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 25, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 4, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: We now call Committee of Supply: in Section B, in this chamber, the estimates for the Ministry of Health; in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, Section A, the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation; and in Section C, the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 10:05 a.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,403,475,000 (continued).

Hon. T. Lake: I'm pleased to be here today to resume the estimate debates for the Ministry of Health and again want to thank the staff at the Ministry of Health, particularly those who are here with me today. I have my deputy minister, Steve Brown, assistant deputy ministers Manjit Sidhu and Barbara Korabeck. We also have from the ministry helping us out today Ann Marr and Nick Grant. There will be others that come through and others that are in the background eagerly anticipating finding the answers to the questions from the members opposite.

If I may take the opportunity to thank the members opposite for the past couple of days of discussion and questions and the very collegial way in which we've been able to conduct the estimates — thank you.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for those comments. And since I don't know if I'll have a chance at the end of estimates today to say so, let me also thank the minister and his staff for working so hard to answer our questions. I see that there are even more binders that have been brought in today than previously. I don't know what that means. I don't know if you have any idea what other questions we have in store, but we certainly appreciate the diligence.

I have just one question, and then I'm going to turn to our critic for mental health and addictions, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers. I want to come back on one question related to capital commitments.

We've asked several questions on Tuesday and then several questions again Wednesday of the minister about capital commitments, coming back yesterday to the need for openness and transparency and why certain things appear in the service plan and others do not. After repeated questions about that, and in particular about Burnaby Hospital, we were told yesterday that for Burnaby Hospital, the funding — or maybe it was the day before: "Yes, it is in the budget."

As the minister knows, I came back yesterday and said: "We scoured the budget, couldn't find it. Where is it?" The minister said that it's on page 175 under capital funding, Vote 48, a section that has Minister of Advanced Education and Minister of Education, Minister of Health and Minister of Natural Gas Development, with a total amount of $404.474 million.

My question to the minister is twofold. I'd like to ask a specific question about the reduction from the year before, when it was $437 million. But my fundamental question is: will the minister please provide a breakdown of what is included in that, in the interest of openness and transparency?

[1010]

Hon. T. Lake: Vote 48, capital funding — this is the funding that is provided to various health authorities for health facilities, for capital. That could be major equipment. It could be renovations to the existing infrastructure. We see there has been a reduction in $23.364 million from '12-13 to '13-14. I'm told that is because it really depends on what the stage is and what the needs are of all the different health authorities and the different structures.

Currently there are over 300 projects that fall into that category of sort of routine investment in upkeep and upgrading. It will vary from year to year, and it really just depends on where those different projects are in their construction, their payment. One year it may be higher, and one year it may be lower, depending on the basket of 300 different capital projects that are being undertaken.

Again, we do list the major capital projects, those over $50 million, in the budget document separately. This is more of an aggregate of the smaller capital projects that are undertaken on a somewhat routine basis.

J. Darcy: I appreciate the answer, but perhaps I could strongly encourage…. I mean, $49.99 million is an awful lot of money. I would strongly encourage the minister to look at whether projects over some amount that is significantly less than $49.9 million should be considered for disclosure.

I don't want to use language that has been used in other forums about quick wins or about things being used for
[ Page 1096 ]
political purposes, although we did have some back-and-forth about whether some commitments during the election which were for less than $50 million were made for political purposes.

It seems to me, in the interests of transparency and of British Columbians accepting that, yes, there's room for flexibility and, yes, there are things that arise that are unforeseen that need to be paid for, that there appear to be some significant projects funded for that, that should both be accounted for to the public and should appear in the service plan.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Well, it was encouraging, but I will ask one more time. Will the minister provide the list?

[1015]

Hon. T. Lake: I think the member's point is: giving the greatest amount of transparency to what is going on in terms of capital reinvestment in the facilities throughout the health authority. While I agree with the concept, I think there are some practical barriers to that. There's a myriad of different projects, and some of them may be in the planning stage. Some of them will not move forward for one reason or another, yet they would still appear under that list. It's very fluid.

A health authority may have, let's say, a redesign or a renovation of their diagnostic imaging suite. That may be a $2 million project and, for one reason or another, something else comes up that was unexpected that needs to become more of a priority, and so that fund may go over to that — a sterilization issue or something like that.

The health authorities discuss all of these projects with their regional hospital boards throughout most of the province, but there are procurement issues. There is the concern, I believe, on the part of health authorities that if the list were published — it is changing all the time — there would be confusion created if the public were to see something on the list in one quarter and then not in another quarter, because of that changing dynamic of priorities as challenges occur in capital.

I think we've sort of struck the balance in ensuring that the public is aware of the major projects ongoing. I personally don't have any ideological objection to having all of that information out there, but I think in some cases it causes confusion because it's so fluid and it will change from quarter to quarter. I think it may not be the best information to have out there because of the fluidity that occurs.

J. Darcy: I think a bigger challenge is to have over $0.4 billion with no breakdown in the public domain whatsoever. I would suggest that you can have categories of things that have more fluidity to them, smaller projects versus bigger projects, but we're talking about $0.414 billion, Minister.

I think the public would have no difficulty…. If the public were aware that there is no accountability or transparency for a sum that big, I think the problem we would face is far more than confusion. I encourage the minister once again to make that list public.

S. Hammell: I'd just like to follow up for a minute on this line of questioning. After all, it is the public's money, and the public does see the consequence of the decision at some point because the money goes into something and makes reality, a decision. It seems to me that you're selling the public a little bit short. It is their money. They should be able to see where those moneys are potentially being spent and, in fact, comment if necessary. So I would ask the minister if he would make that list public.

[1020]

Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned, most of these projects are approved by the regional hospital districts. Having sat on the hospital district in the Thompson-Nicola region, I can tell you that these smaller capital projects are brought forward in the public domain. So there is an ability throughout the province, through public meetings and meetings of boards that make the decisions on the relatively small capital projects — as I mentioned, over 300 of these. And a lot of that does goes through a public discussion.

What I'm saying is we don't keep a centralized list of every project on that list of 300 different projects because they tend to be very fluid. They'll move around. They'll change as the priorities occur. Sometimes some of those priorities are unexpected — when you have a piece of equipment that breaks down, or let's say an HVAC system that is all of a sudden not performing properly. I think there is a lot of transparency there at the regional level and — on the major items, certainly — a lot of transparency at the provincial level.

S. Hammell: I'd like to shift the questions just quickly back to Surrey for just a minute, and then we'll move on to mental health.

We have a new facility that's been open for a number of years called the Jim Pattison Centre. Can the minister tell me if that facility is now fully operational? It did get a slow start, and people were expecting it to be operational fairly soon.

I would also ask, on that same line of questioning: when the new Surrey emergency ward, which is to open this fall, and the critical care tower — when will people see those to be up and fully operational?

Hon. T. Lake: The member attended the opening of the Jim Pattison Centre, and it is fully functional at the moment.

The emergency department. I know the member was
[ Page 1097 ]
there for the preview, I believe about a week ago, and it is scheduled to be fully operational towards the end of September. The patient care tower is expected to be fully constructed in the spring of 2014.

S. Hammell: I would ask the question…. I don't want to be confusing or unclear. I didn't ask when it would be completed. The question is really around operations. When will it be operational? When will it have the money it needs to operate, not the money it needs to construct?

Hon. T. Lake: We anticipate that it will be fully functional in the spring of 2014. Having said that, we do provide funds up front before then, for preparing for that opening — one-time funds for training, movement of equipment and things like that. Having said that, as anyone who has ever done a renovation or construction knows, sometimes things don't go quite according to plan. So I can't give the member an exact date that it will be fully functional. I wouldn't want to say that by May 15, 2014, everything will be 100 percent operational, but it is our sincere hope that in the spring of 2014 the tower will be fully constructed and operational.

[1025]

S. Hammell: Thank you, Minister. I'm not sure you know, but I would just mention that the hospital is in my constituency. So I do attend openings, and I think what has been done there is quite remarkable. I have no problem in saying that. It was a long time coming. I have no trouble saying that either. But the hospital, especially — and we'll move to this — the separation in terms of the emergency ward from the mental health area, I think, will make things a lot easier for everyone involved. I applaud the building, and I'm very pleased to see it opening.

I do want to switch over to mental health now, and I do want to open this discussion with just a bit of background or comments from an article that I can quote, with the courtesy of Kevin Diakiw from the Surrey Leader. He puts mental health in a little bit of a context. I'm going to read much of his comment, because I think it does relate so much to what we're doing now. He said:

"In 1841 a 39-year-old teacher walked into a Massachusetts jail and volunteered to teach English. Her subsequent discovery in that institution changed her life — and eventually changed the lives of…others.

"When Dorothea Dix asked authorities why the mentally ill were housed alongside hardened criminals in unheated, unfinished and foul-smelling cells, she was told 'the insane don't feel the cold.'"

This is 1841.

"The war on the poor treatment of people with mental illness was on for the daughter of this Methodist-Baptist preacher. Dix took the matter through the courts, and after several battles, won her case — forcing the institution to provide…better living conditions for the mentally ill. She took on several other jails, waging and winning the same battle.

"Her work created a new awareness around mental illness and eventually spawned the creation of mental asylums — facilities with pastoral settings where people could get treatment."

They spread throughout the United States. They went into eastern Canada and, of course, we know our institution, which was started in 1913, Essondale, which morphed into Riverview. We had that institution for almost a century.

It was felt — at that time — that well-run facilities could dramatically improve the rate, the cures, around mental illness. There was lots of controversy, which we all know. There were lobotomies. There were other therapies, electromagnetic therapies. In the 1970s, with the onset of psychotics, in terms of drugs, it was felt that the mentally ill would be better served in the community.

That's a little bit of background to where we get to today, where a huge number of the people in the penal institutions, the jails, and on the streets, are the mentally ill.

When we had Essondale, or Riverview, we had 4,630 beds that were supported by the government in terms of housing the mentally ill. Those people are no longer there, and so the question, of course, becomes: where are they? And I would ask the minister if he can tell me how many of the mentally ill are in group homes, assisted-living arrangements or out on the streets?

[1030]

Hon. T. Lake: To the member: thank you for that overview. I think it does provide some perspective on how society has changed in the way we deal with those in society with mental health and substance use challenges.

This government has been here in power since 2001. At that time, I'm told, there were about 800 patients that were still housed at a facility such as Riverview, and since that time they have been moved into the community with group home situations. These are homelike situations. I have, in fact, had the opportunity to visit some, as my sister actually worked for one of these care homes.

In fact, you don't know where they are, often. They're part of the community and just integrated into the community. These British Columbians now have the opportunity to have a fulfilled life and to lead a much more dignified life than the one that the member so well described.

I can say that throughout the province there are 828 beds that are allocated to these community-based settings. There are 55 societies that manage those, and $137 million of capital was put into these facilities. Northern Health has 65; Interior Health, 150; Vancouver Island Health Authority, 131; Fraser Health, 267, Vancouver Coastal, 215.

That, of course, is in addition to some of the other facilities that have been constructed and will be constructed, including the Hillside psychiatric facility in Kamloops, the HOpe facility that is being constructed in North Vancouver. A lot of capital has gone into those particular facilities, as well as the group home facilities that I mentioned earlier.

So we continue to invest. It is difficult. There are some
[ Page 1098 ]
people who are on the street with mental health challenges and dual diagnoses — with an addiction challenge as well. Efforts are made to reach out to those people.

[1035]

We had the Kamloops integration project, for instance, when I served as mayor of the city, where the AIDS Society of Kamloops, a great social innovation organization in our city, would go and try to find those vulnerable British Columbians that were on the street and try to find the appropriate social connections they needed in terms of social services from the province and also facilities where they could be homed.

So there's been a lot that's gone on, but since…. I think the member is making the point that when that old model — of institutionalizing and warehousing people with mental challenges — was broken down finally, there were people that were housed in the community. Subsequently, some people have ended up on the street and continue to end up on the street.

Those are very difficult cases, because you can't take someone off the street and force them into a facility against their will. You have to try to work with them, try to connect them with the services they need, and try to persuade them that that will help them get better. It's a difficult and daunting task, having spoken with many of the people who work in that community, but it's something we continue to put great efforts into.

S. Hammell: Thank you, Minister. I'm not asking these questions to be combative. I'm just trying to figure out where we're at here.

I'll ask you two other questions, because you have mentioned the homeless, and I would also like to take that question into the penal system. What percentage of the people on the streets are homeless? Well, let's stick to: what percentage of homeless are mentally ill or dual diagnosed? And what percentage of the mentally ill occupy the jail system?

Hon. T. Lake: Absolutely, I think this is a great discussion to have. I don't take it as combative. I take it as outlining for members of the House and for the general public what a challenge this area is.

The member points to something that is definitely true, that individuals with mental health and substance use are overrepresented. They're overrepresented in areas of emergency care, hospital admissions, unemployment, within correctional facilities, and they need an integrated and collaborative response.

In fact, over 50 percent of adults in contact with the criminal justice system have been diagnosed with a mental illness and/or a substance use disorder. So in our ten-year plan to address mental health and substance use issues in B.C., called Healthy Minds, Healthy People, it includes an action to develop guidelines, service protocols and tools to ensure that adults with a mental illness and/or problematic use problem who are in contact with the criminal justice system have access to appropriate transition and support services.

We have a cross-ministry deputies team that is bringing this up in terms of how we all work together to try to implement strategies that do cross different ministries to try to reach out and help this very complex part of our population.

As the member is very aware, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a big part of this, and there are many ongoing efforts, in terms of prevention and in terms of identification and treatment, to try to reduce the number of the victims of FASD.

[1040]

S. Hammell: If we think about those numbers, there are 828 beds, and there were at one time 4,638 people in our institutions in British Columbia. And that was at least quite a number of years ago. That suggests that there are a lot of people somewhere else who have mental illness.

You have identified that 50 percent of them meet and are treated through the justice system. And a number of others are homeless. So there must be a huge cost to the justice system for dealing with the mentally ill. And in some ways, what we have done has gone back to the future. We had people in jails in 1841. We created an asylum system. We have eliminated the asylum system and now have people again in jails — and at a cost.

I'll ask a more general question. What is the estimated cost to the public system or to the system in general from mental illness?

Hon. T. Lake: I just want to clarify some of the responses earlier. When we became government in 2001, there were 830 residents of Riverview at that time. They were moved into the community beds that I mentioned earlier.

However, those aren't the only community beds we have. We have a total of 12,425 beds that are for mental health and substance-use management. Those are throughout the province. That has been quite an increase. In fact, the number of adult community mental beds in B.C. has increased 95 percent since 2001, going from 4,940 to 9,654. The number of community substance-use beds has increased by 196 percent, with 1,715 new beds since 2003.

We've made great strides, but as the member rightly points out, we still have people with mental health and substance-use challenges that come into contact with the criminal justice system. I don't have a figure as to how much it costs society, but I can only presume that it is a lot of money.

We are trying through the measures that I have mentioned, with the vast expansion of beds over the last 12 years and with outreach programs. Working with social agencies and health authorities, we have tried our very
[ Page 1099 ]
best to reduce the number of people with mental health or substance-use issues from coming into contact with the justice system.

It remains a problem. I think this is one of those that you'll never solve completely. All you can try to do is to make incremental change and reach towards that goal of keeping people out of the justice system and in the proper care, where they can have their mental health and substance-use issues dealt with.

[1045]

S. Hammell: Minister, there has been a study that has suggested that just the fact that people have mental illness costs society $50 billion a year. In British Columbia that would be $6.6 billion, as this study has indicated. So $20 billion of that is a direct cost to the business community or to the employers of the province.

Have you been lobbied by the business community to do more around this issue? The Mental Health Commission of Canada, along with two other organizations, produced the national standard of care for psychological health and safety. Has that been brought forward to WorkSafe B.C. so that is integrated, also, into their work?

Hon. T. Lake: Have I been lobbied by business groups? I think it's safe to say that anyone that's been in government, whether at the local level or at the provincial level, hears from business and particularly chambers of commerce about the issue of mental health and substance use and how it impacts workplaces and impacts their businesses. Certainly, as a mayor, we dealt with this a lot, which is why I was very familiar with some of the programs that were being used to try to assist those that had those challenges.

I've just been informed that one of our assistant deputy ministers, in fact, sits on the Mental Health Commission of Canada board that the member refers to. In fact, there was a report that came out about a month ago. Certainly, we will take great interest in that, but that report aligns very closely with our Healthy Minds, Healthy People ten-year plan to combat mental health and substance-use challenges. In fact, the plan includes a healthy workplace strategy.

We very much agree with the member and with the national commission that workplace strategies to identify and assist those with the challenges that we've been discussing will be implemented as part of our strategy.

[1050]

S. Hammell: Obviously, mental illness is a huge challenge, and it claims more of a person's life than probably many other diseases. My question to the minister would be: what do we spend per capita on the mental health portion of your portfolio?

Hon. T. Lake: The province, just in the Health budget alone, spends $1.4 billion per year on mental health and substance use — addictions, essentially. So $1.4 billion — and we have 4.5 million people. Now, obviously, not all of them would be recipients of that funding. I would point out that that's a 63 percent increase since 2001, and it's only, of course, part of the money that government attributes to the problem.

The Minister Responsible for Housing has a large portion of his budget that goes into the housing component, and there would be the Minister of Social Development and the Minister of Children and Families. All would have some funding that would be allocated towards mental health and addiction issues.

S. Hammell: It's good to know that you have a deputy minister on the Mental Health Commission of Canada. That's, I'm sure, a great plus for us.

The chair of the Mental Health Commission of Canada said that Canada spends considerably less on mental health than several other comparable countries. For every public health dollar, 7 percent goes to mental health. This is far below the 10 percent and 11 percent of public spending in countries such as New Zealand and Britain, just as an example. The Mental Health Commission has called for Canada to move that number, in general, up to 9 percent from 7 percent over the next ten years. Has our province agreed to do that?

[1055]

Hon. T. Lake: The Mental Health Commission of Canada has recognized British Columbia as being a leader in terms of the percentage of dollars spent on mental health and substance use issues compared to the rest of Canada. I'm told that when you aggregate all of the money that we do spend, whether it's in operations, pharmacological services, MSP services or the capital projects, we are at about 8.6 percent, so getting very close to the number that the member mentions as a goal.

We are doing better and have been recognized as doing better than most other jurisdictions in Canada. With our ten-year mental health plan we continue to make those investments. We have a commitment to put in 500 more beds to help with substance-abuse and mental health problems.

S. Hammell: Minister, if you can come up with a number like 8.6 percent, I'm sure you know precisely how you got to that number. Could you make available to me the amount of money that has been spent across ministries on this issue?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm told that it is on the website of the national Mental Health Commission board.
[ Page 1100 ]

S. Hammell: The chair of the national commission, again, said, "In a world in which prosperity depends increasingly on brain power and on a productive and dynamic workforce, Canada can't afford not to invest in the future mental health" of its population.

It does lead back, for me, to the issues around justice, the criminal justice system. All of us either know or have heard of some absolutely tragic situations where the mentally ill were incarcerated rather than dealt with in community settings or appropriate settings. All of us, I am sure, remember Ashley Smith, whose only crime was to be mentally ill and who ended up dying in a corrections facility.

[1100]

Closer to home we have Colette Salemink. Her house was burned by her son, who was on a day pass from Riverview.

So I'd ask first…. I have a couple of questions, but one is to the minister. There are people with mental illness who are a threat to themselves and to society. How are they currently housed, and where are they?

Hon. T. Lake: The member began her comments by describing the historical aspects of dealing with mental illness in society, where we've moved from a situation in which people with mental health challenges were institutionalized, essentially imprisoned, alongside dangerous offenders, in many cases. She talked about the evolution into the community care model.

Now we come to that very difficult part of the population that experiences complex and severe mental health and/or substance-use problems. They require a more intensive approach, so there are different approaches.

We have assertive community treatment and intensive case management services. These provide community-based and intensive services to people with those complex needs, including those who are homeless. Currently we have ten of these assertive community treatment teams across the province, and three more are in development. Seven intensive case management teams are in development.

We also have psychiatric emergency services and community-based crisis response services, which include 24-7 crisis lines. We have mobile units, crisis stabilization beds, psychiatric liaison services and integrated teams in emergency departments.

Acute in-patient and tertiary mental health services include designated beds, which provide psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, treatment, stabilization and short-term rehabilitation. In 2012 there were just under 1,500 acute and tertiary beds, and then we have 190 forensic psychiatric beds.

I mentioned the Hillside Psychiatric Centre in Kamloops. This is where people with very complex needs would reside — those who could prove harmful to themselves or others. In fact, we in the House have discussed such a case. Then there are some at the Riverview facility, as well, that would fit into that — at high risk of causing harm to themselves or others.

That's a very difficult segment of the population to deal with. We continue to try to use community-based services as much as possible, knowing that we need to be very diligent and have the resources necessary to ensure that the general public is kept safe and that the person involved is kept safe as well.

[1105]

S. Hammell: To the minister, in just trying to distill that answer down…. I appreciate you outlining the number of different outreach services you have that are also attached to hospitals and to other places of care. But my question is very specific. For those people who are of a danger to themselves and to others, such as what happened in Coquitlam — and I understand that this is talking about reinstitutionalizing, to some extent — are there a number of places throughout the province where people who cannot safely live outside in society can go for a long period of time?

Hon. T. Lake: The Riverview redevelopment is designed for, I think, the type of client that the member is discussing or referring. These are highly complex mental health disorders where, in many cases, under the Mental Health Act they have been involuntarily placed into care. There are 838 of those tertiary-level positions available at the Riverview development.

S. Hammell: The coroner's inquest into this death made three recommendations. I can read all three of them out for you, or I can just give you a straight-up question of: have these three recommendations been implemented? Did you want me to read them, or are you aware of them?

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member, please.

Hon. T. Lake: Which coroner's report?

S. Hammell: Sorry, it was the coroner's report into the death of Colette Salemink.

Hon. T. Lake: The member mentioned three recommendations. There are a number here — larger than three — so perhaps we will need to be specific about which recommendations the member refers to.

[1110]

S. Hammell: I'll just do the third one. The recommendation also included pairing police with psychiatric nurses for a trial period to deal with patients who have violated the conditions of their extended leave from mental health facilities. This is the one I'm trying to get to. It
[ Page 1101 ]
also recommends police be given the power to temporarily revoke extended leaves when conditions are broken.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to make sure that we're on the right track here. This was recommendation No. 7, and it was to the B.C. Ministers of Justice and Health. This was about having a provincial program consisting of a strike force, if you like, of five cars positioned strategically throughout the area, each car to include one police officer and one psychiatric nurse. I just would like a signal. Is that the one we're talking about?

Okay. Thank you, hon. Member.

The recommendation was considered. A response is that mobile crisis response services, such as Car 67, referred to in the recommendation, are most effective and efficient when provided within a limited catchment area and involve police and mental health staff from the local community.

That model of crisis response is available in some communities — I mentioned a similar model in my community of Kamloops — while in others, mental health mobile response teams exist and provide care in partnership with the police. All health authorities have mental health crisis services.

We feel that this is being captured in a number of different ways around the province, and the police services and mental health staff continue to work closely together to try to integrate those services.

S. Hammell: I have a number of people here who are wanting to ask specific questions, so I'll first ask the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to speak, because she has to leave.

S. Robinson: I have a question for the Minister of Health that has to do with Riverview lands. In particular, we heard from the Minister for Housing that he sees this as an important piece for looking at future health care issues. He mentioned in question period a number of weeks ago that Riverview is seen as "a long-term asset for British Columbia — for health care, mental health, addictions and other opportunities to help people in B.C."

[1115]

I'd like to ask the minister: what will this ministry be doing with Riverview in terms of mental health and addictions for the province of B.C.?

Hon. T. Lake: The Riverview lands are still held by the Crown, and the Minister of Citizens' Services would be the minister responsible for those lands. Of course, the Minister Responsible for Housing, who made the statement, would…. That, I believe, is a vision statement that he has. We have not done any sort of strategizing at any detailed level as to what that would look like, but it certainly will be the discussion in future years.

M. Elmore: A question also continuing on mental health. It's with regards to the role of community-based mental health services. You outlined the continuum of care that's offered through institutionalization, hospitalization, out-patient care, group homes. Can you talk about the role that community-based mental health services play within that continuum and, also, the budget allocation to those services?

Hon. T. Lake: We canvassed this a bit earlier. Just for the member's benefit, we have spent almost $1.4 billion on mental health and substance-use services around the province. Of course, that's broken down into different areas. The community-based mental health and addictions services total is just over $618 million.

M. Elmore: Just continuing, I also had a question in terms of the value and role of community-based mental health services — certainly understanding the shift in terms away from institutionalization and encouraging individuals who have mental health challenges to be integrated into the community and to be able to live productive and fulfilling lives.

[1120]

There have been numerous studies, certainly, and I would presume that it's integrated in terms of the approach for the provision of mental health services here in British Columbia.

My understanding, speaking with a number of groups…. In particular, I have a specific question around the Art Studios, which provides an art-based therapy — a very effective program — in Vancouver-Kensington. Its art-based therapy has been proven to be very effective in supporting individuals who have experienced quite severe mental health issues, providing support for them and their families to allow them a number of benefits that have been shown to assist with their recovery, to have them integrated into the community, to provide services that are accessible to them.

It's cost-effective. In ensuring that they access the community-based program, it has minimized hospital stays. Often that's where the higher costs are incurred. Once these individuals, when they're managing their mental health illnesses, are able to access this program and not be forced to make hospital stays, that's also a benefit.

Certainly, there's a benefit in cost to the system. There's a benefit in individual care. There's also the benefit to their friends and families of ensuring that their loved ones are cared for and able to function more fully in society. In terms of not only the value and benefit, generally, of community-based health care services but of the effectiveness, this Art Studios program has been nationally recognized as a very unique program, an effective peer-based program.

My question is: based on these strengths of these pro-
[ Page 1102 ]
grams, will the minister reinstate funding for the Art Studios?

Hon. T. Lake: I mentioned the dramatic increase in spending on mental health and substance use — a 58-percent increase over the last 12 years. Each individual health authority makes decisions about how to best utilize the resources necessary.

This was a decision by Vancouver Coastal Health. That is certainly their decision, as to the best ways of providing services to the community that needs mental health and substance-use supports. I understand there is a private donor that has come forward to keep this program going. That is something we can certainly commend, but we have, as I mentioned, dramatically increased the amount of money we spend on this complex issue. Health authorities do the work in terms of deciding and implementing programs that they feel make the most effective use, getting the best outcomes for their clients.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please tell me: what is the average cost of a psychiatric bed?

[1125]

Hon. T. Lake: It would depend. The costs per day, per patient, would depend on the level of care necessary. We could be talking about a forensic psychiatric facility like the Hillside centre in Kamloops where there would be perhaps a higher cost per day versus other psychiatric wards and hospitals where there would be lower.

The ward rate for hospitals generally runs between $900 and $1,200 a day, not counting ICU, of course, so it would be in that general range.

J. Kwan: As a follow-up, I'm wondering how many beds there are in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. T. Lake: We had this discussion earlier, but I'm happy to try and find the numbers once again. It depends, again, on the types of beds we're talking about.

When you talk about mental health and substance-use beds throughout the province…. Those would be a range of community; residential care; family care homes; crisis residential care, which is short stay; supported housing; youth residential treatment; adult detox; youth detox; supported housing for group homes; dedicated sites. With all of those brought together, there are 12,424.

When we talk about forensic psychiatric beds, I believe the number was 190.

J. Kwan: Well, I appreciate that information.

As it was raised with the minister during question period, the Access Community through English program — known as the ACE program — as the minister knows, is being eliminated. In fact, August 7 will be the last day, when the doors will be shut for this program. The staff has already been laid off for this program. Annually there are about 80 to 100 students who go through the program. These are primarily people who, obviously, have English as a second language and people with severe mental illness.

The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority actually did a review of this program, and their conclusion states:

"Mental health consumers cope with considerable prejudice in our society and experience multiple barriers to accessing health care and other services. When they do not have English language skills, it becomes even more difficult for them to communicate their health care needs and to find ways to feel connected to the community around them.

"The ACE program provides a unique and much-needed service and opportunity for mental health consumers" — who want to learn English; this is a very valuable, important service providing an opportunity for non-English speakers — "who might not otherwise be able to participate in ESL classes."

This is the conclusion of Vancouver Coastal Health on the ACE program.

[1130]

That said, it is now the case that the ACE program is no longer considered a core program, and it is being eliminated. You have about 80 to 100 students who go through the program each year, many of them with severe mental illness.

Based on the information that I have, this program costs about $180,000 to run. In supporting the 80 to 100 students, you're looking at about a little over $2,000 or $2,250, if it's on the count of 80. I'll go with the lower count, just to be generous around the estimation here. That's about $2,250 per student a year.

In the event that a student is not able to access this program and the mental health condition worsens, it then results in them having to go to hospital, to be hospitalized. The minister just advised that the cost, on average, is somewhere between $900 and $1,200, in that range. That is to say that if one person suffers a setback and has to be hospitalized two nights — right? — that would be the cost of this program on that person. So on a cost-effectiveness basis, this program makes sense.

I have a stack of letters, documentation, reports from doctors, from various students who have gone through the program, talking about the value of that program for those students. One letter actually says, "I need ACE just like I need my daily medication. I cannot survive without it. ACE is my medication" — as an example.

Another woman had gone through huge traumas in her life. She told me personally that to not be able to access this program makes her feel empty. Prior to the program, when she had her breakdown after having lost her father, she used to walk in her room in circles all day long. That's what she did. Then her doctor sent her and referred her to a number of programs. ACE was one of them. Then over time she learned English and began to open up. She now volunteers for the health authority, helping other people with disabilities and seniors. She's not yet working on a paid basis, but she's made significant progress.
[ Page 1103 ]

Without this program, I think we can imagine what that impact might be like for her. I know that the government would like to say, and I saw it on the public record, that they could be referred elsewhere. Just so that the minister knows in terms of the referral, there are less than a handful of people who have been referred to a different program. None of the programs that they've been referred to provide for mental health support as they're learning English as a second language.

Many of their students have gone to other programs and have failed in those programs. It's not to say that those organizations who offer the programs are deficient in providing ESL learning. The problem is that they don't have the mental health support and the training to provide that kind of support for this population.

This is one of a kind. It is an award-winning program. There is no other like it in the entire country, let alone in British Columbia.

For today's purpose, I want to urge the minister to please review the program. If he would like, I could set up meetings for him to meet with the students there to review this program. This is an effective program, and it is effective on two counts — effective for the people who are using it on a human level and effective on a cost level.

I really want to urge the minister to take a second look at this. It's $180,000. I think we can afford to do this, and it will save the system money if we can save this program.

I'll leave that with the minister. If he would like to follow up with this, I would be happy to engage in a further discussion with him about it, have him meet with some of the students, have them tell the minister their own personal stories. He can see the results of what they have achieved because of this program.

[1135]

V. Huntington: I thank the critic for giving me some opportunity here.

The first question I have for the minister is in regards to an issue of a constituent of mine. A friend of mine, a constituent of mine, many years ago was in a serious accident and is quadriplegic. A number of years ago she began the gender redesignation process, legally, in the province — specialists, through the counselling, the pharmaceuticals, the operations. She has now had a gender reidentification.

So came the time for my friend to get her documentation resolved. She went to ICBC to get the new service card, to have her CareCard changed into the new sex designation, gender designation. ICBC had changed its policies and immediately gave her a new driver's licence.

Care, however, was not able to change the designation on her CareCard. It requires a birth certificate. Here there was Vital Statistics. As long as the surgery occurred in British Columbia, Vital Statistics can take care of that. However, in this case my friend was born in Britain and came here about a year after she was born. So she's lived her entire life in Canada with Canadian documentation, Canadian citizenship, etc.

Not being able to get her CareCard, she had to try and get a birth certificate changed in Britain. Well, if you've had a gender reassignment, you have to go through the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council requires two reports from specialists in Britain. They would not accept an internationally recognized specialist in Vancouver.

We now think, however, that maybe they've changed their policy and they will allow that. Meanwhile, we're back here.

MSP knows there's a problem. Your ministry has been working on the issue and a number of months ago said: "Well, we hope to have it resolved in a few months." A few months went by. We called. Our office is very involved in this.

"Well, we've got a policy now. We think we've got a policy that will be accepted, but it's the process." It's the process, and we wouldn't be able to resolve this until at least the end of the year.

What I'm saying is that this is an issue that really requires a CareCard to have a redesignation of sexual orientation on it. It's just a clear case of changing the name on the CareCard.

All of the medical documentation is there. Everything has been done according to code. We need the minister, at this point, to satisfy this individual and get this process in place or make an exception in this instance. My friend is incredibly frustrated. This has been going on for well over a year.

I don't want to make it sound at all like a threat, but when you read the B.C. human rights code, section 8, this is not appropriate. The reasonable justification for discrimination, I think, has long passed at this point. I would really appreciate the minister's comment on this and action on this particular issue.

[1140]

Hon. T. Lake: I would be happy to discuss individual cases off line with the member, as I've not heard from her on this issue before. I've been told that it is quite complex policy work that is nearing completion and should be done this fall, but I'm happy to have a meeting with the member to go over the details of that.

V. Huntington: I'll certainly take the minister up on it. I apologize if I haven't been talking to the minister on this specific case. My constituency office is deeply engaged with the ministry on it.

Really, what it boils down to at this point is that there's — I can't tell you — anger, frustration, sadness and hurt, and there's a lack of dignity involved in this. When you think, really, she has a legal CareCard, and the name is the same. It just needs the gender changed on it so that she feels whole — that her identity is recognized by the province.
[ Page 1104 ]

I think there's a compelling reason to move here far more quickly than the ministry has been able to. As an outsider, the red tape involved in this particular thing is extraordinary. Yes, it's confused by the fact that she has to go through Britain to get a gender change on the birth certificate, but at the same time, the operation is legal. If she had been born here, Vital Statistics would have recognized that and changed it immediately. I just feel that the minister does need to have a good talk with his officials and try and realize….

I don't think that this is as complicated as it's being made out to be. Yes, it's a policy change, but it should have been done a long time ago. I will contact the minister's office and sit down specifically on this case with him, and I thank him for that.

My further question is a little less onerous and a little less personal. The Fraser Health Authority has estimated that the lost productivity, long-term care and rehabilitation of accident trauma victims are costing the province about $2.8 billion a year. Many studies throughout the world and some jurisdictions have improved pre-hospital transportation, including more effective air ambulance services, and have found that it not only saves lives but has saved millions of dollars by decreasing the long-term care of individuals, the rehabilitation, simply by providing more timely treatment.

[1145]

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me: when was the last time the ministry, the B.C. Ambulance Service or the Provincial Health Services Authority worked with an independent body or post-secondary institution to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of improving pre-hospital care in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: Just going back to the first issue the member raised. Whereas I appreciate that you and your staff may have been working with my staff, we've been in this House five weeks. So there were many opportunities to come and have a personal discussion, and I could have addressed the member's concerns perhaps a little earlier.

When it comes to pre-hospitalization treatment, there is a lot of work that is ongoing. The ministry itself and the B.C. Ambulance Service haven't done a specific cost-benefit analysis. When you look across medicine, it has become abundantly obvious that earlier treatment is better. The golden hour, of course, is a very well-known tenet of emergency medicine.

Our province is so different in terms of geography, in terms of topography and in terms of the regional facilities available that each part of the province would have a different type of approach to this problem. In urban centres, obviously, helicopter use may not be appropriate, and the use of critical care teams on ambulances would be more appropriate.

In my area of the province, where we have much wider distances between where people live and where the regional hospitals are located, helicopter service makes a lot of sense. In fact, it is employed throughout Interior Health, and I've heard stories from physicians — how helicopters not only support what they do in terms of managing their critical care patients but actually have saved their patients' lives by getting timely treatment and timely access to hospital.

Also, throughout many areas of the province we have what are called high-acuity response teams. These teams sometimes can include a critical care nurse, a respiratory technician and an emergency room doctor who will go in the ambulance so that they are administering pre-admission care at the site of the trauma. Obviously, the prognosis for that patient becomes much greater.

So pre-hospitalization treatment is critical, and we approach it in a number of different ways, depending on the needs of the particular part of the province.

V. Huntington: I wonder if the minister could point me to any studies, documentation, any information on how the pre-hospital care, especially in the Air Ambulance Service, is organized in the province?

[1150]

I know that the ambulance service is presently looking at its personnel and aircraft locations. I would like to know when the minister expects that study and review to be done and whether there's any existing information on their present capacity.

Hon. T. Lake: Late last year the Auditor General submitted a report on the B.C. Ambulance Service which was accepted by the Ambulance Service. In British Columbia, as I mentioned, with our different topography and challenges, we have a delivery model that integrates ground and air operations to provide consistent, efficient and high-quality care for patients.

That service in 2011-2012 was used for 7,700 patients. The Auditor General identified areas that need improvement. The B.C. Ambulance Service will be implementing all of them.

The three recommendations were to actively manage the performance of its Air Ambulance Service to achieve desired service standards for the quality, timeliness and safety of patient care. The second was to review whether the distribution of staff and aircraft across the province is optimal for responding to demand for air ambulance service. The third was to regularly identify and review a sample of air ambulance dispatch decisions to ensure that resources are allocated with due consideration for patient needs and available resources.

The Ambulance Service is currently working on those recommendations. The Auditor General will come back in October of 2014, so the response will be in place at that time.

J. Darcy: Back to mental health, briefly, before lunch.
[ Page 1105 ]

A couple weeks ago I raised in the House and with the minister privately the issue of Lookout Society in New Westminster, where a budget of $80,000 had been cut by Fraser Health Authority, and asked the minister why that was the case and asked him to take action to have that funding restored.

The minister's response at the time was that the work that was being done by Lookout Society was being taken up by the assertive community treatment program, ACT. I want to return to this issue and inform the minister, and also ask a question, because I have explored this further with folks in New Westminster and with Lookout Society.

The ACT program is a clinical treatment program that involves nurses and doctors and other clinical specialists who deal with chronic mental illnesses. They do excellent work.

[1155]

But there was a particular niche that was being filled — an absolutely critical one — by this program, and it involves $80,000. It involves outreach workers.

They are not health specialists per se, but they deal with health issues. They have experience dealing with the homeless. They do outreach with street-entrenched homeless who are dealing with mental illnesses, who are dealing with addictions, who are dealing with undiagnosed medical conditions like brain injuries, in some cases. They're dealing with people whose health is already compromised. And it will become more compromised if they don't get support. They have a particular area of specialization of outreach with the homeless that has a major health component, but they are not a clinical outreach team.

I would ask the minister if he would please meet with the Lookout Society, meet with Fraser Health, in order to reconsider that decision. In our city there has been enormous progress made in the last number of years in reducing homelessness. This project, this program, has been an important component of it.

Hon. T. Lake: The outreach service the member is referring to that was being provided by the Lookout Society is a duplicate of the service that is being provided by B.C. Housing. Health authorities have a responsibility to ensure that they're using their operating dollars to the best efficacy for their clients and for the best value to the taxpayer. This was a decision made because of a duplication of services.

Noting the hour, I move the House now rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned till 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

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

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 11: ministry operations, $34,552,000.

Hon. J. Rustad: I'd like to make a few opening comments. First of all, I'd like to recognize that we're on the traditional territory of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

With me today through this are my deputy, Steve Munro; also, Assistant Deputy Peter Walters; Assistant Deputy Peter Cunningham; and Assistant Deputies Charles Porter and Neilane Mayhew. Neilane Mayhew is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services for the natural resources sector.

Partnerships with First Nations are a vital part of the B.C. jobs plan and have the potential to create major economic benefits and new opportunities across British Columbia. Since the last estimates discussions we have achieved a number of significant accomplishments, and I'd like to just touch on a few of those highlights before we get into questions.

In particular, in April of this year the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation signed the 18th non-treaty agreement achieved since the B.C. jobs plan was launched, surpassing the commitment to ten new
[ Page 1106 ]
non-treaty agreements, two years ahead of schedule.

These agreements include ten mine-revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations and the first-ever revenue-sharing agreement under the First Nations clean energy business fund — which, I understand, the critic has a specific interest in — which will see the Tahltan Nation benefit from the Forrest Kerr hydroelectric project.

These are examples of B.C.'s innovative approach to reaching non-treaty agreements that bring benefits more quickly to First Nations communities.

[1010]

In addition to the success achieved in non-treaty agreements, B.C. remains committed to the treaty process and continues to make progress. Since they were introduced, 15 incremental treaty agreements have been finalized. ITAs provide benefits for First Nations in advance of reaching a treaty.

This year B.C. passed legislation to ratify the Tla'amin Nation final agreement. The Kitsumkalum and Kitselas communities recently voted in favour of their final agreement, and of course, the Senate recently just gave royal assent to the Yale First Nation final agreement, for which B.C. had previously passed its own legislation.

We have made some great achievements through this ministry. I think there is certainly some more to be done, but we're seeing tremendous progress.

In particular, when you look at what we are facing with the opportunities around liquefied natural gas and the other resource developments, there is enormous potential for our entire province to prosper, for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Our ministry is focused on trying to make sure that we maximize what those opportunities can be and that we bring benefits to First Nations, aboriginals and non-aboriginals across the province for the benefit of all British Columbians.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that opening statement by the minister. I congratulate him on his new role and his entry into cabinet as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I think it's a very important portfolio for the province and for the north and the northwest, an area that we share and have roots in and concerns about. So congratulations on that.

I know, as I said, it's his first portfolio, as Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. This is my first estimates in that portfolio as well, so I'm very happy that we have a lot of competent staff here to help us through the answering of the questions I'll have on the budget process.

I would like to say that I am dismayed somewhat by the amount of time we have allotted today. I think we have about five hours to consider about $82 million or $83 million. It works out, I think, to about $17 million or $19 million an hour. I think people in the province would expect us to spend a bit more time on that. So I will have a number of written questions that I'll submit to the minister, because we're not going to have enough time to cover everything in the amount of detail that I was hoping to.

I was joking with the minister yesterday, saying that perhaps tomorrow we could sit all day, just ourselves, and work through this budget process as well. But I think he'll be heading back to the north, as I will be too.

I wanted to start off today on a topic of reconciliation. It's in the ministry's name. It's a big part of many aspects of the core activities. And it's something that I think…. I'm going to talk about this in a way that is non-partisan and as something I think we can find some solidarity upon, in relation to reconciliation. Although we're here in budget estimates — and I am going to be talking about reconciliation that has to do with the ministry — I think we have to acknowledge what's going on around us right now.

What's going on around us right now is the release just recently of horrific information around starving children being used in experiments in residential schools. We got the information last week that up to 1,300 First Nations, most of them children, were used in biomedical experiments sanctioned by the federal government. This was between 1942 and 1952.

The scenario is something I don't think the minister, myself, British Columbians or most Canadians would even contemplate as being part of how we see ourselves as Canadians. Researchers decided that isolated, dependent, hungry people would be ideal subjects for tests on the effects of different diets. This was research that was turned up by a University of Guelph professor into food history research. Material that he was able to find during his research revealed this.

[1015]

What has happened since then is that this material came to light and was published in an academic journal right while the Assembly of First Nations was meeting — their national assembly in Whitehorse. Again, this was last week.

What I am proposing to the minister is that we acknowledge the wrongs that happened, which are typified by this horrific experimentation sanctioned by the federal government; that there is a B.C. connection, in that some of the children in the second round of experiments, I think beginning in 1943, attended the Port Alberni residential school — so there is a B.C. connection; that this was a terribly wrong thing to happen; and that we acknowledge the concerns of the AFN and the local head of the AFN, as expressed at the AFN assembly.

The First Nations Summit has come out with a statement on this. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has come out with a statement.

What I'm proposing is that we acknowledge the wrongs here, that we acknowledge the concerns by those three groups and that we also reflect item 6 in the emergency resolution that was passed by the AFN calling on the federal and provincial governments "to initiate a strategic plan, created in partnership with indigenous peoples,
[ Page 1107 ]
to ensure information regarding scientific information on indigenous peoples is made public and is reflected in the public education curriculum." And it goes on a little bit there.

I would be more than willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the minister if he would draft a letter acknowledging those wrongs, acknowledging the concerns, to the federal government and put the province of B.C. on the record that we don't think this is right. This is not something that we think should have been done, and this is part of what we consider the reconciliation process — by writing a letter to the federal government. I'd be happy to cosign that letter and to present a united front in a public statement on how wrong this was.

[1020]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the critic for his opening remarks. As we both share the northwest and many similar concerns, I actually look forward to our relationship over the coming time, however long that may be, and to have the opportunity to be able to work on a number of issues.

There's no question that in Canada's history and, in particular, in Canada's relationship with First Nations, there have been many wrongs. There have been a number of things that have happened over time that have been wrong. This is a new piece of information, of course, that has come to light, on which I agree with the member opposite and with the First Nations leadership — that this was wrong in terms of the actions that were taken.

Although this is a federal jurisdiction in terms of this, I do agree and want to take into consideration what the member has suggested in terms of a letter that could be drafted acknowledging the wrong that was done with this. I'd be happy, once we can get something like that drafted, to allow the member to have a look at it and possibly look at the opportunity to maybe even send that as a joint letter.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister for that response.

Yes, it would be a fine opportunity to get on the record around this. As I said, this event has sent shock waves throughout the First Nations communities and, I think, the rest of Canada as well. So to get the province of B.C. on the record to at least acknowledge that we don't consider this acceptable behaviour in any way whatsoever, I'd be very happy to work with the minister on drafting a letter and attaching my name to that letter on behalf of the official opposition.

Before I leave this topic — which I think is a good one for us to start off with, because it's something that we can stand together shoulder to shoulder on — I wanted to also get the minister's opinion and his comments on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He knows as well as I do that it's been a long time since that committee was activated. I think it was either '95 or '96 the last time it sat, although MLAs are appointed to it every year since then on both sides of the government. No matter who's been in power, it hasn't sat since '95 or '96.

I would suggest to the minister that this is, again, a non-partisan issue that would be a good topic for the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to address, especially in relation to the AFN emergency resolution, clause 6, where they're calling on the federal and provincial governments to initiate a strategic plan, in partnership with indigenous peoples, to ensure that information regarding scientific experimentation is made public and to include that information in the public curriculum.

Regardless of where we look at that, I would ask for the minister's consideration and comments on this being an excellent topic for the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to undertake. There are six members from the government side on that and four members from the official opposition. We could work together to once again demonstrate how seriously we take this issue.

We know that First Nations children who attended the Port Alberni residential school were impacted, but we're not sure how widespread this experimentation was. And again, it was horrific. You know, withholding milk from starving children in the name of science…. This was ethically questionable at the time but definitely something that….

We need to understand how widespread these effects were in B.C. I would suggest that would be a fine topic for…. I think the word is that the minister has to "empower" the committee. That's the technical word, and I would ask what the minister's thoughts might be on that.

[1025]

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, I appreciate his thoughts and his suggestion around the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. That is a committee that hasn't been active for many years. Certainly, I'll consider the suggestion that has come forward. At this particular point we don't have any plans to constitute the committee or charge it with a task. However, it's something I'll consider and think about over the next little while.

Reconciliation and how we reach the reconciliation with First Nations to deal with many of those things over time is something that we take very seriously. It is, of course, part of the name in terms of the ministry. But more than that, we've been reaching out and trying to form partnerships with First Nations across the province. We've been reaching out, in particular, to find the best form of reconciliation, which is to come to treaty and to be able to move forward with treaty with First Nations.

We've had some success, and we're seeing some acceleration and some opportunities around there, particu-
[ Page 1108 ]
larly through non-treaty agreements but also through agreements-in-principle and through incremental treaty agreements. We recognize that we need to be working with the leadership across the province. We need to be working with First Nations across the province to be able to bring that kind of reconciliation.

Like I say, we are making progress on that, but certainly, there is more work to be done. We look forward to those opportunities.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister for that. That's something that I'm sure we can have a continuing discussion about outside of this budget estimates process — the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, as it's called.

I want to move on now into some specifics on the budget estimates. I know that the minister has a number of the staff here, and we discussed earlier what some of the topics will be.

Just to give an idea of how things…. How I plan to use the time this morning is to ask some specific questions around the budget and then delve a little further into the questions around the treaty process and then around the non-treaty agreements. So that's the way I hope we'll be able to cover that amount of information before noon today.

Starting off, now that we're into the actual budget estimates, I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations and appreciate that we're having our meeting on their territories.

[1030]

One thing right off the bat that raised a question for me was the amount in this vote that the minister put forward in his opening remarks. In the budget information I have — I'm just seeking some clarification here — Vote 11, for ministry operations, I have $34.552 million. In the estimates for 2013-'14 — I don't think that jibed with what the minister said in his opening comments, so perhaps he could clarify that.

Hon. J. Rustad: The motion that was moved this morning was for the ministerial operations, for $34.552 million.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Maybe my ears weren't full of caffeine enough. I thought I heard $33 million. I'm happy, though, because that's the figure I've been working with.

Could the minister inform: that amount, which includes $19.994 million for salaries and benefits, what the FTE number in that is? For those who might not be familiar, that's full-time-equivalent — in other words, a reflection of the number of people working for the ministry for that amount of money. What is the FTE number for this budget estimate, '13-14, and what was it last year?

Hon. J. Rustad: The amount of $19.994 million is the budget that we have available for salaries and benefits. Of course, we have a number of staff within that. But we actually try to manage within the overall budget, and so the number of FTEs can fluctuate back and forth, depending on a number of variables. We don't actually have the detailed information that the member has asked for.

D. Donaldson: That's unfortunate. I would think that as a minister you'd want to know the number of people or the number of FTEs that they have at your disposal in the ministry.

So it's fluctuating back and forth. Can the minister give me an idea of: is it fluctuating back and forth so that we have the same number of FTEs, approximately, as the last budget cycle, or less or more, in this one?

[1035]

Hon. J. Rustad: Last year's total budget around salary and benefits was $19.375 million. As we did last year, as we'll do this year, we actually work to our total budget in terms of that, so there is some fluctuation. But we don't track those numbers directly.

D. Donaldson: I think if you're comparing…. This government often likes to compare itself to the business world. In the business world, I think that when a CEO gets asked, "How many people do you have working for you?" they have an answer.

I find it quite astonishing that the minister doesn't have an answer to a simple question like, "How many people work for you?" — whether it's FTEs or any other kind of number. Maybe we'll be able to get a commitment from the minister to provide that in writing at a later date to me, if it's not available now.

Let's talk specifically, then. This vote is about…. Part of this Vote 11, for the amount we've mentioned, is to do with negotiations and regional operations. Could the minister give me an idea of how many FTEs or staff work in regional operations, and how many are here in the central ministry in Victoria?

[1040]

Hon. J. Rustad: We have eight regional offices as part of our operations, plus our Victoria office. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we manage our staffing levels to our budget. When we have needs, of course, we're bringing people on, and those sorts of things can fluctuate. Approximately, at any given time, it could be 15 or 20 percent, give or take, that would be located out in our regional offices. Like I say, that can fluctuate from time to time based on how we manage to our ultimate number within our ministerial budget.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that information. As the minister is aware, most of the negotiations around treaty
[ Page 1109 ]
and non-treaty agreements are on territories that lie outside of Victoria. When you've got 15 to 20 percent of the staff in regional offices — I think that's what I heard the minister tell me — that means you've got 80 percent of the staff in Victoria, where most of the First Nations that we're attempting to reconcile with aren't located.

Would the minister contemplate allotting more of his staff resources and FTEs out into the regional offices, where the actual relationships get built with First Nations to achieve reconciliation, versus in Victoria?

Hon. J. Rustad: We're actually proud of the work we're doing in building relationships across the province with many First Nations. We have a very good team that is in place, which has been in place for a number of years, in terms of the core of our team, in building those relationships. Some of that, particularly around treaty, is out in our regional offices, and some of that's in our Victoria offices. Having consistency around how you build those relationships and work on that is important.

But we also make sure that within our ministry we do adapt to meet the various priorities that we come up against when we're into those negotiations. That's why earlier, when the member asked how many people were out in the regional offices, I gave a number that can vary and that could even be greater than 20 percent. It just depends on how we adapt to our priorities involved with how our relationships are moving along and which various files we have across the province that we're making progress with.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. I just want to confirm, before I get into some specifics on the allocation in this vote that we're discussing for Vote 11, which is basically the core activities of the ministry, $34.552 million….

[1045]

I just want to ensure that the minister acknowledges these numbers. Last year it was $34.977 million. In '11-12, the year before that, it was $35.010 million. So in fact, we've seen a decrease over the last three years in the budget for ministry core operations year to year.

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, I think he has a copy of the mandate letter. The number one issue in my mandate letter, the number one priority that's come forward, is to contribute to the overall province in terms of balancing our budget. We believe very strongly that we need to be fiscally responsible, that we need to be able to build credibility with our creditors, but also be able to have that certainty across the province and to investors coming in looking at our province.

A balanced budget is something that we believe is a high priority. The Premier has made that a top priority. Our government ran on that in the last election. But getting to a balanced budget means that you have to be able to work together with all ministries to make some tough decisions.

Yes, the numbers have changed a little bit over the last number of years, but we have been very effective working within those numbers to be able to deliver on the opportunities that we're looking at to make sure that we can further our goals around the jobs plan. But certainly, balancing our budget is the number one priority. It's the number one issue in my mandate letter, and it continues to be a priority for our government going forward.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister for acknowledging that information that I forwarded to him in the last question around the last three years seeing a decrease in the ministry operations budget.

On that topic that he raised around balancing the budget, we know a core review process is underway, looking at finding $30 million in cuts across ministries. Can the minister advise what cuts in his ministry might be considered to achieve this $30 million?

[1050]

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite: thank you for the question.

One of the things that we believe is important, which is why we actually have put forward to do the core review, is that it has actually been more than ten years since we last conducted a core review in the province. So we feel it's a good time to actually re-evaluate, especially through the challenging economic times and the process going forward, and ensure that the structure for success, particularly within our resource sectors, is focused on the highest-priority programs and services. Government has already done a good job, of course, of managing our costs, but we can always know that there is more that can be done.

With regards to specifics around targets that are within the core review mandate, we have not received any information at this particular point from the minister that has undertaken the core review, but I think if the member opposite has some additional questions around the core review, it might be better directed to the Minister of Energy and Mines, responsible for the core review.

D. Donaldson: I don't have any additional questions on the core review. I just want to get a commitment from the minister that when considering core services, this budget that he's presented today is extremely important for the province, for First Nations, for social, economic, environmental reasons and issues, so that he will fight to ensure that the core review leaves the ministry operations as is, when they're looking at cutting $30 million from the budget. I just wanted to encourage the minister to stand up for his portfolio, and I'd be very happy to support him in that.

I have a specific question in regards to Vote 11. This is
[ Page 1110 ]
something that I am hoping the minister and, especially, the staff can help me out with. In STOB 85 "Other expenses," under "Executive and support services," there's a just a little over $2 million line item. The $1.907 million under "Corporate services." Could the minister advise what this amount is intended for?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member's initial earlier comment about core review, I just wanted to mention that we believe, in government, that we owe it to taxpayers to make sure that they're getting the best value they can for their tax dollars. So, of course, the process of core review will be extensive, will be comprehensive in terms of the process looking forward and will be done responsibly, prudently and quickly.

We recognize, of course, that we're already the leanest public service in Canada, so it's not about designating a project to cut jobs. Rather, it's about making sure that we are as efficient as we can possibly be in how we deliver the services and how we go about our day-to-day operations.

[1055]

Specifically to the question the member has around the executive and support services of $2.002 million, a lot of that is around overhead — things like legal costs, corporate services that we are a part of in terms of government, in terms of a number of ministries, facility space. What I would offer to the member opposite is that we can give you a breakdown of all of that, if you would like.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I'll take the minister up on that offer to give a breakdown. In this $1.907 million for corporate services, how much of that is spent on contractors or contract services?

Hon. J. Rustad: My commitment to the member opposite in the House the other day was to try to be brief with answers, because I know he does have a lot to go through. But specifically with regards to the $1.907 million — I believe he's referring to STOB 85 from his earlier question — to the best of my knowledge, there are no contract services under that amount.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that information. I have many questions on specific line items here. I will provide some of them in writing, because time is fleeting.

I still would like to touch on two other areas. There's a line item under "Strategic initiatives" — under STOB 60, which is "Professional services" — for $481,000. Could the minister advise what this entails?

Hon. J. Rustad: The amount of money that is under STOB 60 is primarily around implementing a variety of agreements, and they include things such as surveying costs.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. So the $481,000 — how much of that was contract services? And if there are contract services in that $481,000, how many of those were tendered and how many were direct-award?

[1100]

Hon. J. Rustad: Of course, as the member knows, we are just a number of months now into a new fiscal year, so that is the amount that has been budgeted. Of course, you know, some work is undergoing, but there's no way to be able give a breakdown at this point as to what might be spent under which particular categories over the course of the year, as we are only partway into the year.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that. If I could get a commitment, then — similarly to the offer the minister gave before — of a breakdown of the answer to that question for last year's budget estimate, that would be appreciated.

Hon. J. Rustad: From last year.

D. Donaldson: Yeah. It would be an actual rather than an estimate.

Moving on here, STOB 80. There's $5.771 million, under transferred shared cost agreements, for "Partnerships and community renewal" and "Strategic initiatives." Could the minister elaborate on what those items reflect?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite, his first part of that question, which was around the information from last year — we commit that we will get whatever information we can to him on that, as he has asked.

With regards to the other question on STOB 80, which is around partnerships, that is the amount that we actually go out and engage with the various organizations and support various organizations through our ministry, organizations such as the B.C. Treaty Commission.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. Well, there is a good segue into another question that I had for this particular part of the estimates process. Under Vote 11 what is the amount that the province allocates, under this ministry, to negotiations around treaty — and also, separately, allocates to the actual B.C. Treaty Commission? So two different questions there.

[1105]

Hon. J. Rustad: As you know, we are going out and engaging with First Nations and building those relationships. We're talking treaty and other potential agreements. There is a lot of overlap between many of those discussions, so we don't actually have a direct breakdown, as the member has asked, in terms of how much was spent directly on treaty.

To the second part of his question around the B.C. Treaty Commission: last year we allocated $4.139 mil-
[ Page 1111 ]
lion to the B.C. Treaty Commission, and we're anticipating that this year's allocation will be similar.

D. Donaldson: A couple more questions on the specifics here. The minister's office — salaries and benefits. In other words, the staffing costs are $389,000. Does the minister have a chief of staff?

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes.

D. Donaldson: Last year was there a chief of staff, or was that position called a ministerial assistant?

Hon. J. Rustad: Last year the position of chief of staff did not exist. It was a ministerial assistant.

D. Donaldson: What is the difference in salary paid last year to a ministerial assistant — the uplift between that and the chief of staff this year?

Hon. J. Rustad: Thanks to the member for the question. As the member probably is aware, there is a range for the position of chief of staff in terms of that. I think that information is available, and we can get that information to you around what that range is for the chief of staff position.

D. Donaldson: Okay. I'll take that as an affirmation that the minister will provide in writing that information to me at a later date after the budget estimates.

Hon. J. Rustad: For the range.

D. Donaldson: For the range. Thanks for that. He nodded acknowledgement for the range.

Two more, hopefully, relatively quick questions. I appreciate the minister trying to answer in a quick manner.

Under STOB 90, revenues external to the government reporting entity, there is a $401,000 external recovery for strategic initiatives.

[1110]

Can the minister advise what this reflects?

Hon. J. Rustad: Just in the fairness of time…. It'll take us a little bit of time to look it up. If it's okay, we can actually get that information to you with regards to what the external recovery is. We can look it up if you'd like to wait longer.

D. Donaldson: That's fine. In fact, I'll pose another one in the meantime that might be something the staff that are here can work on, if they can't give you an immediate answer.

Just a curiosity. STOB 73 deals with amortization, and there's a $230,000 entry there for negotiations and regional operations to do with amortization. That is a curiosity to me, about what that might cover.

Hon. J. Rustad: Amortization, as I'm sure the member knows, is a standard practice in terms of…. When you have any sort of asset that is purchased or acquired, you have to amortize that over time. So that amount likely deals with computer systems, databases, those types of things, in terms of amortization.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. I'll await the answer on the revenues external to the government reporting entity. I'm interested in knowing where that $400,000 is coming from. You're going to be able to look up as we proceed today — might even be this afternoon. That's fine.

I'd like to move on now to treaty. The minister mentioned that the allocation — I want to make sure I get this straight — from his ministry, from the provincial government through his ministry to the B.C. Treaty Commission, was about $4.139 million in 2012-13, and it'll be approximately the same in this estimates process. How is that number arrived at?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned earlier, the amount of $4.139 million is what we're anticipating to be allocated again this year. That's derived through a cost-sharing arrangement that we have with the federal government. Through various discussions with the federal government, we come to that agreement. Like I say, we're anticipating that to be a similar amount for this year.

[1115]

D. Donaldson: Is that a cost-sharing agreement where the province is responsible for 40 percent of the funding for the B.C. Treaty Commission and the federal government for 60 percent?

Hon. J. Rustad: Sorry, it took a little bit of time to sort this through, because it's not just as simple as the operational budget for the B.C. Treaty Commission. For the operations component, we have a 40 percent agreement from the province, 60 percent agreement from the federal government. When it comes to various negotiations and the loan side, of course, it's a little bit different. So 80 percent of the loan is guaranteed by the federal government. The remaining amount of that is split in terms of 40 percent from the provincial and 60 percent from the federal.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Yes, I'm aware of the loan component and that part of the BCTC funding process. But the $4.139 million — that's associated with operations, I believe. Is that the 40-60 percent?

Hon. J. Rustad: Out of the $4.139 million, approximately $1.019 million actually goes towards the operational amount, and $3 million is actually contributed
[ Page 1112 ]
to the negotiation side through the cost-sharing as described earlier.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that clarification. Given that the importance of treaties is acknowledged in the service plan and by this government…. I'll quote: "…long-term treaties that are the ultimate form of reconciliation and provide economic benefits and security for all British Columbians."

That's part of the service plan marching orders, to negotiate the long-term treaties, and a recognition that long-term treaties are the highest level of certainty, despite all the non-treaty agreements that we're seeing these days, which, you know, provide benefit, obviously, to First Nations but don't deal with the governance issue, which is the tough nut to crack, I believe, when it comes to settling treaties.

[1120]

Given that and given the amount of work that the B.C. Treaty Commission is seeing…. The last few years have seen an increase in the number of later-stage negotiations, which is a positive sign, I agree. We've had two treaties signed — the Tsawwassen and the Maa-nulth — and then many are in completed final agreements. Then there are many in advanced AIPs — agreements-in-principle. There's an increased workload for the BCTC, as keepers of the process.

The minister, I know, met with the chair of the B.C. Treaty Commission, Sophie Pierre, and I did as well. She described to me the increased amount of work and the high priority that this government puts on the treaty process but that that's not being backed up when it comes to a resource aspect.

You know, you've got two treaties that are signed off for implementation. You've got a number waiting in the wings, including the Yale. I believe that has been finalized at the federal level now. You've got others, the Tla'amin and others, that are almost there and others that have moved up in the process. These are getting to critical stages. Much of the work is at a critical stage, I would say.

The BCTC, because of recent experiences, has seen increased work and has taken upon themselves, as part of their mandate — which is a good part of their mandate — to do more work on the ratification process, because we've seen some need for that in recent situations.

They've also seen an increasing workload in what's called shared-boundary or shared-territory disputes and overlap issues. Those are critical, I think, for the future workings of a treaty. I mean, we're seeing some of that fallout with the Nisga'a treaty, and we're seeing some between the Gitksan and the downstream neighbours already. So there's a lot of work to be done on that as well. The Auditor General recommended an enhanced role for the B.C. Treaty Commission in shared-territory disputes.

Given those, why would the minister have in his estimates the same amount of funding towards the BCTC as last year, when these issues — and the Treaty Commission's head commissioner — raise an increasing workload?

[1125]

Hon. J. Rustad: We are in agreement around reconciliation and how treaties can be the best form of reconciliation. At the beginning, in our opening statements, we talked about a list of projects and of opportunities, of partnerships with First Nations and with the federal government that we've seen success on.

As the member said, the Yale treaty has gone through the federal government process now, so it's through that. The Tla'amin — we've passed legislation here. We're hoping that will go through federally — hopefully, before too long.

But as we talked about with the mandate letter, we're also in a situation where we are in tough fiscal times. We need to be able to manage our budgets. We need to be able to manage the money on behalf of the province as efficiently as we possibly can.

As a sign of importance to going through the treaty process and to furthering the initiatives that we've been working on for a number of years now, we're pleased that we are able to maintain as close as we can to what the numbers have been last year — even though we've gone through the challenge of bringing in and having a balanced budget.

As I said earlier, our government has a priority of moving forward in a fiscally responsible way, of making sure that we have a balanced budget — supporting our job growth, supporting our agenda going forward, to the best of our abilities.

Moving forward with treaty and non-treaty opportunities with First Nations is a big part of moving forward, particularly on the jobs agenda. As I mentioned, we're maintaining, through the BCTC, what we can do. Like I said, that is a sign of the level of importance we've put to being able to move forward and reach final agreement and bring in that reconciliation.

D. Donaldson: Well, the minister has already acknowledged that the budget for this ministry's operations has declined each year in the last three years. And the head of the Treaty Commission, the chief commissioner, Sophie Pierre, says the workload has increased for the B.C. Treaty Commission. Yet the funding, which the province is providing to the Treaty Commission to do the work that it needs to do as keepers of the process, remains the same.

So when the minister talks about the importance of, and how they protected, this budget, I don't think that on that evidence it's protecting the budget. Secondly, when the minister talks about his number one priority in his mandate letter as budgetary, then I think the right hand needs to be talking to the left hand. We know that the new
[ Page 1113 ]
revenue generated in the province comes mainly from natural resources in non-urban areas, and most of those natural resources are found on the unceded traditional territories of First Nations.

Unless you're doing the work on the reconciliation and the treaty front, then you're not going to be able to reap all the benefits that you want to, as a provincial government, on the revenue-generating side. I would say that as a word of caution going forward.

Kim Baird, who we knew was the Chief of the Tsawwassen band during the negotiation of that final treaty…. I'm quoting from the annual report for 2012 from the B.C. Treaty Commission, where it writes: "She worries that if First Nations rely solely on impact benefit agreements and other things, they are incrementally settling their title without the benefits of self-government." Again, it's a warning of the importance of the treaty process from a governance aspect, which from a self-government aspect gives that certainty.

The question, after that preamble, to the minister would be: do we see the same people in the ministry operations negotiating at the treaty table as we do negotiating for non-treaty agreements?

[1130]

Hon. J. Rustad: In the preamble there was something that actually concerned me a little bit. I'm hoping the member opposite will have an opportunity to perhaps clarify a little bit of his comments in the preamble. We know and we agree that resource development in British Columbia is a tremendous opportunity for all of British Columbia aboriginal and non-aboriginal, particularly for liquid natural gas. We're being very aggressive in moving that forward. We're hoping to see many other resource opportunities come forward as well.

The point of clarity I'd like from the member is: should these resource developments go forward where we don't have treaty? He seems to suggest that we need to come to reconciliation with First Nations and form a treaty before we move forward on these things. Treaties take a long period of time.

That's one of the reasons why we actually have looked at non-treaty agreements and the various forms of revenue-sharing that we have entered into. It helps, actually, to build capacity. It is building blocks towards forming those relationships where we can ultimately come to treaty. For some First Nations, they aren't interested in necessarily entering into treaty — at least, not at this particular point.

We need to make sure that we see the benefits flow, the shared opportunities across the province for all people. In particular, we want to be able to see those benefits flow so that they can change lives and create the kinds of opportunities that we want to be able to see happen for our First Nations partners and for aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike across the province.

Part of those building blocks, part of developing that process and that relationship is making sure that we have some consistency with the people that are working with our First Nations partners. From that end, we have negotiators that are engaged in both treaty and non-treaty.

Often they can be the same people that helped to work on those files, that helped to build those relationships and that can lead us to a place where, through those government-to-government discussions we have between the provincial government and First Nations, we're able to enter into those opportunities. We can see benefits flow, we can see the differences they can make for First Nations, and we can see how that can work together to come to that ultimate reconciliation by signing a treaty and being able to have that certainty for all of the people — for First Nations and non–First Nations alike.

D. Donaldson: The feedback I've gotten from the B.C. Treaty Commission in staffing and the same staff being involved in both negotiations is that it's not an ideal situation, because the workload is high. It can also lead to confusion at the table when you've got the same person talking treaty, which is governance-focused, especially, and then you've got the same staff working at a different time on non-treaty, which is often economic. Sometimes there's incremental ability there. But other times it's been suggested that it's just too much workload and that it causes confusion.

As far as his comments, I will definitely be picking up on, especially during the non-treaty agreement discussion we're going to have, his comments around what the best approach there might be and how we advance agreements and advance the exploitation of the natural resources for the benefit of all in the province. I will definitely get to that part and address the comments that the minister had. I think there are some examples that the minister should be aware of that are red flags to the approach that's being taken right now.

[1135]

I wanted to get to the final area of discussion around the treaty process, and that's treaty implementation. I think these are going to be a couple of examples where the lack of…. There's only so much focus that the government can have. The focus lately has been on non-treaty agreements, which I acknowledge have brought short-term benefits and economic benefits to First Nations. But acknowledging the government's own words that treaties are the ultimate certainty, if they are taking longer than normal, then I would expect the government to look at avenues to ensure that they don't take as long, because they are the ultimate certainty.

As far as the couple of examples we're going to talk about next on treaty implementation, I think they are an example of how the resources and the focus need to be increased by this government on the treaty, especially with implementation.
[ Page 1114 ]

The first example is the Maa-nulth treaty that was ratified, as I'm sure the minister is aware, six years ago in the B.C. Legislature. Now we see that the province, in a recent news article in June, hasn't gotten around to registering most of the land that was promised in that treaty agreement. Only 15 percent has even been surveyed and legally transferred.

I wonder if the minister could advise if there's an update on that situation. I think you get to a certain point, and then the interest seems to drop off the table on the part of the provincial government. This is a treaty implementation question specifically around the Maa-nulth treaty. Why has it taken so long to get the land survey that was part of the agreement six years ago?

Hon. J. Rustad: In the preamble, before we got on the discussion on the Maa-nulth treaty, the member made a statement around some concerns that had been raised by the B.C. Treaty Commission. I want to clarify that in our discussions with the B.C. Treaty Commission, they've expressed support for the approach that we have been taking in terms of working with First Nations on non-treaty agreements and other opportunities — in conjunction, of course, with the work we are doing around treaties.

[1140]

We actually have heard from many First Nations across the province that they are very supportive of the approach that we're taking. As I mentioned to the member earlier, it's critical in terms of relationships that we are trying to build with the First Nations, in terms of being able to move those things forward, that it actually has continuity with the same people.

I agree with the member opposite in the sense that those people have busy schedules. I'd also like to suggest that it's a very good thing they have busy schedules, because it's a sign that we have made tremendous progress and that there is a lot of interest from First Nations in being able to move forward, both in treaty and non-treaty opportunities that have presented themselves.

To the member's question around the Maa-nulth treaty, I need to clarify one point. The Maa-nulth treaty actually came into effect April 1, 2011, which wasn't six years ago. It was just a couple of years ago. With regards to that, all the lands associated with that treaty have been transferred to the Maa-nulth. The Maa-nulth have full treaty rights and are exerting those rights today on those treaty lands within the agreement that we had signed with the Maa-nulth.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister, and congratulations. I think it's one of the best portfolios in this place. I'd like just to acknowledge your staff too. You've got an excellent staff. It's good to be back asking a few questions here.

While we're on the Maa-nulth treaty, as the minister and his staff know, the Toquaht First Nation had quite a setback with some of the lands that were transferred through the Maa-nulth treaty.

It's significant land, significant in the sense that Toquaht Bay is part of their economic development strategy, and that was part of the reason for negotiating those land transfers. Now the land has been found to be contaminated in an area which was key to ecotourism and cultural tourism opportunities that the Toquaht were working on. It was key to their economic diversification and future.

The land was transferred from the province to the Toquaht as part of the treaty, and it subsequently was found to have levels of contamination from a mining operation. Actually, the tailings from the mine historically — back in the '60s, I guess — were moved and dumped onto the beach there.

I know other ministries have been involved in this. The concern has gone a lot further than just the Toquaht Nation, which certainly has legitimate concerns for its economic future.

Now it's tourism season, so there are some key economic issues that are actually hot right now. If the minister can possibly give me an update to tell us where we are on that land…. It was being tested. There were a number of tests being done by the Ministry of Environment, and I think Lands was involved too.

[1145]

Hon. J. Rustad: I happen to agree. This is the best portfolio, from my perspective. I feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to serve in this role within our government.

Particularly with regards to the Maa-nulth treaty and the Toquaht, when we worked through the treaty, we actually discussed issues around this, and its part of the treaty. When the Toquaht stepped forward and entered with an opportunity they were looking at in terms of engaging, as you probably well know, everybody was surprised at the issue that had come forward around contamination on the site.

We are actually engaged with them on this to find resolution. We have worked with them in terms of an alternate site for ecotourism, particularly a kayak launch site, to go forward. We've worked with them on a new picnic area. That work with the Toquaht is ongoing.

D. Donaldson: I have a quick question that I hope will finish off the treaty part of the questioning so that we can go to non-treaty agreements after the lunch break.

A comment on the continuity issue. The minister mentioned about how — this is something that he pointed to — having the same people at the table is a good thing in building relationships, and I couldn't agree more.

My experience with the treaty process, which I was involved with before I became an MLA, is that there was a revolving door of staff. My understanding from First Nations involved in the treaty process now is that
[ Page 1115 ]
they find, frequently, that staff on the provincial side are changed up. That creates an issue, because you have to re-educate every time.

If that's not the case…. I would be interested in knowing what the minister is doing to address that issue. I know it's a tricky one, because obviously, people have the ability to switch jobs. On the other hand, what is the minister doing to ensure continuity, to incent continuity with the staffing at the table?

That's an aside. The main question I have to finish off this treaty topic area is something that I'm sure the minister is aware of. I wanted to get his take on what his ministry is doing to address the issue and learn from the issue. That is that the Nisga'a, well within their rights, have gone to a dispute resolution clause in their treaty regarding the plans by a mining company to create a molybdenum mine in the Nisga'a settlement lands.

That's well within their rights, and it's within the rights of the mining company to have this mine at an advanced stage of approval. The question is: do treaties that the government has signed…? What does this say about really, in the future, increasing certainty for both the First Nations and the proponents of mineral resource extraction activity?

[1150]

What is the government doing to achieve that goal if the treaty language does not do it? This is a living case of that, I believe.

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. J. Rustad: I'll give as brief an answer as I can to this, and then we'll go into the "noting the hour" issue.

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. As you know, Nisga'a is a process that was gone through over a number of years, and we are proud to have a treaty agreement with them. I think the thing to keep in mind with treaties is that if you've done a treaty right, when disputes and issues come up, there are mechanisms that you can engage with at a government-to-government level to be able to resolve those differences and those issues.

That is what has taken place in this case. We're working very closely with the Nisga'a. We value very much our relationship with the Nisga'a, and we're hoping to be able to work through the process that is in place as part of the treaty, to move forward.

That also, actually, brings a certain amount of certainty, as you know, through all treaties that we've done. It does bring that kind of certainty because it sets in place the various conditions and opportunities that are available for people to be able to engage in resource opportunities or in other types of activities that may happen on treaty territories.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY,
INNOVATION AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

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

The committee met at 10:09 a.m.

On Vote 42: ministry operations, $65,290,000.

[1010]

The Chair: Do you have any opening comments, Minister?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Yes, I do. Thank you.

I need to introduce the staff present today. We're joined by Kelly Gleeson, assistant deputy minister, communications and media relations division; by Jay Schlosar, assistant deputy minister for strategic initiatives division; Mary Dila, executive director, marketing and communications support services; and Denise Champion, who is executive director of corporate services.

I'm pleased to introduce the budget estimates for the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services. The ministry net budget for fiscal 2013-14 amounts to $534.438 million and supports the mandates of all parts of the ministry.

Along with the rest of government, we are committed to meet the fiscal targets of this government. The ministry role, of course, is to provide British Columbians with easy access to government services, to support leading-edge technology and development opportunities and to provide infrastructure support to government ministries.

Now, on the technology innovation side, of course, we support British Columbia as a recognized leader in research. We continue to develop and grow innovative research and technology resources and thereby create more jobs for B.C. families. On the citizens' services side we engage in service delivery, technology and access to information. This includes Services B.C., the B.C. registries and B.C. Stats.

On Shared Services B.C., more specifically, we deliver infrastructure and services the government needs to operate, including buildings, technology, procurement and supplies, and we manage the real estate portfolio, which remains a very important focus for the ministry.
[ Page 1116 ]

We're also responsible for the government communications and public engagement work, and that's the staff that is here today. They lead and coordinate external communications, and the goal, of course, is to engage with and inform British Columbians about policies, programs and services.

It's a very broad scope for this ministry, and we look forward to acting on opportunities that fall under this broad umbrella, and look forward to working with ministry staff in the year ahead. We're happy to answer any questions you may have about the budget estimates. I look forward to the questions from the members.

G. Heyman: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister on his appointment, his new ministry. As well, he, like me, is new to this place and new to these issues, and I'm happy to see that, like me, we're still both trying to figure out when it's appropriate to stand and when we have to be seated.

We have established an order with the ministry of how we're going to proceed through the questions. I've learned as I've been studying this ministry that it's complex, varied and contains some issues and areas that are occasionally under the microscope.

As a result of that, we have a large number of questions but not a lot of time, due to the constrained nature of this sitting, so I would just like to let you, Chair, and through you, the minister, know that as I get to points throughout the day where I think it's time to move on, I will have, perhaps, very lengthy lists of questions that I'm simply going to read into the record and for which I will request a written response as expeditiously as possible.

Having said that, let me begin with government communications and public engagement. My first question is that the strategic initiatives program area which is responsible for the open government website and open data had up to now been under ministry operations for several years, but it is now part of GCPE. My question is: what's the rationale for this move, and why was it deemed appropriate, previous to this move, for strategic initiatives to be in ministry operations?

[1015]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The shift of the strategic initiatives office within the ministry to the government communications branch is part and parcel of the greater citizen engagement in services being delivered through the web.

Once the strategic initiatives office was underway, it was felt that there would be much better integration of the services and much better direct communication with the public if it were recognized to be a communications role. Therefore, the public engagement aspect of it was thought to be more sensibly combined with the government communications role. So we now have this combined function of GCPE, and of course, the budget gets combined between the two of them.

G. Heyman: I will ask three questions at once here, in the interests of time.

Has there been any specific change in the work of the citizen engagement unit that is coincident with the move of strategic initiatives from ministry operations into GCPE?

There's already in GCPE a division called the strategic planning and public engagement division, under John Paul Fraser. What's the difference, if any, between the responsibilities of these two units? How is the citizen engagement role of the strategic initiatives group different from the public engagement aspect of the unit under Mr. Fraser?

What reporting relationship is there, if any, between these two divisions and the Office of the Premier?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The change in the citizen engagement functions is so that there's better alignment between the two within the government communications and public engagement role. This obviously raises the second question that the member raised, which is the difference between the functions under ADM John Paul Fraser….

His function is in corporate communications, which is, of course, more of a broadcast phenomenon — dealing with the population at large, getting out communications throughout all media. The functions brought in from the strategic initiatives branch are dealing much more with direct communications — with citizen engagement, with ongoing web contact, and so forth. The two are thought to be complementary, so bringing them into the same house will permit better alignment between the two functions.

The third question from the member opposite — the reporting relationship with the Premier's office. Both of these divisions, if I can call them that, under Mr. Schlosar and Mr. Fraser, now report to the deputy minister for government communications and public engagement, Athana Mentzelopoulos. She reports to me as Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services.

However, it's stating the obvious that government communications is a service and a function that works throughout government to ensure that communications with the population of British Columbia are effective. Like many other things this ministry does, it's a service function.

G. Heyman: I'd just like to pursue that a little bit further. Would I understand the minister correctly — and I will assume, if he doesn't refute this, that this is correct — that other than his reporting relationship to the Premier through cabinet, or executive council, there is no other line of communication between these two divisions and the Premier's office?
[ Page 1117 ]

[1020]

I would also say that while the differentiation between the two units may have been apparent to the minister's staff. They were less apparent to me, unless what's being said is that they both involve engagement and outreach to the public. One is more direct, and one is more on line.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member's asked me to refute the proposition that there are lines of communication to the Premier's office.

I suppose I can harken back to my own days as a deputy. Any and all deputies have relationships with the Premier's office in that they work through the Deputy Minister to the Premier and are occasionally called upon to visit with the Premier and to advise the Premier's office of what's going on. That's part and parcel of any deputy minister's function, and of course, that applies to this ministry like any other.

Secondly, the differentiation between the two functions — what I'll call Mr. Fraser's operations of the direct broadcast communications, if I can call it that, and the more on-line functions under Mr. Schlosar. It turns out, of course, that there are a number of aspects to this.

There's the service function within government that Mr. Schlosar's office in strategic initiatives performs, which is to assist all ministries to optimize their on-line communication with the general public. Of course, there are many, many functions in government that are increasingly going on line. So they are part and parcel of that and their service function throughout government.

Secondly, they do participate in direct contact with the government, especially within the rubric of public engagement. Thirdly, they provide technical back-office functions throughout government, and that, of course, is a logical extension of what my ministry does more generally.

It's just been thought that the reporting lines might be more effective if Mr. Schlosar's function was transferred over to report to Deputy Minister Mentzelopoulos, rather than reporting to Deputy Minister Jacobson.

Of course, this analysis applies in large part to the traditional communications function under Mr. Fraser as well in that they also perform a service function throughout government, assisting all ministries with the necessary communications — whether it's in Forestry about forest fires or Health about immunization.

They, obviously, are involved in what I'll call the broadcast, direct communication with the public. They would have a much-reduced function in terms of technical back office, but of course, there are issues related to the technical aspects of modern communication which they would be responsible for.

The two elements of this function under, respectively, Mr. Schlosar and Mr. Fraser are in many ways complementary and increasingly should be so, so that citizens get the optimal communication at the optimal time in a fashion that they will actually receive and understand and hopefully act upon.

This reorganization was simply to recognize that the world is heading in that direction, and a communications function, no matter what mode it is accomplished by, is best organized within a communications deputy minister's mandate.

[1025]

G. Heyman: In Mr. Fraser's operation is there any aspect of the public engagement which involves data collection? If so, what happens to the data that is collected?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The organization we'll call the Fraser organization for brevity and simplicity has been active in interactive work on the B.C. jobs plan. There are a number of interesting bits of information that I can relate on that. This deals with interactive work on prospective areas of employment, skills development and how skills development should be built upon.

For example, there were 286,000 viewers of the bcjobsplan.ca site, 717,500 page views and 14,900 downloads. Of course, there were some interactive phenomena there as well — 40,448 referrals from that website to the workbc.ca website for specific job search and career tools. There were linkages to other sites as well.

There were also what would be colloquially called conversations that were elicited on that website that provided for an ongoing monitored conversation between the participants to direct them toward specific job tools or opportunities and to talk more generally about skills development in the province of British Columbia.

This was an extensive exchange that went on. The metrics I've summarized here were developed from that exchange, but no database was developed. It was simply data collection so that it could be measured to provide these kinds of statistics.

G. Heyman: In the interest of brevity, I would just…. I'm not sure if the minister meant that to be the one and only example of data being collected or just an example. I would ask that the ministry provide me with an itemized list of any other instances where data was collected, how the data was utilized, to whom it was provided within government and for what purpose and, if this was the only example, to just give me the response for this particular example with respect to the jobs plan.

[1030]

I'd now like move on to the issue of open government. Mr. Schlosar recently gave a presentation to the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, and in the presentation he cited the government's routine release of expense information as an example of government's openness and embrace of open data, despite the fact that all that is actually released is a monthly total for ministers.

Since last October the Alberta government has been
[ Page 1118 ]
making available comprehensive travel, accommodation, meals and hospitality expenses, complete with information on each event, and this applies not just to cabinet but also to political staff as well as all senior officials who are appointed by order-in-council in Alberta.

My question is: is the B.C. government contemplating following Alberta's lead? If there are any discussions to this end or any plans to do that, what is the time frame?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The disclosure on websites, for the large part, of the activities of elected officials is an evolving story. I think we're all aware that the Obama administration decided to post the President's daily calendar on the White House website, and Alberta has been engaging, along with some other jurisdictions, in the publication of expenses in a more detailed way. I remember my own time when I was the Intergovernmental Relations deputy minister. Alberta in 2002 was publishing the Premier's travel expenses in a summary form.

This is an evolving story throughout the English-speaking democracies. It always has to be balanced, of course, with the productivity of disclosing things. I don't think we want to get into parking receipts. Also, the security concerns. We know that it's all well and good for the President of the United States to disclose his daily calendar, because he's surrounded at all times by a heavily armed entourage of Secret Service people. Security has already been anticipated.

There has been advice received from the sheriff services office here in British Columbia about the propriety of disclosing information, and that is taken into account in the degree of disclosure. But this is an evolving story, and I don't think we can expect the current degree of disclosure to remain static. It will continue to evolve.

G. Heyman: I thank the minister for the response. I simply note that today Commissioner Denham has issued a report that is, in fact, critical about the limited nature of disclosure that the government currently provides of expenses, calendars, contracts of both ministers and deputy ministers. I assume the minister will have some discussions with the commissioner about this, and I would ask that we be kept apprised of the nature of those discussions and plans as they unfold.

Let me move on to a question about freedom of information. The 10,000-plus documents that were collected for the Dyble investigation were posted on the Open Information website in June.

[1035]

My question is: was the severing of those documents done under the freedom-of-information act by professional freedom-of-information analysts? If not, who oversaw the severing, and what criteria were provided to that person under which they conducted the severing?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the member notes, in June of this year there were 10,000 redacted documents posted on the open government website. Those were the severed documents that were reviewed by the Dyble group in producing its report.

Those documents went through the normal course severance process under the statutory and regulatory framework and were severed and redacted by professional staff in the normal course. They put the full resources of that working group available to that task so that it could be done in timely fashion, because it was a large task. It was done in the completely normal course by the professional civil service staff who do this for a living.

G. Heyman: The 2012-13 budget for strategic initiatives was $16.826 million. In the February pre-election budget the amount set aside for this unit was also about $17 million, almost twice the amount in the current budget.

My question is: what is the reason for the reduction, and what specifically is being removed from the service plan that would have been funded by the money otherwise removed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The budget information that I have is of $16.676 million, and the amount transferred, or at least allocated with Mr. Schlosar, was $9.992 million — the difference being $6.26 million in a Knowledge Network grant and $424,000 for four FTEs who remained in their traditional or prior positions with the other part of the ministry because their roles were more technically related, and they were thought to be better placed with their original working groups.

G. Heyman: I have some questions for the minister with respect to citizen engagement work done over the past year, but we have not a lot of time today, particularly because, I assume, we'll be adjourning at five o'clock to move into the House. So there are a number of questions I'm going to read that I'd appreciate a written response to in some reasonable time frame.

How many contracts were awarded for public consultation and/or citizen engagement in the past year? To which companies or individuals were they awarded? How many were direct awards and for how much per contract?

Additionally, does the citizen engagement group do electronic town halls? Is it responsible for the B.C. b-sides website, which provides good-news stories about the government? If the answer to this is yes, how many staff are devoted to maintaining this website?

Is it this unit that does the jobs plan website, or is that in the Jobs Ministry? Is it this unit that is responsible for the Premier's Facebook page, or is that maintained from the Premier's office? What other work, if any, does this unit do on behalf of the Office of the Premier?

[1040]

Finally, of the $9.992 million budget, how much is
[ Page 1119 ]
spent on the citizen engagement aspect of the ministry?

A question for now: is the government's polling budget accounted for under strategic initiatives?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Polling is not part of Mr. Schlosar's strategic initiatives office. Any budget allocation for it is in the $16.3 million blue book fund provided for the main advertising budget.

I should just make it clear that that $16.3 million budget is for the previous fiscal year, not for the upcoming fiscal year — if I understand that correctly.

G. Heyman: Pardon my unfamiliarity with some aspects of these budget envelopes, but where would this main advertising budget reside? Is it under the responsibility of the minister at all?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: On page 160 of the estimates blue book there is the estimates item for 2013-14 of $26.155 million, which includes reference to research, planning, coordination and delivery of communications programs. I'm advised that within that sum there's an allocation under the famous STOB 67 of $8.538 million. That includes the sums applicable over a number of ministries for the issues the member has asked about.

G. Heyman: In that case, I'd ask three questions, which I would appreciate receiving a written response to at some convenient time, but not too far in the distant future. How much was spent on polling in 2012-13 from this ministry compared to the previous year? What polling, if any, was done for the Office of the Premier? And how much is budgeted for…? Well, you've told me how much is budgeted for this year.

[1045]

The information and publications expenditure spreadsheet that was released with the public accounts this week states that the B.C. jobs plan public information campaign and research spend was funded from government contingencies and puts the $11-million-plus budget under GCPE instead of the Jobs Ministry. The same spreadsheet indicates that individual ministries, including the Jobs Ministry, have advertising spends attributed to specific ministries.

Why was advertising money held in contingencies before the election and, in the case of the $11 million jobs plan ad campaign, put into government communications and public engagement in the June budget? What's the rationale for moving the jobs plan ad spending out of the Jobs Ministry's own budget?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to clarify my previous answer, the $8.538 million budget for advertising in this coming fiscal, 2013-14, consists of $3.537 million within my own ministry, and the remainder is allocated across other ministries such as Finance, Education, Advanced Education and so forth. I hope that clarifies that answer.

In terms of last year's budget and the $11.09 million drawn from contingency to provide for publication of the B.C. jobs plan and the items that I referred to earlier in terms of the heavy engagement with that program, that was a cross-government initiative, and so it wasn't allocated within a particular ministry prospectively in the 2012-2013 budget. It was drawn from contingencies during that fiscal year and appears, of course, in the public accounts for last year.

G. Heyman: I find the response interesting. I would have thought that the jobs plan would have been the responsibility of the Jobs Ministry. One could argue that virtually any initiative is a cross-government initiative. But you have a Jobs Ministry. You have a jobs plan. I would have thought there would have been money in the budget to advertise the jobs plan within that ministry, but apparently the government had a different idea.

I'm going to ask a series of questions now. How many FTEs from GCPE were involved in the jobs plan campaign, and how many of these staff are or were in regular contact with the Jobs Ministry? How many focus groups took place for the jobs plan campaign? Were the results from the focus groups shared with the B.C. Liberal Party before the election campaign?

Can the minister please provide in writing the following information on focus groups: what questions were asked of the participants, and in what locations were the focus groups? As I said, that information could be provided later. And who signed off the Treasury Board submission for jobs plan spending?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: If I'm to understand, those are written responses you're seeking. I'm not sure I have all of that information available at my fingertips.

G. Heyman: I specified particularly that the questions about the participants and the location of the focus groups could be in writing, within a reasonable amount of time. Given the other staff who are waiting to help with questions in their areas of responsibility, if there are any answers that can be given now, I'd appreciate them. Regardless, a full answer in writing, at some point, for those questions not answered today would be appreciated.

[1050]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I apologize for being unclear last time as to how much of an oral response you wanted. I've nailed a few things from staff. The first item is that the jobs plan campaign was a cross-government initiative, as it did involve issues such as natural gas, skills training, advanced education and many other sectors.

The staff complement allocated to it is not clear right now because they do work on multiple tasks. But we'll
[ Page 1120 ]
provide you, to our best knowledge, with an FTE count, if we can call it that, of perhaps the annual or hourly count of the people in the GCPE and how much time they spend on it. We don't have that available at this time, but we can provide that to you.

Finally, there were 31 focus groups involved. In July 2012 there were eight focus groups conducted across B.C. — Vancouver, Coquitlam, Prince George and Kamloops. They explored the types of information the public would like to receive from the provincial government regarding the economy.

There were, further, three public focus groups in Vancouver in September of 2012 related to perceived provincial government actions related to the economy and whether the intended advertising campaign was clear in its content.

Ten focus groups were conducted in British Columbia in October 2012 in Vancouver, Kamloops, Coquitlam and Prince George, with the objectives being to determine the effectiveness of the campaign at the household level as well as to hear public priorities with respect to the campaign.

In December 2012 two further focus groups were conducted in Coquitlam to once again determine if the media profile of the campaign was the subject of any confusion or misunderstanding or misinterpretation — basically, trial runs.

And in January of 2013 eight focus groups were conducted in Vancouver, Kamloops, Prince George and Coquitlam, the objective being to gauge impressions of different approaches to presenting similar information to see which were the most effective in communicating the jobs plan priorities to the population of British Columbia.

G. Heyman: I'll be happy to receive any additional remaining response to the questions in writing at a future date, including perhaps the specific questions. I'm sure those can be provided. I would add to the questions that I asked with respect to this: were the results of the focus groups shared with any third party whatsoever? What languages, if any other than English, were these focus groups conducted in? And specifically which ones?

I'd now like to move on to another aspect. The previous Jobs Minister, Pat Bell, stated that the intent of the campaign, obviously, was to attract jobs and investment to B.C. and told the House in the previous parliament that advertising dollars would be taken out of contingency, with the majority of the jobs plan advertising campaign focused on international, not domestic, markets.

The current Jobs Minister said the other day in estimates — Tuesday, specifically: "The primary focus of the campaign was actually domestic." Then she added: "I'm advised that the focus of the campaign shifted to look at the domestic market."

[1055]

My questions are: can the minister tell the House when the decision was made to shift the focus of the ad campaign to British Columbia, and who made this decision? Did it go to Treasury Board? Did it go somewhere else? Who made it? How much was spent domestically and how much on international advertising in the jobs campaign? What was the total amount of money for advertising that was taken from the contingencies budget in 2012-13? Is all of that spending now under GCPE?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that I'm going to provide this answer in reverse, essentially. There is no budget in this fiscal year for communication of the B.C. jobs plan at this stage.

The second point is that the access to contingencies into last year was all disclosed in the public accounts two days ago. In fact, that was access-to-contingency funding.

In terms of the international content, there was exposure in some publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the Economist obviously drawing international attention to the opportunities in British Columbia which would lead to employment. There was also a communications presence at border crossings and at the Vancouver Airport, which is something that I can testify is done extensively by law firms as they seek to attract the attention of travellers.

There was a doubling of the international presence in key markets for British Columbia through international offices and the like. We promoted our Asia-Pacific Business Centre in Vancouver as a way of attracting investment.

The primary focus, yes, was domestic. But that, of course, focuses on growth of domestic demand and consumer confidence, which is obviously critical for economic success. There also was an international component in terms of attracting foreign direct investment.

G. Heyman: Well, I appreciate the answer, but I didn't claim that there was no international component whatsoever. I did specifically ask why the past Jobs Minister had claimed that the focus would be international in nature and the current Jobs Minister said that the focus was actually domestic in nature. My question specifically was: why was that change in mandate made, and who made it?

Also — and I'm quite happy to have this in writing at some point: how much specifically was spent domestically and how much specifically was spent internationally?

[1100]

If it was appropriate to have jobs plan advertising in GCPE because it was a cross-government initiative in the last year, why is it not appropriate that it be in GCPE this year? Why was that decision made? That question I would be happy to take an answer on now.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The international-domestic balance in this, of course, depended on the state of markets and what was available in terms of advertising opportun-
[ Page 1121 ]
ities and effectiveness.

Secondly, in terms of the access to contingencies, that's because it was a governmentwide initiative involving a wide number of ministries. So it did not reside in the 2012-13 blue book estimates for this ministry, and it was brought in as part of contingencies on a governmentwide basis.

Lastly, I'm sorry. I think the answer escapes me, as to what your question was. But there is no allocation of jobs plan advertising within my ministry at this point in this fiscal year.

G. Heyman: Well, I don't want to flog a dead horse, but the question was actually: why was it appropriate last year and not this year? With respect, some people, lacking further clarification of this question, might just presume that last year was an election year, this coming year is not an election year, and there was an interesting parallel track between government jobs plan advertising and much other advertising that we saw from the Liberal Party.

I have one more question that I'd like to receive a response from in writing — not today, in the interests of time. How many contractors are used by GCPE, and what services are they contracted to provide? Have any of these contractors also done work for the Liberal Party? If that is the case, what measures were taken by the ministry to ensure that there was no overlap or mixing whatsoever of the work?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I'd now like to move into the communications and media relations part of GCPE. What is the total number of staff in this area, and what is the ministry's hiring process for this unit? For example, what kind of expertise and professional experience are sought and required to fill these positions?

[1105]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The total FTE count in GCPE is now 201, which is a reduction of 121 FTEs from the 2001 count. Of those 201, 150 are involved in media monitoring, media relations, issues management and communications staff within ministries. They are, of course, widely dispersed across government.

The member asked about the hiring process. The process is an open recruitment process whereby external applicants submit a resumé and are considered for openings, as they become available, based on their education, experience and, where appropriate, the results of a written test. This is a skills- and qualification-based open hiring process.

G. Heyman: My apologies to the minister and the minister's staff. I have one more question on advertising, which I'm happy to receive a written response to. In fact, I'd prefer that.

What campaigns is the agency of record for the ministry currently under contract to provide? Can the minister also provide in writing, at some point, how the number of staff breaks down in terms of order-in-council appointments and regular employees? How many individuals are on contract to the ministry to provide communications and media relation services? I'm happy to receive that in writing.

Let me move on, however, to one particular contract. In June the Times Colonist reported that on top of the staff employed for media relations and communications work in GCPE, the government paid $24,000 to former B.C. Liberal caucus communications director Judy Kirk. At the time, the government spokesperson said that there was no employee of GCPE who could do the work. The minister himself said that staff was too busy, because the job was urgent.

Can the minister tell the House who would have signed off on that contract and indicate the process by which it was determined that the need was urgent and that there wasn't in-house capacity to provide media training? Have there been any other similar contracts let since the election?

I'd also note that we learned in Public Accounts this week that Ms. Kirk's company was paid over $1.8 million in contracts in the past year. Could the minister tell the House what those contracts were for and whether they were tendered or awarded directly? I would take that answer in writing.

[1110]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out there has been one other contract let for similar work since the election. That's for emergency management work in light of natural events going on in various places on our continent.

In terms of who signed off on the Judy Kirk contract, it is Denise Champion, who's sitting next to me and has been a government employee for 35 years now. The urgency, I think, was clearly because there was a new cohort of ministers, including me, who required some degree of orientation to the role of communications in light of new government responsibilities.

In terms of internal capacity, the realignment of ministries occurring meant that communications directors were being allocated to ministries with new ministers and required a great deal of orientation and preparation of materials to instruct and bring up to speed their new ministers. While in quieter times there may have been the capacity to do it in-house, at the time it was considered to be an urgency that people like me get up to speed so that we could communicate effectively with the media.

G. Heyman: The large number of staff who are communications specialists in the ministry. There is a deemed
[ Page 1122 ]
urgency. Contracts are let for outside assistance because there's a need to meet the deemed urgency around communications.

I'd like to contextualize this a little bit. We're in a period where we're starting core review 2. The government's looking to cut $30 million from its budget. I'm assuming that the minister's ministry is being asked to find some areas of belt-tightening.

If communications help to new ministers on an outside contract is not deemed part of an area that is open for belt-tightening, what part, if any, of government communications and public engagement, in particular the communications and media relations division, might be subject to core review? Or is it safe?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The terms of reference for the core review process are in evolution. I will look forward to them with great interest to determine whether my own ministry budget will face some scrutiny from the core review team and the process they've embarked upon.

I'm not in a position to answer the question from the member at this point, but I expect that will come clear in the coming months.

G. Heyman: I'm sorry to jump around. I'm going back. I want to make clear that a question that I asked earlier…. I think I said if an answer was available now, I would receive it now, but no answer was forthcoming. I want to clarify that I am expecting a written answer.

[1115]

That was the answer to the question about whether any of the contractors used by GCPE — particularly with respect to the jobs campaign but in any other instance as well — were also contracted by the Liberal Party of British Columbia and, if so, whether and what measures were in place to ensure that there was no intermingling of the work and no conflict of interest.

We've learned recently that Steve Housser, who was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the Cowichan Valley and a former journalist, is now working in GCPE as a manager in strategic planning and events. Can the minister please outline what his duties and terms of employment are? I'd note that the previous person in this position, or a similar position, was paid $85,000 a year.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Mr. Housser, I am advised, is a public relations communications professional with decades of experience. He is currently providing project management and coordination to the corporate director of events management. It's a short-term contract which runs to the end of August.

G. Heyman: Does the ministry expect to extend this contract, reissue this contract, tender this contract or reinstate the position that once existed before this contract was tendered, or not awarded?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm happy to advise that the value of the contract is well below the $25,000 threshold for tendering and that the procurement rules have been followed completely. Certainly, if there were any extension or if the contract somehow was thought to be in need of expansion to go beyond $25,000, it would be tendered.

G. Heyman: Can the minister please inform me about any plans to have communications directors from ministries moved out of government communications and public engagement to be located directly in ministers' offices?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I understand that the role of the communications director is thought to be better implemented by supporting ministers on government issues. The ministers need close interaction with the communications directors, and they're called upon to represent government on a wide range of issues. The issues arise, of course, in their portfolios, sometimes shared with another ministry, and may have regional impacts in the province.

[1120]

The communications directors have always provided communications advice on a variety of government issues. Certainly, I remember in my era as a deputy they were located up at the Jack Davis Building at 1810 Blanshard Street, which was a very inconvenient place in terms of interaction with ministers.

Nowadays, the idea is to formalize the job description to make it crystal clear. The communications directors continue to be responsible for government work and do not participate in any way in constituency or partisan issues.

The co-location of the communications directors with ministerial offices is proving to ensure much more timely and informal interaction to ensure that communications priorities are dealt with promptly, rather than wondering if someone is about and tracking them down at a remote location or by telephone, which has proven, over the years, to be very inefficient.

They continue to be accountable to this ministry, to GCPE. All of the GCPE staff, including those communications directors, receive clear instructions on the standards of conduct and are required to complete the oath of employment, such that they are acting in the public interest as public servants.

G. Heyman: As the Dyble report pointed out, there certainly was documentation about the blurring of lines between government caucus and the party in the past that was related to work done in communications and by a former communications director.

The minister has stated in the House that all of the recommendations in the Dyble report were accepted and have been implemented. I would ask the minister to pro-
[ Page 1123 ]
vide me and the opposition with the specific directives that were given to communications directors to ensure that in their future activity the recommendations of the Dyble report will be fully adhered to.

On a related issue, I would like to ask the minister about the hiring of former Liberal caucus research director Blair Phelps to the role of communications director for the Ministry of Multiculturalism. My colleague the member for Surrey-Whalley raised these questions in the estimates in that ministry and was directed to ask them here.

Mr. Phelps played a direct role in the quick-win ethnic outreach scheme, and that fact is contained in the government's Dyble report. This was a scheme run in part by former GCPE director of communications Brian Bonney.

Does the minister have a concern, in terms of the government's record on blurring of the lines between government and party business, as evidenced in the Dyble report, when you've now replaced one key player in the quick-win scandal with another key player in the quick-win scandal? If you do have any concern, can you enlighten us about what you've done to address that concern?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Having canvassed this in estimates with the Deputy Premier for a period of almost four hours, I'm prepared to answer questions directly within the remit of this ministry, but beyond that, I have to simply refer you to the answers from the Deputy Premier in earlier estimates.

Mr. Phelps was hired based on his ability to carry out a senior communications role, and he, of course, has signed the oath required of provincial employees and agreed to follow the code of conduct. He is expected to live up to those expectations to the letter. That, of course, is in keeping with the fact that the government has accepted the six recommendations from the Dyble report.

G. Heyman: This is my final question for government communications and public engagement. It's actually my final two questions. It has to do with translation services in government communications and public engagement.

As part of the Dyble investigation, the ADM of communications and media relations, Kelly Gleeson, was interviewed about the possible partisan use of the government's translation resources. Former Citizens' Services deputy Kim Henderson sent a March 5 statement to other members of the Dyble panel stating that "resources for translation services were increased in the spring of 2012" and that "we will need to look at billing to ensure all the work completed was government-related."

[1125]

Can the minister tell us what steps were taken to review these government billings and what the review found in terms of any inappropriate use of GCPE's translation services?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm advised that all of the translation services that the member has inquired about were government-related, and that the ambit of that work is to take publicly issued material — whether it's news releases or otherwise — and put it into languages which are in common use throughout British Columbia.

G. Heyman: In that case, I would ask the minister to make any written record of that review available to us.

My final question. The Dyble report noted…. I'm sure the minister will say that the Liberal Party repaid salary and other compensation that he received that was deemed by the Dyble report to be inappropriate activity for a government employee. The Dyble report clearly pointed out that Mr. Bonney was exploiting public resources for over a year. Those activities were completely unnoticed by his two superiors, ADM Kelly Gleeson and Deputy Minister Mentzelopoulos. They were either ignored or condoned, but in any event, they weren't stopped.

Given that the minister and the government has said that they accept all the recommendations of the Dyble report and that those have been implemented, can the minister tell us what new accountability measures are in place? What sort of review of work undertaken is in place to ensure that this kind of activity is not repeated in the wake of the Dyble report and the quick-win scandals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To address this particular query, the deputy minister of GCPE has met with the communication directors to address the findings and has directed them to do so with their respective staff. The deputy minister issued a communiqué directive to all staff that they review the commitments established in the standards of conduct and the public service oath, which all staff are subject to, and on the limited and only appropriate use of government e-mail and personal computers.

The staff have also been directed to take the Public Service Agency–provided courses on privacy and information-sharing. To the date of this note in April, 94 percent of all GCPE staff had attended a privacy and awareness training session. The deputy minister also met with GCPE staff complements in each respective communications unit to review the report from the Dyble committee and to reinforce the requirements of the standard of conduct and address any questions the staff may have had.

G. Heyman: I would note that I also asked the minister whether, in addition to what measures were taken to ensure that staff were aware of the requirements, there were some measures implemented to increase oversight of staff, because clearly, this inappropriate behaviour escaped the notice of both the deputy and an ADM.

[1130]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm advised that there are now bilateral meetings with each and every member of the GCPE staff every two weeks — those meetings are with the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister — and that there are weekly meetings with the communications directors. There is and has been clear communication of the requirements of the Dyble report during those meetings.

G. Heyman: I'd like to thank the minister and thank the staff of GCPE. I'm about to move on to Shared Services B.C., in particular the information access operations. I probably have about enough questions to carry us to the lunch break and slightly beyond. I'm planning on about 45 minutes.

My first question has to do with use of….

The Chair: Member, could we just break for a bit so that they can change staff if they need?

G. Heyman: Certainly.

The Chair: The committee will recess — three minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:33 a.m. to 11:34 a.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I've been directed by one of the staff to clarify that those bilateral meetings are between the 18 communications directors and the ADM and the deputy, not between all 201 staff members on a bilateral basis.

[1135]

G. Heyman: I'd like to now move to the issue of the use of personal e-mail accounts by cabinet ministers and staff. Both the quick-win scheme and the Burnaby Hospital committee scandal have shown that the government has effectively….

The Information Commissioner would support this and has commented on it — that the use of personal e-mails actually skirts the freedom-of-information laws for communicating about government business and that in fact, when it's communication about government business, it must be accessible. The commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, felt compelled to publish a guide confirming this that in fact personal e-mails are subject to information requests under the FOI Act.

I'd like to ask the minister: in response to both the issues that gave rise to the discovery that private e-mails or personal e-mail accounts were being used for government business and the commissioner's instructions, have any operational directives been given to political staff and to cabinet ministers regarding the use of personal e-mail? If so, what form did this take, and what were the instructions?

Finally, what changes, if any, have been made in how information access operations staff process FOI requests to ensure that personal e-mails are captured?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The use of personal e-mail. It turns out that the very able ADM responsible for FOI has conducted a number of seminars for the political staff, and the content of that presentation is available and can be delivered to the member.

On the second issue, the freedom-of-information process is, of course, on a statutory basis, not limited to what might go into the government e-mail system. But to quote a learned source within the ministry: "It doesn't matter if you write it on your shoe; it's required to be disclosed when the FOI request comes around." So perhaps we should all check our shoes.

G. Heyman: Or at least photocopy the soles of them.

This may be partially covered by your last answer. The commissioner has spoken of a duty to document, and she referred specifically to a marked increase in the number of FOI requesters who were being told by the government that no documents existed. There was no record. Now, this is in part covered by your previous answer. The commissioner actually asked for a meeting with your predecessor.

Can the minister tell me if he has met with the Information Commissioner on implementing a duty for public servants to document their work and decisions in her continued investigation into the increase in "no record" responses that has occurred under this government and/or regarding her investigation into the abuse of personal e-mail accounts?

[1140]

I'd just like to point out that the duty to document refers not to disclosing any and all records that may exist — whether they're government e-mail, personal e-mail or on the soles of our shoes — but to keeping some sort of record of discussions and decision-making.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is an interesting, evolving area. It turns out that, fortuitously, I have had conversations with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on this very issue, and in those conversations, we have recognized that the "no records" scenario is actually part of a much wider policy-based issue about data management in government.

The member may not be aware of this. I only learned this recently. There is a document disposal act — which dates from, I think, 1935 — that deals with the archiving function of government, given the amount of documentation produced by government. Of course, in the last 25 years it has exploded with the use of electronic media and electronic recording systems.

We have embarked upon a policy-based discussion on
[ Page 1125 ]
this issue with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that we can come up with a more cogent and workable approach to management of information and data in government generally, including the archiving function. Of course, that would have ramifications for the freedom-of-information functions as well.

G. Heyman: Just to be clear, would these ongoing discussions also address the duty-to-document issue?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is part of the content of the engagement we're having with the Privacy Commissioner. We both acknowledge that it's a phenomenon that is happening in governments worldwide and that there are a variety of potential responses, some of which may not prove to be workable.

We will, of course, look to international experience to determine what may be the best practice in this area, given that it has not been a phenomenon in any North American legislature to date. But it is an evolving issue around the world. We expect that we will be learning from that and, as I say, working with the Privacy Commissioner to come up with something that is robust and workable, rather than a short-term knee-jerk response.

G. Heyman: Just to close on this issue, I would ask for confirmation that these discussions also encompass — unless the minister believes these have been fully addressed — the issue of use of personal e-mails and whether the Information Commissioner believes that the measures taken are adequate. Finally, if the minister can keep me apprised of the nature of the discussions ongoing to the extent possible.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think that would be a desirable approach, given that this is obviously a long-term phenomenon and we have duties, on both sides of the House, to address this issue. So I would expect to satisfy the member opposite's concern with ongoing contact on this very issue.

[1145]

G. Heyman: I'll move on to a concern that's specific to freedom of information. The opposition caucus was copied on a letter from a freedom-of-information analyst expressing concerns about "a significant degree of interference, manipulation and issues management that pervades the entire FOI process to serve what appears to be a political agenda." The letter was addressed to the Information Commissioner. I know that the minister was also copied on the letter, so I'm sure he's aware of it, but I haven't heard him address the issues raised in the letter.

I wanted to give the minister a chance to put his thoughts about the issues raised in this letter on the record. The analyst talks about FOI staff having been given verbal instructions on how to manage "politically sensitive requests from the media and the opposition" and that staff were also given "direct orders to specifically not create any records during the processing of these politically sensitive requests."

"The fact that requests from the media and political parties continue to be plagued by delay is especially troubling," says the Information Commissioner in her 2010 report on FOI timeliness.

I would ask whether the Information Commissioner has been in direct contact with the minister about these charges. Or has he, on his own, launched any kind of review or investigation or taken any steps whatsoever to investigate these serious and troubling allegations and act on them if he deems them worthy of action?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This letter that came to the attention of the member and others, including the Privacy Commissioner, was not signed. The Privacy Commissioner has a practice of not substantively delving into unsigned, anonymous complaints.

Nonetheless, the Privacy Commissioner has, over the past six months, reviewed 88 of the files within the freedom-of-information process comprehensively and came to the conclusion that each and every one of them was thoroughly and comprehensively managed in compliance with the statute and the regulations. This audit process is ongoing.

[1150]

In terms of timeliness, we have on the public record from the service plan report that last fiscal year there was 87 percent compliance with statutory freedom-of-information response times. There has been adjustment of that over the years. With the centralized processing of freedom-of-information requests — and in order to do it in this thorough, comprehensive fashion, in complete compliance with the legislation — there has been a standardized and rigorous process.

In keeping with the conclusions of the Privacy Commissioner, there has been no political interference. The source or substance of this anonymous complaint remains a mystery.

G. Heyman: I have one more question in this area. I note that the statistics did change after the commissioner's initial report, but the Information Commissioner in March of this year reported that there was a vast increase in the number of "no response" freedom-of-information requests and that this was particularly dramatic in the Office of the Premier.

She said, "The dramatic increase in the Office of the Premier's percentage last year, from 30 percent to 45 percent, was the single biggest cause of the increase" in "no record" responses.

My question to the minister is: what direction, if any, has been provided to the Office of the Premier to
[ Page 1126 ]
assist them in dealing with this dramatic increase in no response that was identified by the Information Commissioner?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I will be brief. When overlapping, duplicative "no record" responses are accounted for across ministries, it turns out that — and this is in keeping with recommendation of the commissioner — we've seen only a 3 percent increase in the "no record" responses over the last four years. That's since 2009-10.

More specifically, the Premier's office is aware of this issue. And as I said earlier, there will be an overall policy approach to this thing in terms of the appropriate methods with which government accumulates and records information — stores, retains, provides access to it. We are in the process of working that up with the Privacy Commissioner.

I'm instructed of the appropriate input to the record at this point. Hon. Chair, I move that this committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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