industry in this province, we should be looking at opportunities to use the very products we want to market internationally, within the borders of our own province.

[1700]

That kind of creative thinking and looking at opportunities to do that — having common specs, looking at LNG as one of those opportunities — are absolutely a priority for us, and we'll continue to work on it.

M. Farnworth: I've got a couple of questions for the Minister of Education around some of the schools in school district 43.

There's been a significant amount of development on Burke Mountain, and it's anticipated to grow even more significantly over the coming years. One of the priorities for the school district has been a high school. That was the initial priority. My understanding is that that had been approved by the province.

At the time the request was made and at the time the province was making the decision, it was expected that most of the people moving into the new development would not be young families but would be families that had kids who were already well into the school system and that a high school was what was needed.

The reality has been quite different. In fact, the types of families buying into this area and moving into this particular area in Burke Mountain have been young families with young kids, and what the school district really needs is an elementary school.

The current school, Leigh, is going to be more than over capacity, significantly over capacity. Their priority has changed. I know that they have made contact with the Ministry of Education in terms of getting that priority reworked. Instead of approving a high school, they would like to see an elementary school. Can the minister tell me the status of that request and whether or not the elementary school has been approved?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Absolutely. That area, we see, is an incredibly fast-growing area. Like everything, local school districts and communities make assumptions of who's moving in, but who actually comes may be quite different.

It is the number one priority of the district. We're well aware of that. We're waiting for the revised capital plan to come in October as part of their annual submission, and we are working very closely with them to make sure we meet the needs that are now identified and that will fit their capital program as they bring it forward to us.

We're prepared to be more than flexible in working with them. They've had some real challenges, as I'm sure you're well aware, to deal with that growth and that difference in terms of the population that's coming in. We're going to do everything we can to be flexible to work with them.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer. I think it is crucial that if that's the priority, even though a high school has been approved, we have the ability to
[ Page 786 ]
shift to what's really needed, which is an elementary school.

Along the same line, one of the things that concerns me…. I'm wondering if the Ministry of Education is playing a part in terms of identifying the problem or working with school districts and local government to ensure that there's proper communication. Again, it's about development taking place in communities and at the same time making sure that school districts are aware of the scale of the development.

I talked a little bit about this in the budget speech, and I know that the minister was there. In an area that we have in Port Coquitlam, in what's called the Dominion Triangle area, the community plan has changed over the last couple of years. It's gone from light industrial to a significant residential component, so now you're adding an additional 850 housing units of various kinds.

[1705]

Again, that's going to result in a significant increase in the number of kids. In that particular area, for example, there's not an obvious school in the area. A lot of land is in the agricultural land reserve. The area known as the Dominion Triangle is being rapidly developed in terms of light industrial, retail and a residential component. The nearest school is Blakeburn, which serves an already significantly built-up area.

In conversation with school trustees, they were not aware of that scope, of that kind of change. I said: "You're going to need to look into the impact on that." One of the things that it brings home, I think, is the need for the ministry and the school districts to have a much better understanding of the changes being made at the local government level in terms of zoning and development.

I'd like to ask the minister: being a former mayor, does he have any thoughts in terms of ensuring that better communication takes place so that the school districts are able to know what's going on and that the ministry itself — if what's required, for example, is a new school site — is also not behind the eight ball, in paying more than we should, or is identifying land early on so that it is in place when it's needed.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Having been a local government official, one of the things that I did…. One of the first meetings I had was with the School Trustees Association. In a speech I made at a luncheon — I know that the opposition critic was at the luncheon — I talked about doing government differently. I think part of that is, having sat at Metro as a new regional growth strategy was developed…. I know that other regional districts throughout the province are doing planning.

As we look at economic growth through development of liquefied natural gas projects and all of those things, it's identifying where the growth is going to be. I talked earlier, on one of the other questions from the opposition critic, about building communities and planning communities. It's not a single approach. What we do is that we do not mandate; we encourage.

I intend to work with the school trustees as a co-governance partner to say: "One of your first responsibilities is to develop a very strong working relationship with your local governments, with your regional districts or your metro regions or whatever, to be aware of where the growth is intended to be." Included in that is transportation growth that will help us to ensure that we can move people around and have healthy communities.

We encourage district staff to definitely work with municipal staff and regional district staff. We're going to continue to do that. I think…. I don't think; I know. I have talked to school trustees and/or mayors or councillors and said: "How is your relationship with each other?" Some talk to each other. Some don't. To me, that's just not acceptable as a basic philosophical stance.

I think local governments and school districts represent their taxpayers, their communities, their priorities. They fit within a regional context. We are going to continue, by every means that we can, to encourage them.

It's as simple as asking: "Have you had a discussion with your local government or your regional district about their plans?" As they come forward with their plans to us on capital projects and expansion, it would be good for us to know that they've had those discussions so that we don't make bad decisions.

I will tell you that I was in a meeting in a school district just last week, where we had the mayors, the school trustees and the Minister of Education and the two MLAs from that community all sitting in the room, talking about the school district's strategic plan, talking about the community's long-term plan. That's the kind of thing that I, as the minister, am going to encourage, every opportunity I have.

[1710]

R. Fleming: I know we're getting towards the end here, and then we will move on to debating a bill. I just wanted to ask a question that I think maybe flows from some of the discussion that other members have brought up too.

When the, fortunately extremely rare, situation occurs where the Minister of Education has to dismiss a democratically elected school board and appoint an administrator and put that board into trusteeship, it is of course, I think all parties agree, the least desirable of any situation. But the School Act is clear. When the fiduciary duty of that elected board is not being met or there's another violation of the School Act, there's very little discretion about what the minister can or can't do.

We have that situation in a district here on Vancouver Island. The minister I think referred earlier, in response to questioning from the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, that an election is coming up. But it's not actually coming up. It's in 15 months from now. It is in November 2014.

The fact of the matter is that this board was dismissed early on, after it had been elected. For the vast majority of the three years of this elected term, the province, through its appointee, will be running that district. This presents problems for local autonomy.

The minister has talked at length through these estimates about how the provision of education is about co-governance in this province. In this district it is not, and it will not be for the majority of those three years.

I would ask the minister to comment on a motion that the B.C. School Trustees Association has passed, which would amend the School Act, not to strip the power from the minister to dismiss school boards but to ensure that these situations don't carry on for longer than a reasonable amount of time — say, six months, for example.

Does the minister think that in those regrettable situations where the ministry has to step in and appoint an administrator, there should be time constraints on what the term of appointment is?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate the question. It is a very delicate issue, because the ministry and the government do not remove school boards easily. Appointing administrators is the last step. The democratic process has to be allowed to run its course.

What I will say is no, I do not anticipate putting a time limit in. I think the legislation has been written and is designed to ensure ultimate flexibility, depending on circumstances. I don't think there will ever be a piece of legislation in an area like this that can be that definitive.

I appreciate…. I've had meetings with the school trustees about that very issue. I posed the question in one discussion that I had: "What is the time frame? Six months?" Well, what if something happens at 6½ months?

What we need and what we do have is ultimate flexibility. I think we also have to have the assurance that due process and the appropriate steps are taken, dependent on the circumstances. And they're all unique when these kinds of things come up.

Fortunately, they don't come up very often. In the case of the member that was here from Nanaimo-Ladysmith, I fully appreciate there are people who are frustrated with the process. Having been through a similar thing, I think the worst thing we can do is step in too early and not find ourselves in a position where we can deal with the issues in a fair and appropriate way.

M. Farnworth: Just a potential couple more questions.

For one, I'm actually more looking for some guidance from the ministry. There have been a number of issues around, for example, children with diabetes who may have a reaction and how staff is able to deal with those situations when they happen. Some districts have one policy, and other districts have a different policy, or no policy.

[1715]

My question to the minister is: is there a ministry taking a lead on this issue? Is it Education, or is it Health? If it's Health, I can address my questions when Health estimates are up. Or is it the Education Ministry? And if they could tell me what they're doing to ensure a provincewide policy.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It is under the purview of Health — whether it's anaphylactic or diabetes, we're guided by the provincial Health Act — and that is appropriately asked of them. They are the lead agency, through the chief medical officers in each of those communities. I think that that would be the appropriate place to ask the question.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer.

The only other question I would have…. Is this an issue, though, where Education is saying to Health: "Look, there's a lack of a comprehensive, provincewide policy within British Columbia"? I think the minister would agree that it's not the best situation — where a district has one policy and another district has another policy on a health issue. There really should be one common policy.

Has the ministry told Health that they would like to see a common policy across the province?

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have had discussions through our ministry with the Health Ministry, and we are definitely asking for some guidance on a consistent policy throughout the province.

R. Fleming: We've talked about the B.C. education plan through this set of estimates. I just want to ask a final question here — and probably for the entire estimates, depending on the minister's answer.

I think the central criticism that he'll be aware of, of the education plan is: where's the funding for it? A lot of ambitious goals and high-minded discussion about individual learning plans to create better success rates in our schools and uncertainty about how that will be achieved and where responsibility falls for that.

Another criticism is that the issue of childhood vulnerability is not adequately discussed in the education plan, yet in British Columbia today 30 percent of students coming into the system by kindergarten are considered inadequately prepared to succeed at the very earliest stages of education. So that's a concern.

I guess the question really, though, that I would like to ask the minister is around one of the performance indicators that was changed in his ministry — the question is whether he would consider changing it back — and that is around aboriginal graduation rates in British Columbia.

I know that the government is pleased that aboriginal graduation rates are moving in the right direction, but they still remain more than 20 points behind other
[ Page 788 ]
British Columbia students, so this is creating problems for those communities and for British Columbia as a province.

At one time we had a performance goal to increase aboriginal graduation rates to 65 percent. That was longstanding in the ministry service plan. It was then reduced to 55 percent between the 2009-10 year and the 2011-12 service plan.

Given that the 55 percent, lower graduation rate for aboriginal students has now been exceeded — it's 57 percent — I would ask the minister: is it time to work on a plan to realize aspects of the education plan with aboriginal communities in British Columbia and work with his federal partners, as we've heard their role in this in terms of on-reserve schooling and funding, to create a more ambitious performance indicator so that in actual fact the ministry is obligated and responsible to strive to make a bigger difference in the lives of aboriginal communities and their success in our schools?

[1720]

Hon. P. Fassbender: We have record levels of investment in education — $5.3 billion. It's very clear that we are committed to funding education across the spectrum. Aboriginal communities and aboriginal students are absolutely at the heart of that.

Our goal, working with FNESC and the First Nations communities throughout the province, is 100 percent completion. Now, in saying that, we also recognize there are new opportunities.

That's why our economic plan for growth of jobs and the economy is speaking directly to the very thing that the member is talking about, and that is providing opportunities to aboriginal communities and their students to get skills training, to get jobs so that they can start to feel the success that is possible for them under a strong economy and a secure future.

From my perspective and the ministry's perspective, we are going to shoot for 100 percent graduation for aboriginal students into whatever career choices they have. It may not be graduation to go to university. It may be into a skills program, but ultimately, it's that they get the jobs they need, that they have the lives that they want, that we build communities throughout the province.

I think the $5.3 billion that we're investing is a significant step. It's at record levels, We're going to continue to use every dollar that we have wisely. That's why we're working with those communities as well.

R. Fleming: Chair, I don't have any further questions. I would just want to thank the minister for answering questions that I posed, and other members. I know we had a bit of a disjointed schedule over many different days, gaps in between, different committee rooms and all of that.

I'd also like to thank the deputy minister, the superintendent of achievement and all of the ministry staff that have been supporting you in answering the questions that we had.

I have no further questions.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to make a few comments?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Yes. Just very quickly, I want to thank the members for their questions. I think that as we move forward, we have a common goal, and that is to ensure a great education system for every child from every community in this province.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,329,349 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you very much, everybody. We will now recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:22 p.m. to 5:26 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2013

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

The committee met at 5:26 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Farnworth: Basically, I'd like to deal with the carbon tax section just altogether. Could the minister outline what changes are taking place and how they will differ from the current regime that's in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is at its heart an amendment that provides an exemption on the payment of carbon tax to farmers who purchase certain defined types of fuel.

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

M. Farnworth: Section 9 deals with the Forest Act. Again, in a similar vein, could the minister outline the changes that are being made here? Are they different from existing changes and, if so, in what way?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's a change included here as it relates to specifically allowing interest on a penalty assessment for unreported stumpage to run from the date
[ Page 789 ]
that stumpage would have been due rather than the date of the penalty assessment — presumably, a slightly longer period of time for which interest would accrue as part of the penalty process.

M. Farnworth: Will this result in any additional revenue to the Crown? Is it anticipated that there will be additional revenue to the Crown, compared to how the situations have been in previous years?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is no. This is regarded as a revenue protection measure to ensure that the tools exist to levy a penalty and, conversely, to get the audit information required to assess the penalty in the first place.

[1730]

Sections 9 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

M. Farnworth: The homeowner grant is probably one of the most popular grants or a grant that impacts a significant number of homeowners right across British Columbia. This particular change is included in just about every Bill 2 in every budget that is tabled. I just want to confirm with the minister that there are no changes in this particular section, other than the traditional changes that occur each fiscal year whereby the threshold is adjusted in regard to changes in the market.

Is that correct? And there are no changes that impact on seniors that would see a reduction in the grant that they are receiving?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member's question, the answer is no — no substantive changes to thresholds or how it impacts between homeowners or the seniors calculation.

It does, however, address a particular problem that has arisen, and that is a circumstance in which a property owner owns more than one property and incorrectly or inadvertently claims the homeowner grant against the wrong property — that is, the non-primary residence.

To this point, in correcting that, the legal mechanism has not existed to allow that property owner to then correctly claim the homeowner grant against their primary residence. This amendment will provide the legal authority, in correcting the mistake, to allow that property owner to claim the homeowner grant against the correct property, their primary residence.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister give an indication as to how many properties they expect to be impacted by this change, how often this happens?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that this happens about less than a dozen times a year, but when it does, having the means by which a property owner who has made a mistake can correct that and still receive the benefit of the homeowner grant made sense to me. That's why it's included here.

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

M. Farnworth: On section 22. This impacts in terms of the charitable donations and the maximum amount that you can deduct. Can the minister give the rationale for keeping the charitable donation rate as it is and not adjusting it, as would otherwise have taken place with the change in the tax rate?

[1735]

Hon. M. de Jong: The really short answer is revenue. I mean, the rationale could go further and say: "Well, this is statutorily a two-year temporary increase." But the intention in February was not to have the rate increase, and this makes clear that it doesn't. But the short answer is revenue.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister give me a figure in terms of how much revenue we're talking about?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that in adjusting the rate to 16.8 percent for the two years, the amount, I believe, per annum is $23 million.

Sections 22 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

M. Farnworth: In section 27, in terms of land tax deferment, "'dependent child' means a person who is a dependent child as described in section 1.1" is the change that's being made. Can the minister tell, one, a rationale, and more importantly, two, how many will be impacted by this change?

Maybe I should start by correcting the question. Does the minister have, not how many people…? More to the point: how many people are now likely to take advantage of this? Is there an estimate? I think that's a better phrasing of the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. As I think the member and committee members know, the deferment program allows qualifying homeowners who financially support a child under the age of 18 presently to defer property taxes. The changes here allow for the expansion and the inclusion of a broader range of persons who qualify as a "dependent child."

In the circumstances, if this were to pass, homeowners
[ Page 790 ]
who financially support a child over the age of 18 may also defer taxes, provided that that child is enrolled in an educational institution or is disabled, and that the child is either a child who allowed the homeowner to defer under the existing program or is a child or stepchild of the owner. So it's an expansion of who qualifies to trigger the deferment entitlement.

I don't have a number or even an estimate. The advice I've received is that there won't be vast numbers of families. Well, I can say this: there probably are a significant number of families who would qualify under an expansion.

Our experience with the property tax deferment program to date suggests that it probably won't be…. It'll be a small percentage of those who now qualify who take advantage. Yet one is anxious for them to know that this is out there and they can. We're not anticipating significant numbers to immediately take advantage of this, although it will be there for them if they so choose.

[1740]

M. Farnworth: Does the ministry, then, have a…? Can they give figures on how many people do take advantage of the program and what the deferred tax total is, to date?

Hon. M. de Jong: On the program that the hon. member is talking about, I am advised that just over 1,200 — 1,209 — families with children have tax deferment accounts. That amount at the moment is estimated at $7.287 million.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister give any figure as to how many people have, I guess, defaulted on eventual payments? Of course, it is a deferment. You have to repay it. Has the ministry had any issues in terms of people not being able to pay back after they've deferred their taxes? Has that been a challenge? Is there a calculation around that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member asked…. With respect, we've been talking about one part of the program. Of course, there's the seniors deferment as well.

Staff are not aware of an incident of default. That doesn't guarantee that there hasn't been one. We'll check and, if that is not the case, advise the member.

The program, as I think the hon. member knows, is set up in a way that makes default difficult insofar as there are minimum equity requirements in place. As a charge against the property, the deferred taxes become payable at the time of a proposed transfer. So from the Crown's point of view there's a built-in safety provision that would make a default in the conventional sense difficult.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answers. I understand what he's saying. Yes, the Crown is, in essence, protected. Mind you, at the same time there is a flip side that deferments…. If there is an issue or a problem, then the individual homeowner may have a potential problem. That's the question that I was wondering about, so if there is any information, I would appreciate that from the ministry. That would be great.

Also, at the same time, with seniors, if that becomes a problem where you are seeing, after the house is sold, a significant portion coming back to the province through that method. That would be great.

Hon. M. de Jong: We'll endeavour to obtain both.

Sections 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

M. Farnworth: Very briefly, the minister has explained a couple of times in second reading debate the purpose of this section. I just want to ask the minister if….

We're both familiar with the case where this particular section comes from. Are there other cases that have come to the ministry's attention where this section will apply, or any idea of the number of properties, potentially, that this section will apply to?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I'm advised that there were on average about eight to ten cases of a similar variety, where the deceased wasn't in a position to actively farm the land and therefore the successor was disqualified from the exemption.

[1745]

M. Farnworth: One final question on this. I'm glad for the eight to ten. I mean, it's not many, but for the people involved, it's a big deal. How would this impact if, for example, let's say someone is hospitalized for three or four months and is not able to farm? It's not their fault that they are not able to farm. The reality is illness has got them in hospital or into a care home. How would that impact?

Hon. M. de Jong: A good question. The way this is intended to operate is that whereas now, until this change takes effect, there is the obligation for the deceased to have farmed to the time they expire, the provision still requires that the property have been farmed, but it can be farmed by a family member of the deceased or a family farm corporation.

The requirement that the titleholder per se has been directly farming, in circumstances where they're incapacitated…. That exclusive requirement will no longer exist.

Sections 31 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

M. Farnworth: I am mindful of the time.

Tobacco tax is increasing. There's nobody, I think, on our side who's opposed to it. It's a measure that we have been in favour of. But the question I want to ask the minister is: is there any indication that as taxes rise, the likelihood of smuggling also increases? Has the ministry taken that into account in terms of its calculation? Have they done any analysis of where the problem point or the challenge point in terms of increased smuggling would come into effect?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes and yes. I recall the member was a former Health Minister, as am I. There does seem to be a tipping point beyond which smuggling activity, illegal transport of tobacco products, seems to occur. I can assure the committee that the amounts have been set.

Mindful of that fact, there are two reasons I'm hesitant to set on the record what the tipping point is. One, I don't know off the top of my head, and two, I'm not entirely certain that I would want to disclose that to those who might otherwise be engaged in smuggling activity. But off the top of my head, I don't know what it is, in any event.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. I guess to me the key point is that the ministry is aware of that and that they are ensuring in their decision-making process that that is taken into account.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment and report the resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Education and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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