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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker's Statement

SERVICE OF LEGISLATIVE STAFF AND
MESSAGES OF CONDOLENCE REGARDING
FORMER LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Madame Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. Members. Today it gives me great pleasure to recognize the service of individuals who have worked in this building and are leaving us. On behalf of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, Mario Bedard, sessional corridor supervisor for 11 years of service; Larry Dinn, sessional gallery supervisor for 14 years of service; Charles Timmons, security, 12 years of service; and Frank Walker, who worked in the Sergeant-at-Arms branch for 25 years. I'd ask the House to please acknowledge that service. [Applause.]

Hon. Members, we are also sad to hear of the passing of two of our Sergeant-at-Arms sessional security officers: John Fallifield, who retired in 2013 after seven years with security; and Alex Walls, who worked in security for 15 years. Condolences to their families.

Tributes

PARALYMPIC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS WIN
BY PARKSVILLE-QUALICUM MLA

A. Dix: I want to acknowledge on this side of the House — and I know all members of the House will join me in this — the extraordinary success of the member for Parksville-Qualicum today. Her victory in the 800 metres is a source of pride for Canadians, for British Columbians and all of us as members of the House. We wanted to pass on to her our congratulations. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: I have three introductions today.

[1335]

First of all, I'd like to introduce my constituency assistant. When we do this, we typically say that we have the best constituency assistant in the province. In this case, it's true. Her name is Jennifer Osmar, and she's from Cranbrook. Please help make me…. Help make her feel welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: That's why you need her.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member for Prince George–Valemount says that's why I need a CA.

I'd also like to introduce to the House today John Winter and Dan Baxter, who are up in the gallery somewhere, both from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

Thirdly, there is a young lady in the gallery somewhere. I don't see her, but I know she's up there. Her name is Laura Tennant, and she is the executive assistant to the Premier's chief of staff. She's worked here for us for five years, and she's never actually sat through a question period before. Please help me make Laura welcome.

L. Popham: I have a whole gaggle of neighbours to introduce. I have Deb Bestito, Dave Thibault, Deb Flurry, John Flurry, Diane Waller and Gordon Waller here visiting me today. We had lunch. They haven't seen me since I was elected in 2009, so it's very nice to spend some time with them.

D. Horne: I have someone here in the gallery. Oftentimes we talk about our constituency assistants and our campaign managers. Unfortunately, as the last campaign began my constituency assistant and campaign manager had an accident and was in hospital for three days. I have to say that my lovely wife, who is in the gallery today, stepped in and took over my campaign. I was very pleased with the work that she did and the support that she's given me over 18 years. Larissa Horne is in the gallery, and may the House make her welcome.

H. Bains: In the gallery is a very passionate and, I would say, very respected labour leader and my good friend Bruce Ferguson, who is a special representative and retired council president of Construction and Specialized Workers Union Local 1611. Please join with me and extend a warm welcome to my friend.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Today in the gallery I have three members of the Yamamoto clan from North Vancouver. I have my sister-in-law Brenda Yamamoto — I can't see them, but I'm sure they're here somewhere — and my two nieces: Jennifer, who is 14, and Kami, who is 11. They are budding hockey players and, hopefully, future golf partners. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Holman: I'd like to welcome three visitors from Saanich North and the Islands. In the gallery today are Mr. Kenny Podmore and his wife. Mr. Podmore is a councillor for the Sidney municipality and also their town crier. Also, Alicia Cormier, who is a councillor for Central Saanich municipality, is visiting here today. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

G. Kyllo: I'm very proud to introduce my lovely wife, Georgina, my sweetheart. We've been married almost 25 years. I'm extremely hopeful that not only will I get to
[ Page 1128 ]
the full 25 but that in October, our anniversary, I might get another 25 years.

Love you.

M. Mungall: Up in the gallery is one of this House's best staff people. She's my legislative assistant, Susan Farmer. May the House please make her welcome.

E. Foster: We quite often get up in the House to thank our employees and sometimes friends, but Robert Scherf has been in the building now for 2½ years. He was an assistant legislative assistant when he started. He became a legislative assistant and then was promoted to be the executive assistant in the Whip's office. He's done an outstanding job there for us.

[1340]

He started his career, actually, as the CA for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health informed me that recently Robert took leave and worked on his election campaign. Without question, the toughest job he's had in his political life was getting the Minister of Health re-elected. [Laughter.]

Actually, he did say that to me.

Today is Robert's last day working in the precinct. He is heading for Toronto, the University of Toronto, where he is enrolled in a master of public policy. So if the House could please thank Robert for all his hard work on our behalf and wish him the best of luck in his endeavours.

R. Fleming: I wanted to introduce in the gallery today my constituency assistant, Marni Offman, who has worked for me for the last eight years. You can sympathize with that. Although our office is just 20 blocks or so from this building, this is her first time in those eight years attending question period, so make it a good one.

Next to her is Susan Farmer, who is my legislative assistant along with the member for Nelson-Creston. I would ask the House to make both of these women welcome here today.

Tributes

PARALYMPIC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS WIN
BY PARKSVILLE-QUALICUM MLA

M. Bernier: Most of us in life aspire for greatness. Some of us actually are lucky enough to achieve it. Some achieve it more often than others. I, also, want to acknowledge our member for Parksville-Qualicum. Not only did she achieve greatness; she's done it in fashion and represented us well. This morning, for her 800 metres, she worked hard and broke the Canadian record by almost 15 seconds, which also put her on top of the podium with gold, achieving a world record. So can the House please acknowledge that.

Introductions by Members

M. Bernier: When I think of oil and gas, when I think of mining and when I think of forestry, I think of my districts, and in my districts I think of the district of Chetwynd. It's my pleasure to have in the House today His Worship Mayor Merlin Nichols; the CAO, Doug Fleming; and the director of financial administration, Bill Caldwell, who took some time out of their busy lives up in the northeast of the province to come down and visit us here in the House. So please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: Along with some of my colleagues, I'd like to acknowledge some members of our staff who will soon be leaving us. John Manning was a research officer when I first was elected in 2009. He has served in various capacities and now is a ministerial assistant for the Minister of Health. John is going on to other endeavours, and I wish him the very best.

I also wish Kellie O'Brien very much success as she looks forward to having her first child and going on maternity leave. Would the House please join me in wishing them both the very best of luck.

V. Huntington: I'd like the House to help me to welcome Antony Tsui, who is not only a member of my youth advisory council but is joining my office as an intern over the summer. I'd like the House to welcome him to the precinct.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today is Tracy Menzies. She generously lends her husband to me in his capacity as ministerial assistant and perhaps is more generous than she cares to be on the time front. Accompanying her, fulfilling the hopes, dreams and aspirations of children across British Columbia on a warm July afternoon, are their kids, Rebecca and Kaylee, and Kaylee's friend Sophie McMillan. I know there is no place that Tracy, Rebecca, Kaylee and Sophie would rather be than right here amongst us. Please make them feel welcome.

[1345]

By-Election Results

Clerk of the House:

July 23, 2013

Hon. Linda Reid, MLA
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Room 207
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4

Dear Madame Speaker:

On June 11, 2013, this office received your warrant advising of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Ben Stewart, member for the electoral district of Westside-Kelowna.
[ Page 1129 ]

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a writ of election for the electoral district of Westside-Kelowna on June 12, ordering that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy. The writ specified general voting day to be July 10.

The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writ of election has been returned to me.

In accordance with section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby certify the following individual to be elected to serve as a Member of the Legislative Assembly: Christy Clark, for the electoral district of Westside-Kelowna.

Sincerely,
Keith Archer, PhD
Chief Electoral Officer
British Columbia

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the result of the election of the member be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VANCOUVER PRIDE PARADE AND
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM

S. Chandra Herbert: Sunday, August 4, marks Vancouver's annual pride parade. Pride is a protest against discrimination and hatred and a celebration of how far we've come.

Gay, lesbian, bi and trans British Columbians have faced legislated discrimination for many years. They've been sent to prison; lost their jobs, housing and their kids; and faced outright verbal attacks by Premiers, members of B.C. and Canadian governments. But our community stood strong and reached out.

The fight against discrimination and for equality really took off in Vancouver in the early '70s. The Gay Alliance Towards Equality organized dances, marches and protests. These events evolved into today's pride parade and festival.

Early activists remember having to march with bags over their heads or having to hide behind trees when media or the police showed up, to avoid losing their jobs or ending up in jail. Not many were interested in standing up for gay and lesbian people, but a few brave members did. The NDP member for Vancouver-Burrard, Rosemary Brown, was the first to call for sexual orientation to be added to the human rights code in 1973. In the year I was born, Emery Barnes and Mike Harcourt were the first B.C. elected officials to ever march in a pride parade.

Pride continued to grow and help bring change. In the 1990s sexual orientation was finally added to the human rights code, and same-sex couples won the right to adopt, something my husband, Romi, and I are now working on.

Ten years ago, thanks to leadership from my constituents, we managed to defeat discriminatory marriage laws in the courts and forced the B.C. government to recognize love in same-sex marriage. But as we march in pride this year, we know there is more to be done.

We must explicitly recognize transgendered British Columbians in the human rights code, and we must ensure that our schools are safe for all students and take special action for lesbian, gay, bi and trans students, who face some of the worst discrimination. We will march on.

I invite every member of this House to get involved in their local pride celebrations and to come join us in the Vancouver Pride Parade. Happy pride.

PAINTED CHAIR PROGRAM FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS

L. Larson: I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you about a partnership between Community Living B.C. and a local service provider, Hovanes Community Services, in my home, Oliver. This is a new local success story.

The program is called the Painted Chair. The employees are all adults with developmental disabilities. These adults have a wide range of disabilities, requiring extra volunteers and staff and families to help with this venture. It is funded by Community Living B.C., and all of the profits go to the adults who participate in the program. This does not compromise any assistance they may already be receiving.

The adults and staff work together on refinishing individual pieces of simple wood furniture. They sand the furniture and repaint it in bright colours. They also clean and repair slightly used clothing. They work Monday to Friday, and on Wednesdays and Saturday mornings they open to the public to sell their refinished furniture and other items, giving them the opportunity to interact with the public at large.

[1350]

These adults are being taught transferable job skills that they can take to other areas of the community. They also have an opportunity to supplement their disability pensions. Their families are very grateful for this assistance in helping these challenged adults to enrich their lives. This program is only a few months old, and already there's a new-found pride and sense of accomplishment, which is evident by the smiles on their faces.

Thanks to Community Living B.C. for partnering with a local service provider in this innovative initiative to make the lives of adults with disabilities more productive and fulfilling.

HEPATITIS AWARENESS AND PREVENTION

S. Hammell: Hepatitis affects everyone, everywhere. "Know it, confront it, and get tested." This is the unofficial
[ Page 1130 ]
motto for World Hepatitis Day. The 63rd World Health Assembly has recognized Sunday, July 28, as World Hepatitis Day in order to enhance public awareness and education, reduce stigma, foster tolerance, acknowledge those affected and to explore ways to better address hepatitis B and C in the future.

British Columbia has the highest hepatitis B and hepatitis C infection rates in Canada. The appalling reality is that almost 60,000 British Columbians are living with hepatitis B, and 80,000 are living with hepatitis C. Many aren't even aware they have hepatitis and unknowingly pass it on to their children.

I firmly believe that education and knowledge are the keys to prevention. I'm proud to announce that Keys Housing and Health Solutions Society — formerly the South Fraser Community Services Society — located in Surrey is hosting its fourth annual World Hepatitis Day tomorrow, July 26, at Positive Haven.

So 500 million people are living with chronic hepatitis B and C worldwide, but despite the huge burden, there is widespread ignorance of the diseases. Hepatitis is often known as the silent disease and may not present symptoms until one's liver is severely damaged, and that process may take decades.

We are blessed to live in a country with universal health care. I urge everyone to take part in the activities and spread awareness, and to get tested for hepatitis.

DIABETES SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
OF NEL PEACH

G. Kyllo: Any time an MLA in this House is asked what makes their home riding great, I have no doubt that one of the first things that comes to mind is people — local residents who exemplify kindness, generosity and dedication to their community.

In Salmon Arm we're lucky to have Petronella Peach. Nel Peach is known as a volunteer extraordinaire. Diagnosed with diabetes 30 years ago, she's used her experience to become a passionate advocate for people with diabetes, bringing attention to the issues they face on a daily basis.

I'll give you a rundown of some of the activities that Nel has been involved with. She's a tireless volunteer for the Canadian Diabetes Association. She has served as the regional chair for the association's interior B.C. region. She's been one of the top fundraisers for the association's interior Summer Surge. She's also been an impressive fundraiser for Team Diabetes and has run several of their national and international marathon events.

She's an active public speaker, sharing her diabetes journey with others. In 2010 she carried the Olympic torch in Salmon Arm, nominated for the honour by my MLA predecessor, Mr. George Abbott.

She's won numerous accolades, including the Queen's Diamond Jubilee; and the Canadian Diabetes Association's Regional Service Award and National Volunteer Award.

Did I mention that this hard-working, determined, young, inspiring member of my community turned 73 years old today? In keeping with her generous spirit, Nel is throwing a birthday party this weekend, but instead of gifts, she'll collect donations for her next Team Diabetes event in Amsterdam on Sunday, October 20.

I want to wish Nel Peach a very happy birthday and thank her for her tireless efforts to raise awareness and funds to support the diabetes community. Nel is truly amazing, and I wish her all the best as she continues to make positive contributions to our local community.

[1355]

COMMUNITY SPIRIT IN BURNABY

J. Shin: Hon. Members, as you know, life changes in an instant, and some changes are painful and come more trying than others. It can be that one missed shoulder check while changing lanes. It can be a notice on the board at work of the pending mass layoffs, and you're one of them. It can be a phone call from a family doctor about your test results, which had been the case for me.

Just like that, life as you know it is no longer the same. But the beautiful thing about these tribulations is that they often bring out the best in us, in each other. It can be a young family in Burnaby that celebrated the one-year anniversary of their baby girl Lauren Arneill's life-saving heart surgery by holding a garage sale for the hospital last Saturday. It can be a group of friendly neighbours in my riding's Montecito Towers toasting to the opening of their brand-new community swimming pool.

From a Bosnia-Herzegovina community hosting their second annual summer festival last month to the city inviting the symphony orchestra for the 25th year to Burnaby–Deer Lake for thousands of residents to share together our love for arts and culture, Burnaby is bustling with diversity and community spirit.

We are home to over 30 registered charities and non-profit organizations, from Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion to Dixon Transition Society. Volunteerism and activism are not what we have to remember to celebrate in Burnaby, because it has become our usual way of life.

I'm tremendously grateful to be a part of this wonderful culture that I witness and live every day. As the summer legislative session comes to an end, I'm excited to return home and do my small share in paying it forward.

On behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed, I would like to thank all the members of the House for your public service and wish everyone a happy summer of festivities back in your communities.
[ Page 1131 ]

WALK WITH THE DRAGON FUNDRAISER
BY SUCCESS ORGANIZATION

R. Lee: On Sunday over 13,000 enthusiastic participants joined SUCCESS for their 28th annual Walk with the Dragon in Stanley Park. The Walk with the Dragon is SUCCESS's largest fundraiser of the year, this year raising over $400,000 to support the wide range of programs delivered by the organization. Beginning at Lumbermen's Arch, the colourful 30-metre dragon led participants on a seven-kilometre walk along the scenic seawall.

The festivities also included lots of family fun, with live entertainment, food booths, carnival games and lucky draws. Amongst the thousands of participants was our Premier, showing support for the great work SUCCESS does for communities in B.C.

I, too, would like to extend my congratulations and gratitude to this wonderful organization for their great success on Sunday and for all that they do to help youth, families and, particularly, new immigrants in need here in B.C.

SUCCESS is comprised of three registered charities, one limited-liability social enterprise and one of British Columbia's largest social services agencies.

Celebrating over 40 years of service, SUCCESS and thousands of their volunteers have assisted communities throughout the Metro Vancouver area and Fort St. John. SUCCESS provides a wide range of social services, including settlement, employment, health, housing, and community and social development.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating SUCCESS on a wonderful 28th annual Walk with the Dragon and to show support for the tremendous work this organization continues to do for our communities.

Oral Questions

NEW FERRY CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPORT
FOR B.C. SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

A. Dix: Earlier this week B.C. Ferries announced it would be proceeding to buy three new intermediate-class ferries to replace the Queen of Burnaby and the Queen of Nanaimo. My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. What assurances can he provide that these ferries will be built in British Columbia?

[1400]

Hon. T. Stone: The government absolutely supports the creation of jobs in B.C.'s shipbuilding industry. In fact, this government has done a tremendous amount over the last couple of years that has led to a new renaissance of the B.C. shipbuilding industry.

That being said, it is important, also, to understand that this government is balancing its budget this year and is going to ensure that on a go-forward basis, we are respecting the taxpayers' dollar at every opportunity we get.

B.C. Ferries has its own procurement process. We are going to respect B.C. Ferries' procurement process. We understand that B.C. Ferries, as they go through their procurement, is going to balance the desire that I think we all have to create jobs here in British Columbia with ensuring that we're getting the best possible value for B.C. taxpayers.

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

A. Dix: It was the Premier who said in the fall of 2011 that ferries in B.C. would be built in British Columbia. Now, apparently, B.C. jobs come number two.

I'll tell you where we stand. We believe in B.C. workers, we believe in B.C. companies, we believe in the B.C. shipbuilding industry, and we believe these ferries should be built right here in British Columbia.

I mean, it was only yesterday, hon. Speaker…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …that the Minister of Jobs said: "We expect British Columbians to be the first priority and the first in line." So here's a chance to show it. Here's a chance to show it.

Will the minister say today that these ferries will be built right here in British Columbia by B.C. workers?

Hon. T. Stone: The Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite yet again completely fail to demonstrate any understanding of what it takes to build a world-class, competitive industry in British Columbia. I certainly am not going to be lectured by the members opposite on how to create jobs. This government brought in a jobs plan two years ago, and 50,000 jobs have been created in British Columbia as a result of that plan.

I'll remind the members opposite that the last major procurement of ferries, the C-class ferries, actually came in $30 million under budget, and they were on time, which is good value for taxpayers.

Finally, it is a fact that this government insisted on getting good value, best value for the taxpayers' dollar, which is why we have a shipbuilding industry here in British Columbia that is competitive and that can compete on the world stage.

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

A. Dix: I know the government's position. I know their position: "We build a few more ferries in Germany, and our shipbuilding industry will be really great." I mean,
[ Page 1132 ]
you either believe in the industry, or you don't believe in the industry. You either believe we should build ships in British Columbia, or you don't. And before the election the Premier said just that. Now, after the election, the government is saying a different story, hon. Speaker — a different story.

An Hon. Member: We're not afraid to compete.

A. Dix: With the record of overruns by this government…. They yell about overruns. With the record of overruns in this government, they should be afraid to compete. The fact of the matter is our workers….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1405]

A. Dix: The government asks itself whether we're having a discussion about B.C. Ferries. Social Credit Premiers, NDP Premiers and, up to this government, Liberal Premiers believed in using our ferry system to build a shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.

Our workers can do the job. Our companies can do the job. Will this government commit today to building every one of these ferries right here in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, let's refresh everyone's memory here for a moment, shall we. The last time the members opposite were in power and they had an opportunity to revitalize B.C.'s shipbuilding industry, what exactly did they do? They said they would build fast ferries, and they would be built for $70 million, "right down to the cost of the toilet paper" — $70 million all in.

At the end of the day, what did British Columbians get? We got fast ferries that were really never used, at a cost of $463 million. The last time these fast ferries were seen, they were on a barge on the way to Abu Dhabi.

Our government recently negotiated a deal with Seaspan to assist it with a federal contract. That federal contract, which was awarded to B.C. shipbuilding, is going to result in an $8 billion investment in our industry here. That's because of this government.

G. Holman: So it's fine for the federal government to build ships in British Columbia but not okay for the B.C. government to do that. A jobs plan that has resulted in negative 30,000 private sector jobs in British Columbia — that's a plan. The Premier talked about B.C. building ferries for the world, but the reality is the world is building ferries for British Columbia. Three ferries built in Germany at a cost of $540 million, and now the prospect of more ferries being built elsewhere, also forgoing all of the spinoff benefits to the B.C. economy.

In the estimates for the Transportation Minister, it became clear that there isn't even a criterion in the procurement process that considers where the ferries will be built, and the Jobs Minister admitted that the government has done no analysis whatsoever of the potential economic benefits of building ferries here in British Columbia.

Let's not forget that B.C. Ferries is moving to design standardization, which means whichever shipbuilder gets the contract has the advantage for future ferries. That means if B.C. doesn't get in on the ground now, it won't have these contracts in the future.

My question to the minister is: will he stand up for workers and their families in B.C.'s shipbuilding industry and tell B.C. Ferries that these vessels need to be built here?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, it's nothing short of galling, yet not surprising, that the members opposite have no faith whatsoever in the ability of B.C.'s shipbuilding industry to compete on the world stage. B.C.'s shipbuilding industry is going to be able to compete in this procurement process. B.C. Ferries has opened it up worldwide.

[1410]

I think all members of this House would hope that B.C. companies or Canadian companies would be successful in their bids, but we're going to let the procurement process run its course. And you know what? This side of the House has full confidence in the ability of the B.C. shipbuilding industry to compete on an equal playing field with all other companies in the world.

G. Holman: So does this side of the House. I'll remind the minister that government has no problem interfering with so-called independent entities when it comes to levying a wheelchair tax on the disabled. Interference in that case is fine.

Under the B.C. Liberals, B.C. Ferries is in disarray. Fares have skyrocketed, with a further 12 percent increase planned over the next three years. Ridership is down by 10 percent.

Now to add insult to injury, this Liberal government is going to let B.C. Ferries once again build new vessels elsewhere rather than right here in B.C. It's going to pass up a historic opportunity to build on the federal shipbuilding contract and set our shipbuilding industry on a course to be internationally competitive for generations. It will also pass up on the jobs, the income and the provincial tax revenue benefits that would accrue from building ferries here in British Columbia.

Why is this government turning its back on this opportunity, on the jobs that families would benefit from, from building these ferries here and also from the provincial tax revenues that would be generated by building the ferries right here in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, the best thing that happened to jobs in British Columbia happened on May 14. As you
[ Page 1133 ]
know, hon. Speaker, opportunities like a growing, thriving shipbuilding industry, like we have here in British Columbia, are exactly the kind of jobs that this government wants to see created.

As I said a moment ago, in the past two years over 50,000 jobs have been created across British Columbia specific to the shipbuilding industry. Since the Seaspan contract was awarded, jobs have gone up by almost 2,000 in B.C.'s shipbuilding industry as they prepare to fulfil one of the largest orders in B.C.'s history. At the end of the day, the members opposite have no ground to stand on whatsoever in lecturing us on this side of the floor about job creation.

We are going to let B.C. Ferries run the course on their procurement, and we are confident that B.C. companies are going to be more than able to compete, moving forward.

B.C. FERRIES INFORMATION ON
FERRY EVACUATION PLANS

C. Trevena: Under the B.C. Liberals, B.C. Ferries have jacked up ferry rates. They've sent shipbuilding jobs overseas for the C-class vessels, and it looks like, from what the minister is saying today, they'd be quite happy to see that happen again.

Not only are they failing to look after the public interests in the economic sense; they're failing to uphold the bare minimum standards for openness. I'd like to ask the Minister of Transportation to explain why a freedom-of-information request about evacuation plans for each individual vessel in the fleet — information about passenger safety, information which is clearly in the public interest — has come back with page after page blanked out.

[1415]

Hon. T. Stone: Obviously, safety is the number one consideration that this government has, that B.C. Ferries has with respect to their vessels. If the member opposite has a concern about a freedom-of-information request that's been brought forward, there is a process to inquire further about that directly with B.C. Ferries.

I will say that moving forward, as B.C. Ferries determines its procurement process that has just begun a couple days ago, they are going to…. The number one priority is safety; the number two priority is reliability. We would hope that there's also some consideration of a cleaner fuel for propulsion.

At the end of the day, as I've said several times here today, we are hopeful that B.C. shipbuilders will compete and will compete strongly in this procurement process.

Madame Speaker: The Member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The minister is responsible for B.C. Ferries. I'm talking about the current fleet, some vessels of which are almost 50 years old. Because the minister is clearly not aware of the freedom-of-information request, which is readily available on B.C. Ferries' website, I'd like to give him examples.

The Powell River Queen. I cite interest there. It's one of the minor routes. I travel on it regularly. Under "General description" it says: "The vessel is fitted with" — blank — "ESS slide systems" — blank. Point 2 is blank. Point 3 is blank — "rescue boat" — blank. "In charge evacuation" — blank.

On page 8, "Special needs passengers must be identified at the beginning of the emergency and" — blank.

The Coastal-class, those expensive German vessels — page after blanked-out page. "Abandon ship" checkoff is blank.

The Spirit-class. Let's look at evacuation at sea. Again, I quote: "When the vessel is at sea and a developing emergency necessitates the evacuation of the vessel, the following plan shall be used as guidance for the orderly evacuation of the vessel." Then apart from the words "distribution of life jackets" and "medical assistance," it's all blanked out — even the location of life jackets is blanked out. Perhaps there is no plan.

Madame Speaker: Member, is there a question?

C. Trevena: Yes, there is, Madame Speaker.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Transportation why the evacuation plans for B.C. Ferries are distributed on a need-to-know basis.

Hon. T. Stone: I will say to the member opposite that every member on this side of the floor, as I'm sure everyone in the House, holds the safety of the travelling public on our ferries with the highest regard, and of the highest importance.

I would also like to say that B.C. Ferries operates with the highest safety standards in the world. I want to thank the hard-working men and women of B.C. Ferries who diligently, day in, day out, do everything in their power to ensure that the ferries we travel on are as safe as they absolutely can be.

TAX COMPETITIVENESS
OF FILM INDUSTRY

G. Heyman: Yesterday in estimates the Minister of Jobs responded to concerns that I expressed about the flight of B.C. film and TV production by saying that production numbers were actually heading up this year. Yet industry producers here in British Columbia say that production so far this year is actually down by about 15 percent.

One of the bright spots of hope was the impending
[ Page 1134 ]
production in Vancouver of Fantastic Four. But yesterday that hope for underemployed local film crews was dashed when a studio spokesperson confirmed that the Fantastic Four is moving production from Vancouver to Louisiana, which has a more competitive tax regime.

This government has succeeded in doing what no other supervillain has, and that's to scare away the Fantastic Four.

[1420]

Madame Speaker, the Minister of Transportation has said that this government understands competition and knows how to be competitive. My question to the Minister of Finance is: will he make B.C.'s tax credit regime in the film and television industry competitive with other jurisdictions in North America?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you for the question. It's a source of immense pride, I think — for all British Columbians and members on both sides of the House — how the film and production sector has grown. It has done so, in large measure, because of the talents of the people who work in that industry — some of it very unique, in terms of the skills they acquire. It's something that we are entitled to be immensely proud of.

It's also, in part, attributable to a tax structure that has been created, a form of subsidy for the industry that actually pays back on the basis of the amount of labour costs that those productions incur. In the year ahead we expect that amount to reach $380 million, Madame Speaker. That's 380 million tax dollars from hard-working British Columbians that goes to reimburse companies for the cost of labour associated with those productions. We think it's a sound investment, and it is an investment that has grown dramatically year over year, signalling continued growth in that sector.

It's good news for the province and good news for the sector, but it is not a limitless subsidy that British Columbia taxpayers can afford. We will continue to ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: We're all proud of B.C.'s film and television industry. We're proud of the skills and the infrastructure that have been built. But as this government sits idly by, the B.C. film industry is going up in flames like the Human Torch.

The Fantastic Four promised hundreds of jobs to British Columbia workers. As I'm sure the minister is aware, because this….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

G. Heyman: As I'm sure the minister is aware, because this study has been available for two weeks, the industry just commissioned a study on the economic contributions of film and TV in Canada. It shows a significant number of both direct and indirect small business jobs created by the investment, as well as significant payment in provincial taxes.

B.C. currently has a 27 percent share of production in Canada. The math is pretty simple; it's not hard. And the numbers are impressive — including the fact that the industry returns in British Columbia, if you apply that formula, double the amount of tax credits that the minister referred to. That's a good deal for taxpayers. It's a great economic stimulus and job creator.

My question to the Minister of Finance again: will this minister and this government heed the call of the industry, producers and workers and support B.C.'s job-generating industry with a competitive tax regime, or will the government's message continue to be: "It's clobbering time for the B.C. film industry"?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, holy corporate subsidy, Batman. I always appreciate the commentary from the Boy Wonder over there.

[1425]

I am unaccustomed and have been…. During the course of this debate, I've tried to reconcile what, in some instances, has been a historic aversion to the kind of corporate subsidy that the member now advocates with gusto.

There is no disagreement concerning the benefits that have accrued to British Columbia, the unique talents that have been developed here and the desire to ensure that those talents can be put to work. That's good for B.C. That's good for Canada.

But rather than continue with a process that sees one jurisdiction in Canada competing with another to see how much money we can send to Hollywood, which is precisely what that member is advocating, I believe and the government believes that it makes more sense for us in Canada, in jurisdictions like British Columbia and Ontario, to work together and maximize the benefits of the film and production sector for all Canadians and all British Columbians.

CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE
ASTRONOMY INTERPRETIVE CENTRE

L. Popham: The Centre of the Universe is an interpretive education centre for the Saanich observatory. It helps kindle a love of science in thousands of children and youth every year. It's an irreplaceable tourist attraction and educational resource, and it's set to close in one month.

Given that we need to be doing more to encourage our young people to enter the sciences, can the Minister of
[ Page 1135 ]
Technology and Innovation outline what steps this government has taken to advocate to the federal government to keep the Centre of the Universe open?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have to say it was a real positive sign that the tourism industries continued to see positive growth even after the huge year of the 2010 Winter Olympics, which this side of the House supported.

Year after year this industry has seen continued growth in British Columbia, contributing to our provincial GDP despite the economic challenges we're seeing in the rest of the world.

This government has created Destination B.C. This is a great example where government has listened to the tourism industry and has said that this is an organization that's going to take us to the next step. This is an organization that will ensure that we partner with industry and with government to ensure that this spectacular province is marketed as a visitor destination to the rest of the world.

L. Popham: Houston, we have a problem, if that's the minister's answer.

Canada's renowned astronaut Chris Hadfield has a family member living in Saanich South. She spoke to me this morning about how proud she is that he has helped to inspire so many Canadian children, and she emphasized just how important it is to take every opportunity to promote science to our children, because they are the future.

This is a non-partisan issue. Will the minister work with me and other concerned citizens to press the federal government to reconsider this decision? I have a petition in my office if the minister would like to start by signing it.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Of course we're going to work with our partners in industry and other levels of government to ensure that we maximize potential for tourism in British Columbia.

The provincial tourism strategy is a five-year strategy entitled Gaining the Edge. It will focus on government and stakeholders….

[1430]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Our provincial tourism strategy is a five-year strategy. It's called Gaining the Edge. It will ensure that we focus our attention on ensuring that government, industry and our stakeholders work together to ensure that we grow our revenues in tourism to $18 billion.

Tourism is so important to this government that the Premier has appointed not one but two ministers responsible for tourism in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Krog: I want to table a petition calling upon this House to call on the government of Canada to take steps to proclaim Vancouver Island a province.

D. Donaldson: I'm presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of the Kitwanga valley and nearby communities. It's a petition for high-speed Internet service. It says: "Together we request immediate action to bring this essential service to the people of Kitwanga." High-speed Internet service was promised by the B.C. provincial government, and now, due to a dispute between Telus and the provincial government, it is on hold indefinitely.

G. Kyllo: I'm presenting a petition on behalf of approximately 900 residents of Shuswap. They are encouraging the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the Shuswap Lake integrated planning process, the Ministry of Transportation and the provincial Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources to work together with property owners in the Shuswap to find a way to authorize docks.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: My first duty, lest the staff chase me down: please, Members, as we draw to the close of the day, we are obliged to clean out our desks. It will make the job of the very helpful and diligent staff that much easier.

Before we get to that point, however, there is work to be done — in this chamber, the Committee of Supply, estimates of the Ministry of Health; in the Douglas Fir Room, the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations; and in the Birch Room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Technology.

[1435]

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 2:36 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,403,475,000 (continued).
[ Page 1136 ]

S. Hammell: We'll continue with a few more questions on mental health. The first one I'd like to talk about is the mental health plan. The mental health plan was put into effect in November 2010 — Healthy Minds, Healthy People. It was released then, and there are some very clear goals and objectives to meet over the period of time.

It has had two updates, as I understand it — one in 2011 and one in 2012 — and the 2013 update is yet to be released. Could I ask the minister when that report will be released?

Hon. T. Lake: The ten-year mental health plan — Healthy Minds, Healthy People — undergoes an annual report each year, and the second annual progress report was approved in February of 2013. I have some bullets here, sort of summarizing the second annual progress report. But to the member, there would presumably be a third annual report that would then be approved in early 2014.

[1440]

S. Hammell: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification — not for me. Thank you very much.

There are six fairly clear objectives in terms of the plan. I understand that the two updates were not very specific in terms of the goals and objectives, in terms of achievement. In objective No. 1 there were 68 percent of British Columbians, and you want them to report that they have positive mental health. Can you give me any indication of the progress on that objective to date?

Hon. T. Lake: There were six milestones for achievement to accomplish the three goals that were outlined in the ten-year mental health plan. As the member mentioned, the first goal was to have the number of British Columbians who experience positive mental health to be increased by 10 percent by 2018, and that was after 2008, when British Columbians self-reported that 68 percent experienced positive mental health.

So the goal would be that over that ten-year period, to 2018, we would increase that to 78 percent. We are only two years into the plan at this stage, so we don't tally or do a poll or a census on this particular measure at this point.

Hopefully, as the program is rolled out, the number of British Columbians reporting positive mental health will improve, but we don't have an interim target that is to be achieved at this particular time in the ten-year plan.

S. Hammell: Minister, when do you plan to take that measurement?

[1445]

Hon. T. Lake: In this type of population health study, sometimes the data is achievable through other censuses that are done in the province. If we can't get that data from other information that is provided through other data gathering — in other words, unrelated specifically to this milestone achievement — then we will, in a reasonable period of time through the plan, likely in 2014 or 2015, go and measure this level of positive mental health to assess our success in this area.

We don't have a specific date. But if we can't gather that data through other concurrent information-gathering that is taking place, we will go out and find that information separately in 2014 or into 2015.

S. Hammell: To me, it just doesn't make sense that you have a plan with very specific targets, milestones for achievement. You've laid this plan out over a period of ten years, and you have not identified how you're going to measure the specific milestones that you've set out. You have no idea whether it's through census gathering or through some kind of survey.

It certainly doesn't give anyone very much confidence in the process. My understanding is this plan was published or produced or presented in 2010. We're 2013, three years into it. This measurement should be sitting at 70 percent or somewhere up in there if we're going to get a ten-year 10 percent growth. This is your plan, the plan that you produced. There should be some way within the Health Ministry of measuring the milestones that you published.

The next milestone is: "The number of young B.C. children who are vulnerable in terms of social-emotional development will decrease by 15 percent by 2015." The measurement, as I understand it, was taken in 2008. It's now 2013, two years off from 2015. Have you measured it? Are you close to meeting your goals?

This isn't a criticism. It's just asking for information. You've set a goal. Are you near it? And, if you are not measuring at all, I find that astonishing.

[1450]

Hon. T. Lake: For the record, the first indicator, which is the number of British Columbians who experience positive mental health, that data actually comes from the Canadian community health survey that is carried out every two years. I apologize that we don't have for the member the latest survey, but I can provide that to her directly.

The second indicator is the number of young B.C. children who are vulnerable in terms of social, emotional development. That is taken from the early development index. This is performed at the kindergarten level here in British Columbia every two years. Again, I do not have the latest data available. I can make that available to her at a later date.

These are regular surveys that are done in these areas, so that data should be available to us, and of course, I will ensure that it is available to the member.

S. Hammell: Thank you, Minister. I had assumed that
[ Page 1137 ]
you would expect these questions, given that this is the plan and these are your targets, so I was a bit surprised that the information wasn't coming. I do appreciate you making that effort to give me the information.

I'll ask you one more because it's…. I understand there are six, so I would appreciate being brought up to date on all six. But I will ask No. 3, because it is in 2014, which is just a year away. It says that 10 percent fewer B.C. students — and I find this such an amazing goal, and it's laudable — "will first use alcohol or cannabis before the age of 15" — 10 percent fewer. That was measured originally in 2008. There's a reporting that is on the record that is embedded in this milestone.

I'm wondering, given it's next year that you expect that to be 10 percent fewer B.C. students, if you have any indication of where you are in terms of that goal.

Hon. T. Lake: I agree with the member. This is a very, I would say, impressive goal to reach, because we all know that the earlier adolescents start to begin drinking alcohol or employing the use of cannabis, the more likely they are to have issues lifelong with those substances. So it is important to try and delay as much as possible or prevent entirely the exposure to those two substances, which we know can, if used incorrectly, cause problems for many people.

[1455]

The initial survey, done in 2008 on this indicator, was performed by the McCreary Centre's B.C. adolescent health survey. The other surveys we talked about were done every two years. This one is only done every five years. I understand that the one now that we are relying upon is the 2013 data. It is being analyzed at the moment, Member. We do not have that information and will probably not have all of the information finalized until the spring of 2014.

I am, however, informed by our medical officer of health, Dr. Perry Kendall, that we are trending in the right direction. Whether we can reach that stretch goal of a 10 percent decrease remains to be seen, but I'm told that the indicators look promising at the moment.

S. Hammell: I have many more questions, but I am going to run out of time. There are a couple of others I'd like to mention and maybe a couple I could get you to send to me.

The first one I'd like to touch on is the $18.4 million that is the grant to the Community Action Initiative, I think it is. It comes from a variety of places. If I recall — over a period of time you don't necessarily remember everyone you met with for every reason — I do remember meeting with this particular group. At that time I expressed some concern that the regional distribution of the money, this $18.4 million, was not strong.

In particular — I don't want to sound parochial — I did notice that there was very little spending at that time in the Surrey area. We have challenges in these regions and these areas just as anyone else does. So if the minister would get to me or through…. Well, I'll ask the minister to get to me any kind of breakdown he may have of how that money is spent and whether it is distributed regionally in some kind of way that somewhat recognizes that there is this challenge in all districts.

The other issue that I would like to go back to — I know we've canvassed it before, and I'll just take a minute on it — is the 500 additional addiction spaces that have been promised. We did canvass that quite considerably here. I understand that the money is to be taken from the base budget of the health authorities. I also understand that the health authorities are going to have…. There is an attempt to bend the curve in terms of health care, and that, of course, is quite understandable.

But I do wonder how much the health authorities can absorb promises made outside the table and still deal with the increase in the aging population, which my understanding is, is going to impact about 1 percent on the budget. There is another 1.4 in terms of population. There are a number of other constant hits on the base budget, without additional money for new addiction beds or new money for preventative health or new money from a number of other things that need to come forward or are coming forward from the provincial level.

The consequence, I think, given that you have this kind of Faustian arrangement with keeping the budget firm, having these built-in pressures…. The consequence has to be, it seems, cutting services, unless there are significant savings in terms of other parts of the budget, and I certainly hope that that is successful. But we see, on this side, the beginning of cuts to community services such as the arts spaces project, as well as ACE and a number of other programs.

[1500]

So to ask the question to the minister: does he see in the immediate future a number of cuts to the community-level programs?

Hon. T. Lake: I answered this question yesterday. I'm happy to answer it again. The number of community substance-use beds has increased 196 percent from 2003 with the addition of 1,715 beds, so that's more than 171 beds per year over that ten-year period. Over the next four years we will be adding 500, which would be, on average, 125 a year. We are quite confident, given the funding that will be provided to regional health authorities, that they will be able to meet that goal.

J. Darcy: To the minister: to give you a bit of a break, we will move into issues related to pharmaceuticals.

As the minister is well aware, and as we have discussed in this House, pharmaceuticals continue to be a major cost driver in the health care system, the second-highest cost driver in the system. Certainly, on this side of the
[ Page 1138 ]
House, we have pressed for many years that the B.C. government take a stronger position on generic drug pricing to, at least, match Ontario's. As you have heard me say before, we're certainly pleased that the government has been moving in that direction, and that is certainly beginning to have an impact in driving down drug costs.

Nine months ago, in November of last year, then Health Minister Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid said the provincial savings — this is referring to generic drug pricing — will be reinvested in the B.C. health care system, some of it in PharmaCare.

My first question to the minister is: are the savings from generics being redirected into the health budget as originally promised or into general revenue?

Hon. T. Lake: Any savings that accrue to the Health Ministry, obviously, are utilized by the government as a whole. That is the Finance Minister who is responsible for that, and then the Finance Minister, in creating a budget, allocates a certain amount of money to the Health Ministry. Any savings that we accrue allow us to continue to have increases year over year — over the next three years an additional 2.4 billion new dollars added to the health care budget. Without those savings in pharmaceuticals, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to see those increases of that magnitude in the health care budget.

J. Darcy: I'd asked about a specific commitment that the previous Health Minister had made in this regard. You're saying that that's not necessarily the case? The money might come back to health care but not necessarily?

Hon. T. Lake: Without those savings in the PharmaCare budget, it would be very difficult for the Finance Minister to add $2.4 billion back to the health care ministry over the next four years. Those savings allow us to have an increase, so there's a straight line between savings that we make in the largest ministry in government and the increases that we are able to make year over year as an investment in the health of British Columbians.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. We spoke briefly yesterday about the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union, particularly as it relates to generic drugs. My first question to the minister is: what is the latest calculation on the savings that British Columbia will lose if patent protections are extended under the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union?

[1505]

Hon. T. Lake: As we mentioned yesterday, this potential trade agreement between Canada and the European Union has caused some concern for British Columbia — not just for British Columbia but other provinces. We have expressed that concern. We also understand that the federal government is open to some discussions on how to mitigate the impact on provinces.

It's difficult to be precise on the impact. There have been numbers tossed around. In a report from Canadian Press, for instance, officials at Industry Canada and Health Canada looked at the proposed patent term restoration system the EU demand included and said that it could cost anywhere between $14.7 million and $1.95 billion, depending on the final patent term that's negotiated. As you can imagine, there's a huge, huge variation in the potential impact on provincial PharmaCare costs.

We expect that future launches of new generic drugs — in other words, those coming off patent and becoming generic — on average, would be a $21 million aggregate savings for PharmaCare. Obviously, delayed entry of new generics due to extension of the patent regime could eliminate some, if not all, of those $21 million a year.

J. Darcy: Can you give me that range again?

Hon. T. Lake: The information I have is that it could be between $14.7 million and $1.95 billion, meaning there's a huge range depending on where this agreement lands. If the patent protection was extended six months, versus ten years, you can imagine that the quantum is quite different.

We do expect that new drugs that currently are brand names, that are coming off patent protection to become generics, would save us about $21 million a year as they come off of the patent protection. Obviously, as that date is extended, if that is the case in this new agreement, some, if not all, of that $21 million savings to the PharmaCare program could be lost.

That's why we, along with the members opposite, are concerned about this. We are discussing this with our federal counterparts. We'll continue to pursue our interests, on behalf of British Columbia taxpayers, to ensure that any impact of this agreement is mitigated by the federal government.

J. Darcy: I understand the government is now expressing concern and is in discussions and working, hopefully, with other Premiers in order to try and address this issue.

Perhaps the minister can enlighten us on this. I understand that what the government is advocating at this time to the federal government is what you refer to as mitigation of some of the potential negative impacts, some of the costly impacts, and that essentially it would compensate provinces — but effectively, also, serve as a subsidy of sorts to the international drug companies, who are the ones who've been lobbying very, very strongly for these changes that would have a detrimental effect in Canada.

It seems to me it's problematic on a number of levels, and that's something that you've heard expressed from
[ Page 1139 ]
this side of the House. Surely, the goal of our actions here is not to allow the international drug companies to get what they want in this entire process.

[1510]

Also, what appears to be being advanced by the government, by the Premier, in these discussions would have no consequences, would not solve problems for individuals whose drug costs are going up, whose premiums are going up, whose co-pays are going up, whose deductibles are going up; or health plans, drug plans, where co-pays, deductibles, and so on, and costs are also going up.

I wonder if you could explain in some more detail, Minister, what the government's position is on this. What position is being advanced at the federal level and hopefully, then, in those negotiations with the EU? Does the minister not agree that it really does not solve the problem for a whole lot of people whose drug costs are going up?

Hon. T. Lake: I can't help but point out a little bit of irony in the member's comments about subsidizing corporations when not less than an hour ago in this House they were recommending increased subsidies to multinational film corporations, who already benefit from a $330 million labour benefit here in British Columbia.

We have expressed our concern about this negotiation. The Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Labour is engaged with the federal government to represent B.C.'s interests. Our pharmaceutical services division is providing that minister with advice on pharmaceutical patent issues.

We have expressed our concern that if a trade agreement were negotiated that significantly impacted drug costs, financial compensation would be required from the federal government.

I'm sure that the member, along with this side of the House, can express her concern to the federal government, which is the level of government responsible for this. We will continue to advocate on behalf of British Columbians to protect the savings that we hope to gain from drugs coming off of patent protection.

J. Darcy: I didn't think that we were…. I find those comments quite unnecessary. I could go back and talk…. With respect, Minister, I could pull out and try and replay the tape or the transcript of the tape of what the Premier said on The Bill Good Show about the reason the government's position had shifted was in order to protect private interests, in order to protect the pharmaceutical drug companies. I don't think that particularly advances our discussion today.

What we're trying to engage in is a discussion about drug costs, their impacts on the health care system. It was a question about what position this government is taking in those federal discussions and then federal negotiations.

If the minister wants to talk about shipbuilding or the film industry, perhaps we could move those to another room.

I'll move on to another question. There has been considerable focus on reducing generic drug prices — certainly, a very, very important part of the picture of reducing drug costs. However, there have also been longstanding recommendations, including from the 2006 Auditor General report, that also apply to negotiating better prices from brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Can the minister please provide an update on the government's efforts to reduce brand-name drug prices?

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: There has been considerable effort on the part of provinces and territories to work towards a pan-Canadian drug-pricing system. At one time it looked promising that the federal government would actually come on board and we would have a truly pan-Canadian pricing policy.

As the member is likely aware, brand-name drugs in Canada are higher, in many instances, than they are in other countries. Obviously, the more people — in terms of provinces, territories, the size of the market — gives you greater bargaining power to bring those prices down.

Not having the federal government's commitment, the Premiers of the Council of the Federation, the provinces and territories, have affirmed their support and commitment to a pan-Canadian drug-pricing alliance. That's led by Ontario and Nova Scotia. Through that alliance, we have agreed to accelerate and expand the pan-Canadian pricing alliance on brand-name drugs, and that work is being led by Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.

As of June 2013 the pan-Canadian drug-pricing alliance has completed negotiations for 11 brand-name products and is actively reviewing 19 others. B.C. led five of those 11 completed negotiations.

Work is ongoing. I can tell you that we will continue to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts. We have another meeting coming up in October in Ontario, and we'll continue to try to add more of the commonly used brand-name drugs that we can add to this alliance so that we can continue to drive costs down.

J. Darcy: To the minister: when you refer to a certain number of specific drugs, is that what is referred to as product-listing agreements? Or is that something that's being done provincially?

Hon. T. Lake: Product listings are done by individual provinces.

J. Darcy: To the minister: can you please share with us, then, information on how many product listings are in place now and how many are under negotiation?

[1520]

Hon. T. Lake: Product listing agreements are negotiations that occur between a drug company and individual provinces. It does involve a price negotiation and involves the Drug Benefit Council, which would look at the efficacy and effectiveness and appropriateness of the drug.

A world price is sort of a public price, but each province will negotiate its own price with the different drug companies. That is a confidential negotiation that goes on. As the member can imagine, in order to obtain the best price, that information is kept confidential, so I can't disclose how many product listing agreements we have ongoing or in process at the moment.

J. Darcy: The reason for asking the question was that this arose in the public accounts briefing. There was something expressed there by the minister responsible about product listing agreements. I wasn't asking about which specific ones they were, just a sense of how many product listing agreements were actually already in place.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm not clear on the reference to public accounts, and I'm unsure if I'm able to disclose that information to the member, so I will perhaps arrange to get the proper reference from the member to public accounts, and then we can make sure that we have the ability to release that information. If we can, then we will.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. I'm not exactly aware of what they said in public accounts either, but I know that it was about product listing agreements, and it seemed relevant to our discussion about drugs and drug prices. So I thought I would ask that question.

Continuing on, we've already spoken of the critical importance of adopting a tougher position on generic drug pricing. Drug expenditures are, as you are aware, the function of both price and utilization. The 2013-14 budget identifies that a 1 percent change in utilization will result in a $10 million increase in the PharmaCare budget.

Over the past 18 years our province has become a centre of excellence in rigorous drug evaluation research that determines the efficacy of treatments so that PharmaCare covers and physicians prescribe drugs that are safe, effective and provide maximum value for money.

The work of the therapeutics initiative and of the ministry's pharmaceutical services division is a key reason why British Columbia has become a leader in evidence-based decision-making and why our province consistently records the lowest drug costs per capita among the provinces. However, as we have discussed on other occasions, including in question period over the past year, this kind of drug evaluation has been stalled.

The concern here, Minister, is about both the safety of drugs and also about cost of drugs. Safety for British Columbians — also, as I mentioned on another question — and public and private sector drug plans and individual costs as well as costs to the health care budgets of drugs are very, very serious considerations.

In the absence of drug evaluation programs that are essential to promoting proper and informed drug utilization, can the minister assure British Columbians that their co-payments and deductibles are not going to be going up?

[1525]

Hon. T. Lake: We have, as the member referenced, canvassed the issue of the therapeutics initiative and the drug approval process here in British Columbia. I would say that our program here in B.C. is very thorough in terms of looking at different drugs and deciding whether to list them on the PharmaCare program.

We rely on the common drug review, which is a national independent process that looks at the efficacy of any new drug in Canada against similar drugs and whether the drug provides value for money. That is a national process and is then followed by the ministry's Drug Benefit Council, which reviews the proposed drug by looking, again, at all clinical evidence regarding its safety and cost-effectiveness.

The therapeutics initiative certainly has done some very good work in this province and, I'm sure, will continue to do so. Once we complete the necessary work that we need to do around data management in the Ministry of Health following the Privacy Commissioner's report, we will hope to be able to employ the skills of the therapeutics initiative as well as other worthy researchers and experts in health care, particularly when it comes to evaluating best value for money, best value for efficacy for the drugs listed in our PharmaCare program.

J. Darcy: The minister refers to the excellent work of the federal common drug review, which British Columbia became part of back in 2003. As you have said, it evaluates new drugs before they come on the market.

The facts will show that in fact this federal common drug review used the work of the therapeutics initiative to serve as an example when they were getting set up and in the practices that were being put in place, because in fact it was best practices in drug evaluations that have been carried out by the therapeutics initiative.

[1530]

I am not particularly interested in going backwards on this issue, because we could spend an awful lot of time on the history on this particular file. We're not going to be able to erase statements that were made in the past by the Premier.

However, what the minister can do, going forward, is resume the therapeutics initiative's very important work in order to help to ensure that the drugs are made safe for British Columbians and that we get the best bang for our health care dollars.

My question to the minister is: do you agree that drug
[ Page 1141 ]
evaluation work needs to recommence in this province if PharmaCare is going to meet its budget target and if you're going to be able to meet your fiduciary responsibility to protect patients, and will you meet with the therapeutics initiative in order to move forward in the interests of safer, more effective drugs and reduced costs?

Hon. T. Lake: As I have said in this House previously, there was concern expressed on behalf of patients that were concerned that the existing approval process for drugs in British Columbia, using the therapeutics initiative as the sole arbiter, was taking far too long — in some cases, 2½ years longer than those drugs were approved in the rest of Canada. In fact, researchers with the arthritis centre at UBC were critical of the therapeutics initiative and the length of time it was taking, denying effective drugs to reduce symptoms in arthritis sufferers in the province of British Columbia.

A task force was struck that looked at the issue of approvals to ensure that an efficacious, efficient, timely system was put in place. That system was put in place following the recommendations of that pharmacology task force.

The therapeutics initiative still can play a role. Once we have ensured that we have met the challenge of making sure data is secure, the therapeutics initiative certainly can be part of that process. In fact, my deputy will be meeting with the therapeutics initiative over the next several weeks as we move through this process to ensure that we provide British Columbians with the best available evidence in the drug approval process and the best protection for their health care data.

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for that answer. You referred to a review regarding privacy issues — the internal review into the data breaches, which commenced over a year ago, I believe. Can the minister tell us when that internal review will conclude?

Hon. T. Lake: I'll read this again, because it was read earlier, and perhaps the member wasn't in the room.

"In May 2013 the investigation unit started phase 2 of the work, focusing on researchers' and contractors' data management and contracting practices. Contractors, researchers have been identified as part of the phase 2 review. Letters are now being sent to the first group of contractors that have been reviewed to ensure that data management practices are appropriately in place and to confirm so in writing to the ministry. Once that is completed, they will be able to then apply for future ministry data.

"The ministry is also going to be engaging in discussions with smaller groups of researchers to discuss concerns identified relating to data access. Contractors, researchers starting this fall will be required to participate in a mandatory on-line training session focusing on information management, security and privacy. A compliance audit program is also being implemented by the ministry to monitor data access practices."

We are balancing the need to open up data, which is paramount in terms of research, with the need to ensure that the data is protected, as per the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations.

[1535]

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister. Can I clarify, because there's considerable controversy swirling around this: is it not the case that the therapeutics initiative uses de-identified data for post-market surveillance studies, for those real-life, real-world evaluations of drugs — de-identified data?

Hon. T. Lake: The therapeutics initiative and those who work with the therapeutics initiative use a combination of identifiable and de-identified data.

J. Darcy: Well, I'll seek further information and pursue that at another time with the minister if I have further questions.

I'd like to move on to the issue of Champix. As we have discussed in this House and as has been the subject of considerable controversy as well in the province, the Premier, as we're aware, in her leadership campaign promised a smoking cessation program. My question to the minister is: what research did the Premier provide cabinet about her proposal?

I've been reviewing some of the materials that were produced at the time, and it seems highly unusual that a politician would actually champion a couple of particular drugs in advocacy for a smoking cessation program. So my question is: what research did the Premier provide to cabinet about her proposal?

Hon. T. Lake: I would be breaching my cabinet confidentiality if I were to answer that question.

J. Darcy: I haven't been in this House long enough to know how to frame the question in order to get an answer to it. But surely, it is a legitimate question to the Minister of Health about whether evidence was provided to government.

Let me put it that way. Was evidence provided to government, to the Ministry of Health, to prove the effectiveness of this particular drug before it became the focus of a major campaign? I'm not asking you to breach cabinet confidentiality. I'm asking: what evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before this was undertaken?

Hon. T. Lake: If the member is asking what process Champix went through to be considered for use in British Columbia, I can certainly answer that. Champix is a drug that is approved for sale in Canada. It is one that went through the common drug review, which we talked about earlier. Health Canada reviewed all the available research on Champix before B.C. decided to cover this drug under the provincial formulary.

This is a drug that has helped many people quit smoking. I've heard from many people that have used this
[ Page 1142 ]
particular drug and been able to break a habit which we know is one of the most preventable causes of mortality and morbidity in British Columbia.

So this drug has gone through the safety and efficacy procedures that are put in place for drugs that are listed in Canada. It's used in over six different provinces and territories in Canada. As I mentioned, the drug is currently being studied by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. That research was proposed by our ministry in August of 2011, and we're looking forward to the completion of that research, which we hope to have later this year.

[1540]

J. Darcy: I was hoping that you might give me a different response than you did when we raised this question earlier in the House, because as we pointed out in the House, the study that is being undertaken is in fact more in the nature of a literature review than the kind of real-life, real-world study of the impact on people who have been using this drug for some time.

When I asked a question about this in the House a couple of weeks ago, the minister stated that it was not possible to do that kind of evaluation of a drug because it hadn't been in use for a long enough period of time. However, the government's own documents state that by April 2012 over 20,000 people had received the prescriptions for smoking-cessation drugs, yet the therapeutics initiative's proposal to do a real-life, real-world evaluation was rejected in June 2012.

There are now over 45,000 British Columbians taking smoking-cessation drugs. So the issue here is not whether or not we want to promote programs for people to quit smoking. That's absolutely not the question. The question is about the efficacy of a particular drug and about the harmful effects that have caused certain countries to stop using it and that have been the subject of lawsuits in several jurisdictions.

The Chair: Member, was there a question?

J. Darcy: Well, my question is this, then, to the minister: has the ministry prepared a legal analysis to assess the risk that the B.C. government has exposed itself to by not completing a thorough drug evaluation assessment of Champix prior to listing it in PharmaCare and afterwards?

Hon. T. Lake: At the risk of being repetitive, this is a legal drug that has been approved by Health Canada and the national common drug review. Six different provinces use and list this drug to help people combat smoking.

A study that is currently being done by the University of York is a meta-analysis that looks at a whole wide range of papers and that in fact examines the effect of this drug on people. Yet it uses a whole, wider range of people than the relatively few people in British Columbia that had been on the drug for a short period of time when the therapeutics initiative suggested their study, which had been preceded by our request to the federal organization to do a study.

The member opposite wants to draw a distinction between the kind of analysis that is ongoing on the part of the ministry and the one that the TI proposed. But it is, again, looking at a wide range of studies that have been done with this drug, with people that have been using this drug in jurisdictions around the world, not limited to just British Columbia.

We feel that it is probably important to get a very large sample in order to have statistically relevant information that will benefit British Columbians. We look forward to that study when it comes later this year.

J. Darcy: The minister says there aren't sufficient numbers of people in British Columbia using the drug to do an evaluation in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us how many people are using the drug? The figures that I have say that there are now over 45,000 British Columbians using smoking-cessation drugs. And there were two drugs in particular that were championed by the Premier.

[1545]

Hon. T. Lake: The smoking cessation program, which has been widely received and has benefited a lot of British Columbians, started in September of 2011, and 131,000 people participated. That's remarkable. Even though British Columbia has the lowest rates of smoking in all of Canada, it's nice to see that so many people want to quit that habit. Of those 131,000, about 40,000 to 45,000 were prescribed Champix.

The comment that I made earlier about not having enough, the data…. Of course, you need to have people on a particular product for a certain length of time if you're going to evaluate all of the effects of that particular drug. Using a meta-analysis of a much larger population study allows that to happen.

J. Darcy: I'm sure we will be discussing this subject again on future occasions.

Let me move on to the Alzheimer's drug therapy initiative. As the minister is no doubt aware, Alzheimer's drugs are seen as a potentially lucrative market for brand-name drug companies, but questions on real-world effectiveness still need to be answered.

Increasing post-market surveillance was one of the key recommendations made by the Auditor General in his 2006 report on PharmaCare. Having the therapeutics initiative conduct real-world safety and effectiveness studies as part of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network helped to meet this recommendation, as did PharmaCare's decision to commence the Alzheimer's
[ Page 1143 ]
drug therapy initiative, which was designed to investigate safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs for dementia in patients in British Columbia.

Given that we do not have…. Since the firing of the ministry employees and the termination of certain contractors from the Ministry of Health as part of the data breach investigation, what is the latest plan on how these drugs will be evaluated?

Hon. T. Lake: Alzheimer's is a terrible disease that, of course, is the focus of our efforts when we're dealing with elder care. I think all of us have known friends, family, colleagues that have been stricken by Alzheimer's, sometimes at a very young age, which makes it all the more tragic.

The Alzheimer's drug therapy initiative was launched in October of 2007 to look at evidence to provide coverage for a class of drugs known as cholinesterase inhibitors. As part of this study, five research studies were initiated. Those were the caregiver appraisal study; the seniors medication study; the clinical meaningfulness in Alzheimer disease treatment scale and overall patient assessment rating; the utilization of cost project; and finally, the clinical epidemiological project.

Two of those studies remain on hold due to the current investigation ongoing into the data breach in the ministry. We hope to be able to allow those to continue in the near future with the efforts that I detailed earlier to the member. We are hoping that we will be able to continue those studies and complete those studies so that coverage for patients will be able to be made. Decisions are expected in early 2014.

[1550]

J. Darcy: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

If I could move on to the issue of academic detailing. As the minister knows, on this side of the House we're very supportive of academic detailing programs. I'd like to ask the minister if he could provide an update on the province's academic detailing programs, including what the current level of staffing is, what the current budget is and program initiatives.

Hon. T. Lake: Academic detailing, as the member likely is very aware, is an educational strategy. We have a clinical pharmacist who visits a physician or other health care professionals in their practice setting and who will provide objective, balanced, evidence-informed drug information on the best prescribing practices.

Funding is given to regional health authorities for up to 10.2 full-time-equivalent pharmacists. That's about two per health authority — although I wouldn't want to be the 0.2 pharmacist — and supports personnel and equipment for visiting up to 2,000 health care professionals for each topic. We set aside $1.7 million each year for the three-year budget for this service.

J. Darcy: One other question in the area of drugs. The 2006 Auditor General report also endorsed programs that promote better prescribing among physicians, using the therapeutics initiative's letters and programs that were being started to provide physicians direct feedback on their prescribing patterns. The savings generated from these programs were then invested back into patient care and, at times, have been seen as possible sources of cooperative gains.

How have physicians responded to the recent loss of these kinds of prescribing education programs? And given the government position pending negotiations with the B.C. Medical Association that will take place in a very constrained fiscal framework, is there consideration being made to restart and to expand these programs?

Hon. T. Lake: The program the member is referring to is the education for quality improvement in patient care program or EQIP, and this began in 2006. It provided personalized, confidential prescribing portraits and educational messages to about 4,500 family physicians in B.C. It would look at clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness and improved health outcomes.

It was, in fact, a partnership between the Ministry of Health, the B.C. Medical Association, UBC and UVic. In 2009 it was directed through UBC to the Chair in Patient Safety, so members of the therapeutics initiative would have participated.

Eight drug and disease topics were developed in the contract term. We understand that the feedback was quite positive. Physicians like to have this.

[1555]

Since the program has ended, we haven't heard back from the BCMA. There's been no uproar, if you like, with the hiatus in the program, but we will be assessing the impact of the EQIP program and determine whether a similar initiative will be continued.

The Chair: Minister.

J. Darcy: You called me minister.

The Chair: Oh, Member. Enjoy the moment.

J. Darcy: Now, I'm not sure if that's a promotion, but thank you, hon. Chair. [Laughter.]

If I could go back to the previous question that I had asked about academic detailing. I must admit that I was expecting that the numbers would be greater. I don't have the figures at my disposal, but my understanding is that there are hundreds of people employed by the pharmaceutical industry at any point in time that are out visiting family doctors, promoting and doing their own form of education around drugs.

Would the minister be able to provide the figure for how many of those "industry-employed educators" are
[ Page 1144 ]
out meeting with family doctors to promote their particular pharmaceuticals?

Hon. T. Lake: No, we don't track the number of pharmaceutical detailers. I'm certainly familiar with the practice. It happens in many different professions, and I have been on both sides of that. But we don't keep statistics as to the number of detailers that work for pharmaceutical companies.

Having said that, I know that physicians in British Columbia are very bright and able to process a lot of information and make the best choices for their patients. They rely on many different sources to make those clinical decisions. Whether it's from pharmaceutical companies, whether it's from the two types of programs that we mentioned earlier, they certainly look into different sources of information.

While I've got this, I wanted to maybe elaborate on some of the topics that were launched through the B.C. provincial academic detailing service. Those were on the human papillomavirus vaccine; anti-coagulation and atrial fibrillation; antibiotics in community practice, which we know is a real concern; inhaled medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; osteoporosis; statins and cardiovascular disease; and acute otitis media, which is an ear infection.

J. Darcy: I certainly agree with the minister that our physicians in this province are second to none and are indeed very smart, as the minister said.

I also count several family doctors among my personal friends, who also will say, anecdotally, that they are overwhelmed with information from pharmaceutical companies. It is a discussion I'd like to pursue with the minister at some point, because the figure that sticks in my head is somewhere in the range of 800 or 900 pharmaceutical detailers that are out there at any point in time.

I have a few questions on another subject, and then I will turn it over to some of my colleagues, who have a number of individual questions for the minister.

These questions pertain to the contract negotiations for the clinical and systems transformation program — CST, I believe, is the acronym for it — which has been referred to in some earlier discussions, a proposal to reform health care protocols and to integrate technology widely across the health care system.

I understand that it's a ten-year contract between IBM and three health authorities — Vancouver Coastal, Providence Health and the Provincial Health Services Authority. If I understand it correctly, the contract's price tag is $842 million.

Are we doing a shift change?

[1600]

The Chair: Continue, Member.

J. Darcy: I understand that the price tag for the contract is $842 million over ten years.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The contract would also entail moving approximately 92 information management staff from the public sector to IBM, so that is said to save $285 million over ten years. Therefore, the net cost is estimated at $557 million.

I understand that in a document that was prepared for government a number of months ago — a document that I understand was leaked — which addressed the issue of the risk profile of the program, out of 13 categories with titles like "Finance," "Governance," "Achievable expectations" and "Timelines," all but one are listed as high risk. Only the category titled "Political" receives a "moderate risk" rating.

So my questions to the minister are: is the government moving ahead with negotiations on the CST program, and are you still pursuing the program in all its aspects even with the report that speaks about high risks in a number of areas?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome back.

The Vancouver health organizations Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care along with the Provincial Health Services Authority formed the information management and information technology services, which is a consolidated entity that is undergoing this clinical and systems transformation.

The member mentioned that the total cost is estimated at $842 million over ten years. However, the contract the member is referring to with IBM is a value of $188 million over ten years, so it's a larger project than the one that is with IBM.

The negotiations concluded and the contract was signed in the spring of this year. But it is a staged contract, so not all of the funds are dispensed at the same time. In fact, that allows evaluation and a staging of the contract based on a positive evaluation.

J. Darcy: Can you repeat again for me the estimated cost of the contract?

Hon. T. Lake: It's $188 million over ten years. Again, that's a staged contract so that if performance is deemed positive, then it would go up the entire way. But there are off-ramps, if you like, to that contract as it moves over that ten-year period.

J. Darcy: I wonder if the minister could speak in a bit more detail about what measures are being taken to manage the risks. I understand that the program will
[ Page 1145 ]
supposedly save money across the health care system by standardizing technology infrastructure and the many clinical protocols and business processes, but how will success be measured, and what is IBM's track record with this kind of contract?

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: While IBM is the lead contractor, they are also partnered with Deloitte. Both of these organizations have a very strong global track record on clinical transformation projects. But let me say that a capital project plan for this project is being finalized and will be available in the fall. As with all projects over $50 million, a capital project plan is initiated, as mentioned, and that is just being finalized.

The ministry has also established a project board, which is chaired by the ministry's chief administrative officer, with participation from the CEOs of the Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver health authority and Providence Health Care. A highly skilled and experienced project director is overseeing the management of the project on a day-to-day basis.

J. Darcy: Thank you, Minister. One last question on this. My understanding of the funding for this is that the Ministry of Health has created a mechanism to hold back cash flow in order to support the capital requirements of the project — proposes to hold back $386 million by adjusting budgets within those health authorities that are involved.

Can you explain if that is the case, and what is meant by "mechanisms to hold back the cash flow"? This is in a PowerPoint presentation, apparently, on the subject.

Hon. T. Lake: The $72 million we talked about, I believe, yesterday that came from Vancouver Coastal Health…. The request was to use that $72 million from operating and put that into capital. That is the funds that the member refers to.

J. Darcy: I thought that was probably the case with Coastal, but there are two other health…. Well, Providence Health and PHSA are involved as well. Can you talk about the money that is the mechanism for holding back the cash flow for those health authorities, and what the amounts are? Well, I know Providence is affiliated to Coastal, but….

Hon. T. Lake: That $72 million encompasses both of those health authorities, and as the member mentioned, Providence Health Care is affiliated under the budget of Vancouver Coastal.

J. Darcy: But PHSA is in the mix as well. So does that $72 million cover all three? I understood from our…. I think it was actually two days ago, Minister, although it seems like two or three weeks ago, that we talked about the $72 million. I thought that was strictly Coastal, which you're saying also covers Providence. This is for Coastal, Providence and PHSA. Is that right?

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: The $72 million in each of '13-14, '14-15 and '15-16 is capital money that comes from operating, at the request of these organizations. I'm told that 80 percent of that is from Vancouver Coastal. The remaining 20 percent is from the PHSA.

J. Darcy: Thank you, Minister, but I just want to really understand the figures. My understanding is that there was a PowerPoint presentation — apparently, a leaked document — that refers to a holdback of $386 million. Is that over several years? Is that what $386 million refers to? Can you please clarify?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, we have three-year rolling budgets. I talked about the $72 million in '13-14, '14-15 and '15-16 that, at the request of these organizations, is taken from operating and put into capital. But that would extend out in further years, as well, to meet the cost of this project.

So when we go out to '16-17 and '17-18, that money would be taken from operating and put into capital for this project, as it is being done in the current three-year program.

J. Darcy: Thank you, Minister. I think we'll leave it at that for now. While my colleagues are asking their questions, I may think of some others and come back to you.

But otherwise, I want to thank you for the detail with which you have answered some of my questions and for beginning a discussion that we will have on many other occasions. I certainly want to thank your staff and all of the shifts that have come and gone in the course of these few days.

S. Robinson: I have a question for the minister regarding the future of Eagle Ridge Hospital, which is the hospital that serves my community. Given that Coquitlam is a designated high-growth community expected, by the regional growth strategy that we've signed on to, to grow by 50 percent over the next 20 years, is this hospital…? It has become more of a community hospital, focusing less on acute care and more on rehabilitation for members of my community in the eastern suburbs.

Does this government see this hospital as more of a rehab centre or more of a hospital to take care of acute conditions?

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: Eagle Ridge Hospital is a fine hospital. I had some experience years ago, and I know that they take care of people very well there. It does have acute care ser-
[ Page 1146 ]
vices. It has an emergency room. It does have acute care beds. It does do a certain number of surgeries.

Certainly, the tertiary hospital for that region of the Lower Mainland would be the Royal Columbian Hospital, which offers, obviously, the higher level of care. As mentioned yesterday, the redevelopment of Royal Columbian is something that I know Fraser Health and the members of the community are looking forward to.

I think we mentioned yesterday that there's a notional allocation of $700 million for the redevelopment of Royal Columbian Hospital to serve the people of the Tri-Cities and New Westminster area.

S. Robinson: Thank you very much for the response. I want to confirm with the minister that I, too, have received service, and very fine service, at the Eagle Ridge Hospital. It is my community hospital. But I've also been told that a lot of the services are now nine-to-five services in terms of availability.

There are certain tests…. When you're in an acute state like I was about a couple years ago, they needed to keep me on painkillers because for the tests that I needed there would only be staff at 9 a.m. There's not really, from an emergency perspective, around-the-clock ability to get the care that you need.

Additionally, with RCH, and I have heard about the announcements to rebuild, given the transportation issues that exist in the area…. Certainly, folks in my region feel like when you're having a heart attack, getting to RCH can be really fraught with challenges. But you can't go to Eagle Ridge, because they'll just send you to RCH. So there are some real challenges. I want to know if the minister will be spending any time to explore some of these challenges moving forward.

[1620]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm looking forward, once the session is over in about an hour and a half….

Interjection.

Hon. T. Lake: One hour for us, yes, but we have a few procedures to go through.

I will begin tours, having the honour to be the new Health Minister for the province of B.C., and on the list of facilities I'm looking forward to touring is Royal Columbian Hospital.

Regional health authorities plan their facilities being very mindful of what the member is talking about — the capacity of the tertiary hospitals, the high level of care that's required and the placement of regional facilities. They also work closely with the B.C. Ambulance Service.

For instance, if a patient is assessed, needing a particular level of care, then the Ambulance Service would be directed to the appropriate facility. So if someone is having a heart attack — if that's what the assessment suggested — then they would be directed to the hospital most appropriate to handle that patient's needs.

I take the member's point. Given our province and given the relatively sparse population and the tremendous distances that we travel…. No one understands that more than the Minister of Jobs — or me, for that matter. Someone in my riding in Blue River, for instance — if they were having a medical emergency and if an ambulance were to travel down to Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, it would be a three-hour drive, which is very daunting. Fortunately, we have helicopter service in most parts of the province to reduce that travel time.

But I can assure the member that Fraser Health plans the services that are provided in the various tertiary centres as well as the smaller hospitals in the region to make sure that patients are directed to the most appropriate centre.

L. Popham: I'm going to have four questions on Lyme disease, if the minister is ready.

The B.C. complex chronic diseases clinic was announced 2¼ years ago, the day after the release of a report by a senior public health executive identifying flawed diagnostics, lack of physician knowledge and restrictive treatment guidelines as barriers to people with Lyme disease.

Chronic Lyme disease figured prominently in the rationale given for setting up this clinic at UBC, which was intended to focus on developing new forms of diagnosis and treatment. When discussing it with the then Health Minister in 2011, he said that a primary purpose of the clinic was to address the uncertainty or debate about best practices for Lyme disease and that the work of the clinic was intended to "add to the body of evidence that will help resolve that."

After more than two years can the minister tell me how many chronic Lyme disease patients are in treatment at that clinic today? What research is being conducted to develop better Lyme disease testing? And what treatment protocols are being followed at the clinic for chronic Lyme disease?

[1625]

Hon. T. Lake: The complex chronic diseases program is located at B.C. Women's Hospital and is processing referrals from physicians. It has been accepting patient referrals for the clinic and only began seeing patients in May of this year. We're only a couple months into the program.

Patients can be referred by a general practitioner, a nurse practitioner or a specialist physician. So a whole variety of medical practitioners can refer a patient that is exhibiting complex chronic disease symptoms.

There are a variety of diseases that can have a similar array of clinical signs that may lead to a referral. Tick-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease, as the member
[ Page 1147 ]
mentions, are one of those; myalgic encephalomyelitis, otherwise known as chronic fatigue syndrome, is another; and fibromyalgia syndrome.

The clinic has only been seeing patients for the last couple months. The patients that go there undergo a thorough history-taking and diagnostic work, including genomic as well as standard testing, to look at the underlying cause as well as to evaluate the patients' immune systems.

At this point, because we are only a couple of months into it, I do not have any data as to how many of those 65 patients have been diagnosed definitively with each of those different types of syndromes that can lead to a similar array of signs.

L. Popham: Patient organizations were assured that people previously denied treatment for chronic Lyme disease would gain access to novel forms of care at the new clinic. The existing B.C. guidelines refuse to care for anyone who does not show positive on the two-tiered Lyme test, limit antibiotic therapy to a maximum of four weeks and deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease entirely.

So a clinic mandated to develop a novel treatment would have to diagnose and treat beyond these restrictive guidelines in order to gain any new experience and contribute any new knowledge. Can the minister tell me if clinicians at this clinic will be allowed to clinically diagnose Lyme disease and treat patients with antibiotics beyond the limit laid down by the IDSA?

Hon. T. Lake: Physicians currently have the ability to prescribe long-term antibiotic therapy, should they consider it in the best interest of their patients. Physicians have been reluctant to do so in some cases because long-term clinical trials have failed to show a net benefit — and, in some cases, considerable harm — of that approach.

[1630]

However, having said that, the clinic that we were discussing, the complex chronic diseases program…. Certainly, if the testing and diagnostic work and physical exam history-taking were to lead the clinicians to contemplate that, they certainly can take that type of prescription and apply that to an individual patient, should they deem it appropriate.

L. Popham: A 2012 news release from Women's Hospital, which now hosts the complex chronic diseases clinic, states that Lyme disease is a clinical diagnosis and that test results are merely confirmatory. Yet patient representatives on an advisory group to the clinic are being told that doctors must work within the existing guidelines and that diagnosis requires a positive test on the existing two-tier test.

Can the minister clarify whether the news release claim is correct — that Lyme is a clinical diagnosis and that clinicians are free to treat patients beyond limits set out in the guidelines? Or will he confirm that the clinic's mandate is no longer to create an experimental setting to generate new experience and new knowledge?

Hon. T. Lake: There's considerable discussion and controversy around this array of diseases, including Lyme disease, as the member mentions. I think that a lot of that controversy surrounds the different types of tests that are used.

In British Columbia, typically, the protocols that are recommended by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control are followed. However, because it is a clinical disease, obviously, the more indicators you have as to what you are treating, the better. So if you have a positive test along with clinical disease, that would certainly bolster the case for a particular diagnosis.

However, it is not necessary to have a positive test if the physician feels the clinical signs are aligned with the particular diagnosis. Treatment could be done on the basis of making a clinical diagnosis.

The centre for chronic disease at Women's Hospital is trying to go beyond the normal testing that has been done and is, in the standard protocols, using genomic types of tests. That is the novel approach that the centre is taking.

I can't comment on individual cases, of course, but there is nothing that would limit any physician from treating on the basis of a clinical diagnosis.

L. Popham: This will be my final question or statement. I know the minister is a member of a profession that is free from all of this induced controversy about Lyme disease. In fact, if you are a vet, you don't have to adhere to the same standards, and you have a lot more freedom.

Given the minister's responses, I'm going to take that as an avenue of freedom that can be displayed within this clinic. Maybe I could ask the minister to establish communication with these patient advocacy groups so that they are aware there is more freedom than they are aware of right now within that clinic.

[1635]

Hon. T. Lake: I can tell the member that I have met with members of the patient advocacy group that she discusses. As a practising veterinarian, I participated for a number of years in collecting ticks. We submitted them all to the Centre for Disease Control, looking for the particular ticks that carry the bacterium that is responsible for this disease, Borrelia burgdorferi.

In 15 years of practice in submitting those ticks, I in my practice did not get one positive result for Borrelia. Having said that, we know that there are a number of ticks in British Columbia that are capable of carrying this organism — Ixodes pacificus and Ixodes angustus. They're not present in large numbers in British Columbia
[ Page 1148 ]
and are constrained mostly west of the coastal mountains.

I, like the member opposite, am always interested in new information and pushing the boundaries of research. That's what this centre is all about, and certainly, I'm supportive of that.

M. Elmore: My question is in relation to child cancer survivors. I have a constituent who I met with. His name is Will Vacheresse. He has a daughter, Danielle, who is now 20 years old. She was diagnosed as an 18-month-old baby. She had a brain tumour. It took one year to diagnose.

Certainly, children with cancer, particularly brain cancer…. It's a very tumultuous time for parents.

We're now seeing, through advances in medicine…. It's a great advance that children are able to successfully be treated, and we're now seeing the first generation of children successfully being able to be treated, particularly for brain cancer, and surviving into adulthood. That's what we're seeing, and the literature and the research is also being done to catch up with that in terms of understanding this new frontier in the advance of science.

One of the impacts that was raised by a recent Vancouver Sun article was the impacts of the successful drug chemotherapy and radiation treatment. It often leaves long-term health impacts.

My constituent has grouped together with 80 other families who are impacted — young adults who have survived brain cancer. They've formed a group, the Pediatric Cancers Survivorship Society of British Columbia.

I wanted to ask, on their behalf…. They see a need and are advocating for a tertiary clinic to service the needs of young adults who, as children, have survived brain cancer, just to provide the specialized care that is needed. That's the first part of question — if the minister would consider supporting a tertiary clinic to service the needs of young adults.

Also, it is estimated there are about 1,500 young adults now who are in the situation of being diagnosed with cancer and treated as children. Currently the society has about 80 families, and there are about 1,500 estimated in British Columbia.

I know there was a proposal from the Children's Hospital to contact and advise these families in terms of bringing them up to speed. Often they are isolated and unfamiliar with the outcome and the symptoms that develop from their child being treated for cancer.

So a two-part question. Is there consideration for tertiary services being provided for these young adults and their families, to support them? Also, are there initiatives underway to contact the estimated 1,500 children and young adults who've been impacted by successful cancer treatment as children?

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: I can't imagine anything more devastating to a family than to deal with a child that was undergoing cancer and the treatment necessary to combat that disease. I, too, read the story and certainly have a lot of sympathy for families and the cancer survivors as they face those challenges as a result of their successful but nonetheless impactful treatment.

There are a number of things ongoing. There's a program that B.C. Children's Hospital supports called ON TRAC transition initiative. That program's goal is to facilitate transition preparation and transfer for youth with chronic health conditions and disabilities to adult care and ensure that the transfer is successful, with youth engagement and continued attachment to primary care and specialist adult services.

In recent years the B.C. Cancer Agency has also developed the survivorship program, which is dedicated to improve the well-being of those who are living with and beyond cancer. That's an important component as well.

We are encouraging the Pediatric Cancers Survivorship Society to work closely with B.C. Children's and the B.C. Cancer Agency — to work together so that we can maximize the use of resources available and provide the necessary supports that these families need.

Back to the member's comment about notifying the children who have received radiation treatment up to 2000. There is a pilot project underway at B.C. Children's Hospital. It's called Track It, and that tries to tie together youth engagement with specific skills and knowledge that youth need in order to transition and transfer to adult care services.

We will be following this with the B.C. Cancer Agency. I'm looking forward to my tour and visit with the B.C. Cancer Agency, and this is a topic I will discuss with them.

J. Kwan: I have a constituent who has Crohn's disease. He has written me a fairly lengthy letter. It's about 2½ pages long. He says in the letter…. I'll take parts of it and put the questions to the minister. He says that approximately 22,000 people in British Columbia suffer from Crohn's disease. There are, of course, various forms of treatment, which include drugs and chemotherapy, along with surgery, as the main forms of treatment.

His particular form of Crohn's disease involves the formation of abscesses, which are very painful. The procedure to deal with that, of course, requires surgery. If surgeries, according to this particular individual, are done strategically and at the right time, they could actually manage the illness quite well.

However, his experience has been that whenever he needed surgery, it was often delayed. Then, whenever he needed the MRI scan to find out what's going on in order to proceed with the surgery, that also is not done in a timely fashion. As such, it hinders, of course, his process and the success of the surgery.

He writes:
[ Page 1149 ]

"There are two main reasons for the delay in the surgery treatment. Operating rooms are busy with more urgent matters — i.e., car accidents, cancer surgeries, etc. — or the MRI scans are simply not available."

As a result of that, this particular individual has had seven surgeries, and each surgery does not fix the problem because there has never been a timely way for him to get it. Chemotherapy, then, becomes a treatment choice, which, of course, has huge side effects.

[1645]

With this particular disease, it's not like you can have the chemotherapy and then stop. You have to continually get the therapy, which can potentially damage other organs and so on. Of course, he's very concerned about this, and he feels that there is enormous inefficiency within the health care system.

"In British Columbia, particularly in Vancouver, it is apparent that we have a shortage of colorectal surgeons, operating rooms and MRI machines."

He then actually goes on to make some comparisons on a per-capita basis with British Columbia versus Alberta, and so on. It seems to me that he makes a sound argument that we actually have a deficient number of surgeons in this area.

His questions are these:

"Why do British Columbians have the worst access to colorectal care? Why are more resources not being directed to the treatment of colorectal issues? Both Crohn's and colorectal cancer are on the rise.

"The government, who is the steward of our medical system, needs to be accountable for the waste of resources being spent on providing emergency care to treat problems that could be handled through proper disease management if allocated with adequate resources — at least with the same level of resources provided to the rest of the country.

"The current system for dealing with colorectal issues is costing the taxpayers more money, not saving them money. By putting more surgeons and staff directly into the colorectal surgical program, we would actually save taxpayers' money — less demands on ER facilities and unnecessary expenditure on multiple surgeries and expensive chemotherapies."

He's eagerly awaiting a response on this.

I appreciate that time is tight. There are a lot of detailed questions here that the constituent has put forward. He's given me consent to pass a letter on to the minister, and I would be happy to do that. But I did want to put it on the public record, around this particular individual's concern. He's a very successful business person in Vancouver, and he suffers from Crohn's disease.

Right now, as he sees it, as he's experienced it, the system is not working. He's hoping that there could be some accountability and some measure to improve the system, not only just for himself but, ultimately, for other patients as well.

Hon. T. Lake: We'd be happy to receive the letter and respond on behalf of the ministry.

Just some general comments. First of all, if any patient is concerned about the quality of care they're receiving or the timeliness of care, they can go through the patient care quality review board. I'm sure the member opposite has constituents who she has referred to that process.

I do know that over the last 12 years the number of MRI machines that we have and the number of scans that have been done have increased dramatically. Data shows that we've nearly doubled the number of scanners, as well as the number of CT scanners, by 59 percent since 2003-2004.

I think this is an issue that is a concern for everyone — timely access to care. While we have tried to catch up in terms of the technology, both in MRI and CT scans and even when it comes to PET scans…. The number of scans we have done has gone up dramatically — a 136 percent increase in MRIs since 2003-04.

[1650]

But certainly, someone with a chronic disease such as Crohn's…. I certainly can understand the impact on one's life of that type of disease. Timeliness of care and having an efficient system are critical, which is why it's a challenge for Health ministries around Canada to address this. It's certainly something that we will concentrate on, but I'd be happy to take the constituent's letter and respond to each of the concerns.

J. Kwan: I thank the minister for that. I do want to emphasize, on behalf of this constituent, that I think the timeliness issue and also the coordination of it become essential. If you get a surgery and you don't get the MRI, it makes the success of the surgery severely diminished. So that becomes central as well.

I will pass the letter on to the minister. I won't belabour this point, because I know that there are many MLAs who want to ask questions.

I have another area that I want to canvass with the minister, which is the new B.C. Services Card. I had originally thought that this fell under the Ministry of Transportation, as ICBC actually, I guess, administers the card, or issues the card. It turns out it's actually in the Health Ministry. He's directed me to come and ask the questions here.

I have actually outlined the details of the concerns in estimates debate with the Minister of Transportation on July 17 at 1520, approximately, in terms of time-wise. It's all actually detailed in Hansard, but I'll briefly put this on the record here.

Basically, the B.C. Services Card has very stringent and sometimes inconsistent rules that make it very difficult for people who've lost all of their ID to access an ID. A primary ID often requires either a photograph ID, in order to get the B.C. Services Card, or an ID with a signature. But if you're an individual who's lost all of their IDs, how do you go about actually getting an ID?

To complicate matters, there's a federal issue as well. I'm an immigrant who's become a Canadian citizen. My old citizenship card had a picture of me on it. I'm sorry to say I've since lost that card, and I only have the certifi-
[ Page 1150 ]
cate. The certificate, which is not accepted as a piece of ID, is sitting very safely in my bank safe. That's not going to do me a bit of good, because if I lose all my ID, I have no other ID to access it. The federal government no longer issues, for example, the citizenship card with the photograph. So that's not really going to help you.

So there are all of these kinds of inconsistencies. For example, another situation is your social insurance card. They no longer issue a card where you actually sign the card. The signature that comes with the social insurance card formerly could have been a primary ID, but now it no longer requires a signature, so that will no longer be assessable in that way.

I have a number of constituents who've lost their ID. They cannot access health care services. One individual, whose mother is very sick in England and would like to visit her before she is no longer with this world, is unable to get a passport because he's not able to meet these kinds of requirements.

I'm urging the minister to please take a look in Hansard at all the issues that have been referred to. I also have documentation that I can pass on to the minister to see if he can resolve this issue with the B.C. Services Card and also work with the federal government to resolve some of the problems that it has caused as a result of its changes in terms of ID.

Finally, I know that there is a system where sometimes, with the B.C. Services Card, you'll do a one-off sort of thing to allow for people to have a one-time access to the card. I know that's happened. Maybe that's out of the goodness of the individuals who are trying to help people out. But that one-off, one-time thing doesn't really work. There needs to be a consistent way of resolving this for people.

This problem's not going to get easier. It's just going to get more complicated, I think, over time.

I wonder if I can park this with the minister. I really need the minister to acknowledge that yes, he will look into this issue and work towards resolving it. That will make me very, very happy.

Hon. T. Lake: This is a conundrum for many people. I've had constituents…. I've been in the situation myself — coming from another country, becoming a Canadian and not having access to my birth certificate and going through a very rigorous process with the bureaucracy in the United Kingdom to obtain it. So I can certainly empathize.

[1655]

We are working hard on these various issues that the member has illustrated. I will take the member's information that she has read into Hansard and try to provide responses to her. But I can say that we are working diligently with our federal partners to find a solution to many of the situations that she has outlined.

J. Kwan: I wonder if I could follow up with one other question. I wonder if the minister would be willing to have a staff person actually meet with some of the folks in the community, particularly the advocates who are working with individuals who've lost their ID, so that they can hear firsthand, directly, what those issues are and how best to try and address them.

I can certainly facilitate that to make that happen. It's quite a common problem. If the minister will let me know who that person might be who is willing to do that, I can endeavour to set it up.

Hon. T. Lake: Absolutely. We have been doing some of that work already, and we'd be happy to connect staff with your constituents.

D. Eby: UBC Hospital used to provide 24-hour emergency services to the people in Point Grey, students at UBC and people in the university neighbourhoods, the University Endowment Lands. That service was cut, and now it's just an urgent care centre, open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.

The challenge that people in my community are having isn't just that they have to have their emergencies during business hours but also that while people are being treated in the hallways in other parts of the province, there are big chunks of the hospital that are sitting vacant and gathering dust. In other parts of the hospital, patient rooms are actually being converted into offices for administrators, so we're losing front-line services but building administration rooms at the hospital.

Out at UBC the population is expanding rapidly. They are implementing plans that are going to see their population increasing from where it is now to 25,000 to 35,000 people year-round on campus. Students are an additional 7,000 people who live on campus. That's going to swell to 10,000-plus as UBC builds out more student housing.

The question is quite simple. What are the ministry's plans for serving this rapidly growing population? It certainly seems we're going in the wrong direction with services at UBC, given the massive increase in population out there.

Hon. T. Lake: The services provided to UBC through UBC Hospital are a function of Vancouver Coastal Health, which rationalizes their services to optimize services to the community. So if someone at UBC has an issue during the day, as the member suggests, there's an urgent care centre which would cover most of the needs that one might have at that time.

If there is an emergency, then it is, I'm told, about 20 minutes to St. Paul's or to Vancouver General. In Vancouver Coastal Health they meet their emergency room targets of a period of time between triage and admission to emergency on a more consistent basis than many other areas of the country.
[ Page 1151 ]

So there are services available. They may not be at UBC. They may be a 20-minute trip to the nearest hospital. I can tell the member that many constituents throughout British Columbia would find a 20-minute journey to be quite short, given the distances that many people in rural British Columbia face when dealing with medical emergencies.

[1700]

D. Eby: The UBC Hospital had a long track record of serving the people of Point Grey and UBC, saving lives. Stories are endless of the work that the staff and doctors there did in the emergency room. There is no question that it was a needed service and a valuable service, and given the increase in population at UBC, it's an essential service. I don't think it's fair for the minister to set off different parts of the province against each other when there is unquestionably a need here at the hospital that the hospital used to fill and now has had reduced services despite increasing population.

Again, to the minister: are there any plans at all to revisit that decision, or will the minister simply abdicate his role here to Vancouver Coastal Health?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I do find it quite disrespectful to say that I'm abdicating my role. The fact is that it is a challenge. Providing health care services throughout a province like British Columbia is a challenge, and to provide a sustainable health care service that does not ruin the fiscal credibility of this province is a challenge. We are committed to providing the very best health care, and I've spoken in this House about the positive outcomes, the very enviable health outcomes, that we have in this province, yet we're making great strides in making our system sustainable.

When health care costs outpace economic growth, there are only two remedies. One is to increase taxes and fees. The other is to take from other programs like environmental protection, like forestry, like social development. I hope the member opposite can agree that this is a challenge faced by governments around the world.

We work very closely with our health care authorities to make sure that they are providing efficacious and cost-effective treatments for the citizens of British Columbia. It is true that you could have a full-service, 24-hour hospital within five minutes of every resident, but it simply would not be sustainable. We have to look to provide the very best outcomes and also the very best cost-effectiveness for the citizens of British Columbia because we have a fiscal responsibility as well as a medical responsibility to the people of B.C.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask some questions about Burnaby Hospital in my community. On Tuesday and, I believe, yesterday, as well, my colleague from New Westminster, the official opposition critic for Health, was asking questions about Burnaby Hospital and pointed out that the Liberal platform in 2013 said that Burnaby Hospital redevelopment is "underway or in progress," which I think would make the people of Burnaby feel that we are going to soon have a new hospital. However, there is very little in the service plan and budgets — apparently, no line items. There is a small amount that is being put into Burnaby Hospital at this point.

I think it's important to have just a couple of minutes of background. Burnaby has been waiting for a long time for a new hospital, and it needs a new hospital or at least partial redevelopment in a significant way. We already had a high-level master plan. There's a high-level master plan now. A process has been gone through. There was a high-level master plan in the year 2001. It sat for 12 years, and virtually nothing was done in order to improve Burnaby Hospital. And the recommendations about the rebuilding as well as the deficiencies about Burnaby Hospital were pretty well the same back in 2001.

I can quote just one very small quote. It's a very long document, several hundred pages. This is the 2001 document. It recommended "replacing the inefficient and unsafe 1952 and 1958 buildings." The report goes on to say that those buildings are seismically unsafe. In fact, one building had virtually zero seismic capability, depending on which way an earthquake went through the building. That plan was never acted on except in minor ways, and there certainly have been no new buildings, despite the strong recommendation that at least one and possibly two of those buildings be torn down because they're unsafe.

[1705]

We also know that they are not only unsafe as buildings; they are medically unsafe. We became painfully aware of that in Burnaby when a leaked document signed by virtually every medical department head in Burnaby, January 9, 2011…. It was a letter signed by every medical department head in Burnaby and sent to the CEO of the Fraser Health Authority.

It said that there was a very high level of C. difficile and that there were 84 deaths associated with C. difficile in the previous months. It says that one of the major reasons was the aged hospital infrastructure, with insufficient numbers and inadequate localization of sinks.

I know that there is some effort in order to address the issue with sinks. That's part of the small amount of money, I understand, in the hospital. But the reality is that Burnaby has a hospital that has served our community well for decades and decades, but it needs to be replaced.

Now my understanding is that we're on the list. We're looking at ten years, and we have some real concerns. Our concerns are also in the nature that the only real time that there was interest in this hospital seemed to be when it turned into a political football.

I would like to read into the record a couple of para-
[ Page 1152 ]
graphs from a three-page document from December of 2011 that was signed by Pamela Gardner, Brian Bonney of the quick-win scandal fame and Mark Robertson which says:

"A new Burnaby hospital. The issue we can win Burnaby–Deer Lake on and rewin Burnaby North and Lougheed will also help in Fairview and Fraserview."

This is one small part.

"Only Burnaby Hospital can deliver a new seat, Burnaby–Deer Lake, taking out" — it mentions my name, which I'm not allowed to do in this House — "and helping us keep two tight swings, Burnaby North and Burnaby-Lougheed. It will also help us in the serving area with Fraserview and Fairview."

It goes on to say:

"It will dramatically help the chances once more if we can introduce a second-generation Chinese doctor candidate for Burnaby–Deer Lake to champion the issue. It would help seal the deal."

Later:

"We must act first. PCC" — referring to the Premier — "MMD" — referring to then Minister of Health — "Richard Lee and Harry Bloy to tour Burnaby Hospital, do a press conference and, after, to announce that PCC will rebuild the Burnaby Hospital or look into what the community wants. This would keep the issues ours without committing dollars and buy us time to do some polling and confirm this is a winning issue."

There was a report that was done later by a bogus committee in the community as well, peopled by Liberal friends as well. That happened later. E-mails leaked from them indicated that from the ministers themselves down through Brian Bonney and the local operatives, it continued to be used as a political football.

You can understand why the people in my community have a lot of cynicism about the nature of how projects go through, have cynicism about the treatment of health care and only want the right thing to be done for Burnaby. But once again we see, now that the political usefulness is no longer there, that there is no real money going into Burnaby Hospital.

I wanted to get that on the record. I also wanted to ask the minister: considering the danger of the hospital, the high level of C. difficile, the fact that it is seismically fragile and the fact that this hospital is needed for our community, could the minister please assure the people of Burnaby that this hospital is finally, after many, many years of being ignored, going to be rebuilt?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm happy to talk about Burnaby Hospital. The hospital obviously is very valuable to the community. Let me remind the member of some of the ongoing investments in Burnaby Hospital.

The emergency department renovation is in progress. That's almost $2 million. The ambulatory GI unit renovation is in progress. That's $2.1 million. There's a piping upgrade that's going on, in progress, for $300,000. Isolation room renovation in progress for $250,000. Ventilation and air-handling upgrade for $220,000. Quality performance management system, which is an IM/IT system, $2 million. That's complete.

[1710]

There is a phone upgrade, $320,000 — complete. Clinical archives storage, $250,000 — complete. And $200,000 worth of work to the building envelope — complete. Chiller replacement for $580,000 — complete. Parkade, $250,000 — complete. Arthroplasty initiative, $1.96 million — complete. Energy upgrade, $240,000 — complete. Sterile processing department renovation, $510,000 — complete. Another sterile processing department, vertical transport system, $1.17 million — complete. Burnaby Hospital MRI renovation, $4.21 million — complete.

The list is extensive. It adds up to $32 million.

We are committed, and there is a notional $525 million for the redevelopment of Burnaby Hospital. This will take some time. As mentioned previously, whenever you are doing a redevelopment of an existing facility, you don't tear it down and leave the community without a facility. You do it in stages. Each stage will have a business plan with tighter cost estimates. As I said, notionally, $525 million.

We are looking forward and are committed to the redevelopment of Burnaby Hospital, but after combing the health care platform of the NDP, I did not see a commitment to the Burnaby Hospital redevelopment.

K. Corrigan: A large portion of the money that has gone into Burnaby Hospital is money that has to go in because it is falling down and it is being patched up. Some of them are improvements. I recognize that.

The thing that I asked of the minister…. There was documentation going back 12 years saying this building is badly in need of being replaced. What I am asking the minister is that the minister will work with the community of Burnaby. I think there are some creative things that can be done in Burnaby with that property. I think that there should be an openness with Burnaby, the city of Burnaby. And certainly, I would be very happy to work with the ministry.

But it is simply not acceptable to have what has happened over the last 12 years. We have a building that is dangerous. We have a building that is dangerous medically and is physically dangerous. It has been ignored by this government for 12 years, and it is not right that we would go another several years with notional funding. What we want is real funding, and we want that hospital addressed.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister a question about a very unfortunate and sombre occurrence in Nanaimo. It's not directly about this tragedy — a newborn baby died recently in Nanaimo — but about the efforts of the parents to cope with that tragedy.

On May 31 little Jesse Shanahan, at only six weeks old, having been born prematurely at a birth weight of two pounds, 12 ounces, lost her struggle for her life. Her parents, Sheri and Mike Shanahan, are coping with the loss of their daughter by appealing to the community to
[ Page 1153 ]
make donations in Jesse's name as her legacy to the newborn intensive care unit of Nanaimo Regional Hospital.

What they are hoping to do is raise enough money to fund a central cardiac monitor in the NICU. Unfortunately, the NICU at this point doesn't have a central cardiac monitor. Jesse's mom, Sheri, is a nurse, and several nurses have come forward with her to say that this would be a fitting memory for Jesse and something that would help nurses monitor infants from outside the rooms and allow them to perform their tasks more efficiently.

Quite an extraordinary response from the community. The Nanaimo Hospital Foundation has committed $30,000 of the $60,000 required. The family have fundraised about $15,000. So they're currently $15,000 short of the $60,000 goal to fund the central cardiac monitor in the newborn infant intensive care unit.

[1715]

I'm hoping that the minister could agree with me that one of the most extraordinary things we experience as MLAs is the capacity of people to deal with their loss and how so often their loss is translated into an effort to benefit other people. So many times we are confronted with people who can't do anything to remedy their own circumstances but turn their energies to the benefit of others, and this is a really great example of that in Nanaimo.

I wonder if the minister can see opportunity in the current budget to support the remaining funds necessary for the central cardiac monitor at the Nanaimo newborn intensive care unit.

Hon. T. Lake: I can only imagine the pain that a family must go through to lose a newborn and certainly understand how losing a child can spur parents to advocate and try to help others, particularly if it can prevent something tragic from happening to other people.

Having said that, I don't think it is fair, honestly, to put a minister on the spot in a public forum like this to commit public funds. There are needs around the province. We certainly support the foundation and the fundraising efforts. But I don't think it is appropriate for a minister of the Crown to dedicate taxpayers' money to one project on the spot in a forum such as this.

J. Darcy: Let me thank the minister again and his staff, who have worked diligently over the last few days, carrying their binders in and out and supplying answers for many if not all of the questions.

I think it's probably appropriate that we started with very big-picture financing from the Ministry of Health and we finish with some of the real-life impacts on people in our community. We've left a number of requests with the minister for answers. We'll certainly be following up on those and look forward to exploring these issues further.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to say to the member opposite, the critic for health care, my thanks for the cooperative and collegial approach that she has taken to the estimates process, and to her colleagues that have, at various parts of the last 15 hours and 17 minutes, posed their questions.

It's a great opportunity for all of us, I think, to understand the myriad issues entailed in the health care ministry and the challenges that we as British Columbians and, in fact, as Canadians face in developing and maintaining a sustainable health care system.

I want to particularly say thank you to my staff, my deputy, my assistant deputy ministers and the many, many people behind the scenes that are in a room opposite and in other rooms throughout this building and through the building on Blanshard, as they watched the proceedings and tried to come up with the appropriate information to satisfy the questions asked by the members opposite.

Having said that, hon. Chair, shall the vote that I put before the House pass?

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I'll now put Vote 28.

[1720]

Vote 28: ministry operations, $16,403,475,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $75,496,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $16,070,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $510,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $8,210,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $5,526,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,039,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $5,615,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,024,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $7,317,000 — approved.
[ Page 1154 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report completion.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B) reported resolutions.

Madame Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. M. de Jong: Presently, Madame Speaker.

Madame Speaker: So ordered.

Committee of Supply (Section A), reported resolutions.

Madame Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. M. de Jong: Forthwith.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

Committee of Supply (Section C), reported resolutions.

Madame Speaker: Government House Leader, when shall the report be considered?

Hon. M. de Jong: Forthwith.

Madame Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on July 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25 be received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

[1725]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that there be granted to Her Majesty from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $35,067,404,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2013.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that there be granted to Her Majesty from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $735,759,000 towards defraying the disbursements for capital loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2013.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move there be granted to Her Majesty from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1,220,746,000 towards defraying the disbursements for revenue collected for and transferred to other entities for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. This sum includes that paid under section 3 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2013, which section ceases to provide authority.

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — SUPPLY ACT, 2013-2014

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2013-2014.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 3 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to specifically authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

It is the intention of the government, Madame Speaker, to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being distributed.

[1730]

In keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 3, Supply Act, 2013-2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.
[ Page 1155 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — SUPPLY ACT, 2013-2014

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 3 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 3 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 3, Supply Act, 2013-2014, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — SUPPLY ACT, 2013-2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 5:33 p.m.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — SUPPLY ACT, 2013-2014

Bill 3, Supply Act, 2013-2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, His Honour the Administrator is in the precinct. Please remain seated while we await his arrival.

[1735-1740]

His Honour the Administrator requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2013

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to this act.

Supply Act, 2013-2014

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the first session of the 40th parliament of the province of British Columbia.

[1745]

The Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in her stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, before we adjourn, on behalf of all of us, I would take this opportunity to acknowledge the fine staff of the Legislative Assembly who support us during this legislative session. The very capable individuals in all the departments — Hansard; the parliamentary education office; the Legislative Library; the Sergeant-at-Arms staff; financial services; human resources; information technology; the staff in the Speaker's office, Clerk's office and the parliamentary committees office; and, of course, the dining room — provide us all with invaluable service and dedication. Would you please join with me in extending our gratitude for their hard work. [Applause.]

Hon. Members, it has been my privilege to serve you as Speaker.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, with congratulations to all members, particularly those who have arrived
[ Page 1156 ]
here for the first time, best wishes for a happy summer. Until we meet again, à la prochaine fois, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

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

Hon. J. Rustad: Before we start, to the member's question from earlier. You were wondering about the chief of staff and the range for chief of staff. Both the chief of staff and the ministerial assistants are in the same band of classification salary range, which is $66,150 to $94,500.

The other question that I mentioned we'd be able to get to — we'll have to get that to you in writing after the session here today.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Stikine.

D. Donaldson: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thanks for sitting in and being the Chair this afternoon.

The topic I alluded to a bit this morning and that I'd like to move on to now is non-treaty agreements, which this government has put a lot of emphasis on in the last couple of years.

In the service plan on page 9 it talks about increasing resources for agreement implementation. I don't see any increase in the negotiations and implementation line item in this estimates as compared to last year's budget. In fact, there's a decrease of $200,000.

Could the minister advise on where the increase is that's written about in the service plan?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I didn't mention earlier: welcome to the estimates this afternoon.

[1445]

To the member opposite, the budget that we have in there…. Of course, we've had a tremendous amount of success in reaching a number of agreements. Within that budget, the amount that we have utilized for implementation has actually been increased. Like I say, that's a reflection of the success we've been having and how we've had to manage our budgets to be able to do those implementations.

D. Donaldson: Are you saying that, in the allocation of $13.537 million for negotiation and implementation, the way that it's allocated within that negotiation and implementation means that additional resources are being allocated for implementation, compared to previous years?

Hon. J. Rustad: Within that budget, it's probably important to note, as you reach agreements — whether it be a treaty or whether it be small agreements, non-treaty agreements — we have a group of very qualified, very capable individuals that may be part of the negotiations, part of the process through there. As we go through to implementation of them, those people might move over and work on implementing. So there's an ebb and flow that goes back and forth between the various components within the ministry.

D. Donaldson: Yes. And the service plan indicated there was an increase in allocation "increasing resources for agreement implementation." That's why I specifically asked the minister about that, to see how that was reflected in the budget.

Moving on to a number of these types of non-treaty agreements that the government is advancing, we know that some of them are strategic engagement agreements, some of them are reconciliation agreements, some of them are economic and community development agreements. In fact, the latter category is the majority of the agreements that have been signed in the last year and a half.

Most of those economic and community development agreements refer to sharing direct mineral tax revenue on new mines and major mine expansion. Could the minister advise or give an idea, for the public, what the formula is? What is an example of the percentage of direct mineral tax revenue that is shared in these kinds of agreements?

[1450]

Hon. J. Rustad: I want to take a moment and talk a little bit about this, because the agreements that we've reached with many First Nations on mining activities are very significant. Particularly, there are some in my riding,
[ Page 1157 ]
and there are a number across the province. The ten that have been reached encompass a number of First Nations and encompass a number of projects. We believe those projects are very important.

To the particular question that was asked around this, First Nations can receive up to 37½ percent of incremental tax revenue for mine developments.

D. Donaldson: Up to 37½ percent. Did the minister say "incremental," and could he elaborate on that a little further?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the question around the incremental revenue that comes in around this, I'll give a couple of examples. Hopefully, they'll be able to explain it. The Highland Valley project was an expansion, so the incremental revenue that would come in to government is shared in terms of the expansion component, whereas, say, with a project like Mount Milligan, which will be coming into operation this fall, I believe, the revenue that comes in is new revenue associated with the new mine.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. The performance target for the minister in this category of non-treaty agreements, I believe — perhaps he can confirm — is ten new agreements. I'm not sure if that's over the three years of the plan. And just to let him know, I'll be asking for, in writing, which types of agreements he's anticipating in those ten and with which First Nations.

Hon. J. Rustad: I want to confirm — the member had asked about the mandate letter — that that's ten new non-treaty agreements to be completed by 2015, as part of our overall jobs plan. And those ten new non-treaty agreements are the range of agreements. They're not just on the mining side. For example, where there might be a project, whether it be clean energy or other types of agreements that could be reached, that would be part of that target of ten.

D. Donaldson: To get a bit more clarification from the minister on this, that would be ten new by 2014-15, on top of the 18 that had been signed? Secondly, I don't understand how this jibes with the performance measure 4 on page 15 of the service plan, where it shows seven strategic engagements for '13-14, seven for '14-15 and seven for '15-16, which adds up to 21.

[1455]

The performance measure is: "Number of completed agreements that support strategic engagement with First Nations, including reconciliation agreements and strategic engagement agreements." The seven, seven and seven add up to 21, and the minister is talking about ten. So could he put on the record exactly what numbers we're talking about here?

Hon. J. Rustad: One of the things that's probably worth noting is that our original target within the ministry under the jobs plan was to have ten new agreements by 2013, I believe. That was the original target, and of course, we've achieved 18 as part of that. So going forward, our target is ten, to be completed by 2015.

In our service plan, of course, we hope to be able to actually achieve that as quickly as possible. We're hoping to actually do many more than ten over that period, so we've set a target of trying to do seven per year over that period of time. I think we're well underway on our first number of agreements coming forward.

D. Donaldson: To finally put a point on this one, that would be ten by December 31, 2015?

Hon. J. Rustad: Yes.

D. Donaldson: I have a question. I'm going to put a couple of specific examples out to the minister. He probably knows about these. If he does, it would be good to get him on the record during estimates, and if he doesn't, then I think we need to raise some red flags about it.

The first is about a reconciliation agreement. In the ministry's fact sheet it says reconciliation agreements "create the opportunity for comprehensive and lasting reconciliation." So this is a non-treaty agreement, and that's what we're talking about in this part of the budget estimates right now.

I want to point out a situation that I would like to hear from the minister about. That's in relation to Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs. They sent a letter. The latest letter was July 15, 2013. They sent it to the Minister of Environment, but it was also cc'd to the senior negotiator with the minister's ministry.

It relates to this issue. In 2012 in the fall the Gitanyow signed a reconciliation agreement with the province. It was here, and it was well celebrated. Part of that reconciliation agreement was a land use plan. The land use plan had been worked on for a number of years. I congratulate the staff that worked with the Gitanyow, because it was rolled into the reconciliation agreement, which also had taken a number of years to get to resolution. So that was done, and the land use plan was recognized as part of the reconciliation agreement.

The Gitanyow subsequently this spring were asked to comment by the environmental assessment of-
[ Page 1158 ]
fice on a proposed transmission corridor for natural gas pipelines between the northeast and Prince Rupert, two of which are proposed to cross their traditional territories and land that was under consideration in the land use plan. The land use plan had actually dovetailed with a number of government land use plans that were already in existence.

[1500]

They were told by the environmental assessment office that it was of the view that the land use plan — and I would say, therefore, the reconciliation agreement — had no bearing on the environmental assessment office's consideration of these pipeline routes in the EA process.

I'll quote a little bit from this letter that the Gitanyow have sent. I mean, obviously, it's of grave concern to them and I think of grave concern to the province. It should be, when a reconciliation agreement is signed and then these kinds of surprises happen. What they say is:

"One of the main purposes of the Gitanyow reconciliation agreement is to create increased certainty to land and resource management and decisions. Forcing Gitanyow to go to court in order to obtain a serious consideration of Gitanyow aboriginal rights and title with respect to the environmental assessment decisions will not provide that certainty and will increase the possibility of non-reconciliation and disputes.

"It appears to us that the environmental assessment office is operating under directions to green-light all projects proposed for this region, and in doing so, they are showing complete disregard for our rights."

They go on to say that they negotiated in good faith on the reconciliation agreement and the land use plan and would like to get some clarification about why this agreement is not being considered in regards to this very substantial initiative around natural gas pipelines.

Part of the purpose of the ministry, under strategic initiatives, is to support and enhance non-treaty negotiations considered strategically important to furthering the new relationship. LNG is obviously a top priority for this government and in the mandate letter. What is his view of this interaction between the Gitanyow, the environmental assessment office — the reconciliation agreement that his ministry signed with the Gitanyow — and what's being done to address this situation?

Hon. J. Rustad: Like I said earlier, we try to build these relationships, we try to build these opportunities in the non-treaty agreements to help further relations, to help further certainty and opportunities on the land base as well as opportunities, of course, for First Nations to be able to participate.

With regard to the Gitanyow and specifically to the reconciliation agreement, one of the things that actually was excluded from that agreement was that the engagement framework does not apply to decisions under the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act.

D. Donaldson: I understand that's the answer that the Gitanyow are getting to their references, and they don't agree. They believe that the reconciliation contains two references to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act, and they point it out in this letter to the Minister of Environment and cc'd to one of the senior representatives of MARR. They say:

[1505]

"While it is true that EA decisions are not included in the shared decision-making framework, this does not mean that the EAO is excluded from the recognition provided under the agreement. This is a significant distinction in that the EAO, if it is of the view that it can operate as though there is no R-and-R agreement, is, in fact, undermining the constructive development of reconciliation between the Crown and the Gitanyow."

They recognize that there was constructive work done together between MARR and the Gitanyow, with MARR representing the Crown, in arriving at this agreement less than a year ago. Now they're surprised that another branch of government, the environmental assessment office, is not even recognizing the land use plan that was part of that agreement.

I'll pose it to the minister one more time. I think he would understand, especially in light of the emphasis on LNG and those two northern routes that are proposed across the Gitanyow territories, that this is something that, I think, is a red flag.

Is his ministry involved in this difference of opinion over what the reconciliation agreement states?

Hon. J. Rustad: As the member has said and as I've talked about earlier, of course, LNG is a tremendous opportunity for all people in the province, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. With regards to the transmission pipelines, we have been engaged with First Nations along the corridor, including the Gitanyow, to make sure that there are benefits from these operations and from these potential projects that will flow to the First Nations.

Specifically, with regards to the question around the reconciliation and the difference of opinion, we are actually engaged with the Gitanyow and the environmental assessment office to try to work with and try to bring the differences to a resolution. That's part of the job of MARR and what we try to do within our ministry.

But for specifics with regards to land use and the projects that are being proposed in the EA office, a process going through there, unfortunately, those are details that I wouldn't be able to go into. You'd have to take that to the Minister of Environment, on the environmental assessment process.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, Minister. Well, it's good to hear that the ministry is engaged, because I think that it has the potential to be a very serious disagreement, as outlined in the July 15 letter that I was quoting from. I supplied that letter to the Minister of Natural Gas Development during and after his estimates and brought the issue up there as well.

As I said, it's a coordinating role, a coordinating function, of this minister's ministry around these non-treaty agreements, so I would look forward to hearing from the Gitanyow around the engagement that the ministry is having. Obviously, they've got some very serious concerns.

[1510]

It also raises the issue of these non-treaty agreements. When the ministry is advocating and this government is advocating to sign off more of them, what are they ac-
[ Page 1159 ]
tually meaning to First Nations?

I'll bring up another specific example. This one is another type of non-treaty agreement. It is a strategic engagement agreement, and in this sense, it was a shared decision-making agreement. That was signed with the Tahltan in the last sitting of this Legislature, which was at the end of March, 2013, I believe. There was a ceremony here to celebrate that at the Legislature.

These shared decision-making agreements, again, are process-oriented. Under a strategic engagement agreement, there are ways, as I quote from the ministry fact sheet, to "encourage a positive and respectful government-to-government relationship with First Nations." I think that's going to be key moving forward, the government-to-government aspect.

So signed in March with the Tahltan — this was a shared decision-making agreement. Subsequent to that, the Tahltan discovered that…. The environmental assessment office, around the end of May, informed them that they had applied for substitution to the federal environmental assessment office regarding the environmental assessment of a proposed open-pit coal mine in the Sacred Headwaters region of Tahltan territory — in fact, an area that the government and the Tahltan and industry had worked on potential coal bed methane extraction and eliminated that activity out of that area, which was a good move.

This proposed open-pit coal mine is in the same area — the birthplace of the Stikine and Skeena and Nass rivers. It's an amazing part of the country and very important to the downstream resources, including wild salmon.

The B.C. environmental assessment office had applied to the federal environmental assessment office for substitution. In other words, they were granted substitution. The B.C. environmental assessment of the project would be considered by the federal assessment office as a substitute for theirs — so one process on that.

The president of the Tahltan Central Council characterized this as fast-tracking and also characterized it as a breaking of an election promise, because in the throne speech — I believe, the February throne speech — there were remarks that the provincial government would work with the Tahltan towards a protected area resolution for the Sacred Headwaters.

Again, in this situation — a shared decision-making agreement in March; in May a decision made by the environmental assessment office without consulting around the decision to apply for substitution for an environmental assessment process, which the Tahltan characterize as fast-tracking.

Is the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation involved in the resolution of this dispute? Can the minister see how, once again, this would be seen by other First Nations as contradictory and not helpful when you're trying to encourage the signing of a shared decision-making agreement and then unilateral decisions are being made just months down the road?

Hon. J. Rustad: There's an enormous potential for many opportunities up in the northwest of the province, and of course, the Tahltan have a very large area within that which encompasses quite a wide range of those opportunities.

[1515]

The strategic engagement agreement is something that we set up, negotiated and worked government to government with the Tahltan on, to try to work on how the projects and what have you go forward.

It's similar, though, to the previous agreement. The actual work of the environmental assessment office was not included as part of that agreement. I'll leave it at that.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Considering that the environmental assessment office is integral to decisions about whether development will proceed — development that this government, and the province generally, is counting on for new revenue generation, whether it's in mining or LNG or other activities — can the minister explain why reconciliation agreements, strategic engagement agreements don't include language or clauses that refer to the environmental assessment?

Hon. J. Rustad: As I was mentioning before, with the opportunities that we see in the northwest, and particularly with the Tahltan…. I wanted to touch on a couple of the agreements, a couple of things that are covered in the agreements and those opportunities and benefits that are flowing to the Tahltan.

Of course, the northwest transmission line, with the agreement in there. The Forrest Kerr project. And we are in advanced negotiations with the Tahltan on the Red Chris project.

Specifically, though, with regard to the environmental assessment office and why that is excluded. The environmental assessment office is covered under very extensive legislation which requires significant consultation and a separate process, which is why it is not being included as part of the agreement that we are discussing.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. That may be, but considering the two examples I just gave, it would be important for the ministry to start making the linkages there. I think the two examples I gave are pretty important examples of how the non-treaty agreements aren't playing out the way those two First Nations in those particular circumstances thought it would.

The minister brings up some interesting points, though. This is something I've been trying to determine and wrestle with a bit myself while I have been reading through the material on the ministry. The Environmental Assessment Act includes language around impact-and-benefits agreements with First Nations. In fact, in the
[ Page 1160 ]
Environmental Assessment Act, one of the — I wouldn't want to say tick boxes, but — criteria that a proponent of a project has to show is that they commit to an impact-and-benefits agreement for impacted local First Nations.

They don't have to actually say what the details of the agreement are in order to get the environmental assessment certificate, but they have to say that they will negotiate an IBA, impact-and-benefits agreement, with local First Nations concerned.

[1520]

I know I'm pointing to a different ministry, but what is the link between economic and community development agreements that this minister uses as a non-treaty-agreement tool and an IBA? Wouldn't that be a natural link between these kinds of non-treaty agreements and the environmental assessment process?

Hon. J. Rustad: Of course, you're right when you raise…. This particular question is more directed to another ministry in terms of the environmental assessment. I will say that impact-and-benefit agreements are something that we try to encourage. It's a great way for companies to be able to help build those relationships with First Nations, as they're going forward.

As I mentioned, it is something that's a private sector company or a proponent with the First Nation. And the details of the impact-and-benefit agreement and the process and all of that sort of thing falls within the act that is governed, I think, by the Ministry of Environment.

D. Donaldson: To the minister, I'm trying to get a handle on this, and maybe he is too. I don't know.

You've got these economic and cumulative development agreements where up to 37½ percent of incremental direct mineral tax revenue is negotiated in an agreement with a First Nation. Then you've got the environmental assessment that, if a certificate is approved, includes an impact-and-benefit agreement where certain financial benefits would flow to a First Nation on the same particular project, perhaps.

So what is the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in coordinating between economic and community development agreements and impact-and-benefit agreements?

[1525]

Hon. J. Rustad: As I mentioned before, of course, the impact-benefit agreements are part of another ministry. But from my understanding of that piece of the legislation, that is part of the discussions that go on between the proponent and the First Nations. It doesn't necessarily mean in all cases that an impact-benefit agreement is actually reached.

What we try to do is try to facilitate discussions and try to encourage those discussions that go on between companies. And then from our side, of course, we are engaged with First Nations. We're trying to find ways to be able to share in the prosperity and the opportunities that come forward.

We find those types of benefits that can flow to First Nations through revenue-sharing or other types of agreements that we've reached can create tremendous opportunities in terms of employment, training and other types of things that can really change lives within First Nations.

So we are actively pursuing these. We think these are great opportunities to help build capacity, to help build the ability of First Nations to be able to participate fully within the economy within their area. We think that particularly mines, LNG and other types of resource opportunities do present fabulous opportunities for First Nations to be able to help build their economic base.

D. Donaldson: I'll have to think about what the minister just told me. To me, there's a bit of a niggling issue there. We know that under the environmental assessment process, proponents are having to commit to negotiate an IBA with a local First Nation if they're successful in acquiring their environmental assessment certificate. Then the minister says that might not always be the case. Then we have the provincial government advancing economic and community development agreements that seem to be a focus of attention.

It raises concerns for me that perhaps a First Nation would be more inclined to go with an economic and community development agreement and whether that has the full spectrum of what an impact-benefit agreement could provide. It might not be the case. But there's more certainty, perhaps, for them to try to get an ECDA in the short-term — economic and community development agreement. So I'll leave that percolating out there as something to think about.

What I would like to move on to in this section, though…. Under non-treaty agreements with First Nations, I'm going to talk about a specific example. I think it's the only example, actually, under First Nations clean energy business fund. I know that that's not part of the vote, but it is listed as one of the non-treaty agreement tools under the ministry fact sheet.

I understand that the First Nations clean energy business fund…. One of the parts of the fund is to share revenues from clean energy projects based on new net incremental revenues to government derived from, for instance, water rentals.

If I'm not wrong, the one example of this that's been signed so far is, again, with the Tahltan over AltaGas's Forrest Kerr project. Actually, I visited that project. It's quite an impressive project. I went underground there before they completed everything. I know that McLymont Creek and Volcano Creek are other elements to that independent power project.

But from what I understand, the Tahltan agreement was signed, again, at the end of March, at the same time
[ Page 1161 ]
as the strategic engagement agreement. A First Nations clean energy business fund agreement was signed on revenue generated from water rental.

I believe what I read was that the agreement that the province and the Tahltan signed in this regard was worth about $2.5 million a year. If the minister could confirm that that was revenue generated in this agreement from water rentals associated with the Forrest Kerr project, I'd appreciate it.

[1530]

Hon. J. Rustad: Before we go on to the Forrest Kerr, you were wondering about the differences and kind of puzzling around the economic community development agreement and IBAs. Maybe I could bring some clarity around that.

Those agreements, of course, particularly in the case of a mine, are the revenue-sharing opportunity that comes from the province. What an IBA typically looks to do are employment opportunities and training and those types of things. They're complementary in terms of how those two agreements can work when a resource project goes forward.

With regards to Forrest Kerr and the $2.5 million that was referred to by the member, we actually look at the clean energy side as being an enormous potential. Many First Nations look forward to the opportunity to engage within that. Forrest Kerr, of course, is the first. There is no current revenue flowing from that. When the project is up and running, there will be the opportunity for revenue, and we believe it'll generate $2.5 million. That's, in part, due to water and land rental revenue that would normally be accrued to the Crown.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. Yes, the $2.5 million figure was confirmed by the minister, and that raises an interesting point. If that is the water rental component with the Forrest Kerr project…. Let me get the wording straight here: "New, net, incremental revenues to government derived from water rentals."

That's a share that the Tahltan would accrue in this agreement. Then obviously, that's something that the provincial government believes the water is worth in a water rental. By the same token, then, my understanding is that…. Well, I guess the question is: where does the government derive that valuation from?

[1535]

What I understand is that water, for instance, that is used in the northeast or for fracking is not at a cost to industry. So on one hand, you're valuing water at upwards of $2.5 million a year in a water rental, and on the other hand, you're not valuing water at all for use in the fracking industry in the northeast.

Hon. J. Rustad: I want to correct something with regards to the Forrest Kerr. It's for both water and land rental, not just on the water side. It's important to note that, with regards to that particular project.

What the member has actually asked, particularly around what may or may not be happening up in the northeast around water…. Unfortunately, those are questions that you'll have to take up with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. When we move forward working on projects with First Nations, particularly around the power generation projects, we negotiate the opportunity for the revenue-sharing component. That's based on numbers that are given out to us from the other ministry.

D. Donaldson: I don't know if I caught the last part. Based on numbers given to your ministry from other ministries or from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Is that what the minister said?

Hon. J. Rustad: It's my understanding that under the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry, they actually set the rates and enter into the agreements with regards to the land and water. Then, of course, they let us know what that amount is, and it becomes part of how we negotiate with the First Nations.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that clarification. The minister referred to the $2.5 million per year that will be accruing to the Tahltan in this agreement once the project is up and running — which should be pretty soon, we hope — as long as the NTL completion date is arrived at, right? The minister said it was a mixture of water rentals and — I don't know the exact word, but I understand what he is getting at — land rental as well, or land value, land rents. How much of that $2.5 million is the water rental and how much is the land rents?

Hon. J. Rustad: As much as I would like, perhaps, to go into talking about the history of the northern transmission line, I will leave that alone for the sake of wanting to allow the member opposite as much time as possible for questions.

Specifically to the water and land and the breakdown that he's asked for, these are just projections, of course, at this point, in terms of what that revenue will be. We have to wait until things get up and running. However, we will need to get back to you, and perhaps we could provide that information to you in terms of how that breakdown is derived.

D. Donaldson: I appreciate the minister making the offer to get back to me on that, and I would look forward to that information.

This ministry negotiated the First Nations clean energy business fund agreement with the Tahltan.

[1540]

I'm curious to know how the water rental component was evaluated in this independent power project. Was it on use of water under the water rental — in other words, the amount of water flowing through this project, or was it on electricity generated? What was the evaluation?

Hon. J. Rustad: Once again, I think you might be better to be speaking with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations around this. How these things are calculated is based on the projected Crown revenue on the water that would be used as part of the project as well as, of course, as I mentioned before, the land component.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister. Yes, I will pursue that — obviously, in a different venue, because Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations estimates are over now. I find it interesting that the minister cannot point to what the criteria is, because it's this ministry that actually negotiated that agreement with the Tahltan.

Whether that Crown revenue is based on water usage or electrical generation…. The fact is that there is criteria to charge for water usage and reap benefits from that in the case of an independent power project, but when it comes to using water in another situation, like for fracking, it's not seen to be valued in the same way — or at all — by the province.

I'll take that up, on the minister's advice, with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and look forward to the breakdown that he committed to providing for me — out of that $2.5 million, what the water component is and what the land component is.

I'll move on. Time is fleeting. It's fleeting when you're having fun, I guess, and we're having fun here, I think. I am, anyway.

I'd like to move on to the mandate letter. Of course, every minister got a mandate letter, and this minister was no different. I'm sure he's read it numerous times over and committed to the seven points that the Premier laid out for him as part of his priorities.

I'm going to go a roundabout way of getting to the one part of the mandate that I want to ask a question about, and that is the potential — I believe it's point 4 — around working with First Nations "that are in the area of a new proposed refinery to ensure that they are provided with the opportunity to participate in and benefit from this economic opportunity."

First of all, before we talk about the refinery, let's talk about the transportation of bitumen across the north. I know that the minister has been on record recently in the media, saying that in regards to the Enbridge proposal, the minister felt the Enbridge proposal was still lacking on the five conditions that the Premier put in front of it in order to approve the project.

[1545]

Of course, one of those conditions — No. 4, again, coincidentally — was that in regards to the pipeline, aboriginal rights and aboriginal legal considerations would be respected. That brings up the case of the Yinka Dene Alliance. They feel and they believe that those rights are not being respected in regards to the potential for granting Enbridge permits to do geotechnical exploration work on their territories. I'm sure the minister is familiar with this, because it is a First Nations issue.

The Yinka Dene are linking what they feel is a reversal of position by the government, which is saying on the one hand that Enbridge is not meeting condition No. 4 around legal considerations of aboriginal rights. On the other hand, they're in the process of considering granting — and the Yinka Dene are worried that that process is already completed — geotechnical exploration permits for Enbridge on their traditional territories. As you know, they're not in favour of the Enbridge pipeline, along with many First Nations across the north.

So they are linking this issue to LNG pipeline proposals across their traditional territory. I'm sure the minister knows it well, because I believe a large portion of it — perhaps all of the Yinka Dene Alliance — is in his constituency.

What is the ministry doing in regards to this issue? I believe it's not just a FLNRO — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — permitting issue. It's also an important issue for this ministry to consider because it relates to the mandate letter that the minister received, No. 3, about working with B.C. First Nations around the LNG issue.

Hon. J. Rustad: Before I get to the answer on that question, I wanted to remind the member opposite that when we were talking about the revenue generation from Forrest Kerr, it was not the electrical generation. I was talking about the water and land rental revenues that come from that.

[1550]

With regards to the permitting approvals in regards to any sort of project that goes forward, I think the member, unfortunately, will have to go and ask the Ministry of FLNRO about their process of that going forward.

As I have said — I mentioned this, I think, when this question came up in question period — the five conditions, once again, have not been met, including condition No. 4, which the member had referred to.

With regards to the Yinka Dene group and LNG, of course, there's the Pacific Trails project, which is a project that is quite advanced and one of the projects that we're hoping will be going forward shortly in terms of LNG. Most, if not all, of the Yinka Dene groups actually have supported that project and are part of the 15 that are in support, and part of the partnership that has been formed around that.

There is one member of the Yinka Dene that is not
[ Page 1163 ]
part of that Pacific Trails. They have chosen to back out of that. But the other 15 are in support of the LNG and that particular project going forward.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that. The actual supply of a refinery was a way of getting to mandate No. 4 in the mandate letter the minister received, which is: "Work with B.C. First Nations that are in the area of a new proposed refinery to ensure they are provided with the opportunity to participate in and benefit from this economic opportunity." Can the minister elaborate on who the First Nations are, in the ministry's opinion, in this area of a new proposed refinery?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the question that the member has posed, the discussions around a potential refinery or proposed refinery in the northwest is actually within the Tsimshian First Nations. In particular it's around the Kitselas. The proposed location is directly adjacent to treaty lands that have been proposed for the Kitselas.

D. Donaldson: Is the proposed location of this refinery close to the former community of Kitsault in Alice Arm, or is it in a different location?

Hon. J. Rustad: The proposed refinery is not close to the community mentioned. It is actually, in my understanding, and I'm using very rough numbers here, about two-thirds of the distance between Kitimat and Terrace.

[1555]

D. Donaldson: Thanks very much for that. I'm familiar with the Kitselas Canyon. I drive that route occasionally, so perhaps I'm familiar with where this proposal might lie.

The mandate letter says: "Work with B.C. First Nations that are in the area of the new proposed refinery." What kind of work is underway, or what kind of work does the minister anticipate that involving?

Hon. J. Rustad: This is, of course, just a proposal. At this particular point it has come forward. It's very early days with regards to this. Our involvement at this particular stage is just scoping interests around this. There is nothing substantial that has gone on at this point.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that elaboration on the work. I find it a little bit curious — curious isn't even a good word — why the Premier would include it as No. 4 in a seven-point list about the mandate for the minister. To mention this, working with this proposed new refinery, it just seems to be that more important things could be worked upon.

I'm quoting from an op-ed from the end of June by Gerry Angevine, an economist and senior fellow with the Fraser Institute. The headline defines it all: "The Lack of Interest in Black's Refinery Is Easy to Explain." This is the refinery that's being referred to in the mandate letter, No. 4.

The proposed refinery is a proposal by newspaper publisher David Black. The author of this article from the Fraser Institute lays out a very compelling argument about why this proposed refinery is not going to see much interest from producers, meaning the companies that actually produce the bitumen.

He talks about:

"Producers selling crude oil to refineries on the west coast would unlikely be able to make the same profit as they could from exporting to growing markets in Asia, despite the greater transportation costs."

In other words, he's pointing out that companies exporting the raw bitumen product would be able to make more money doing that than selling it to a refinery that the Premier is actually putting in this minister's mandate letter.

Another quote from this article:

"Finally, the largest petroleum producers, those with sufficient financial strength and flexibility to invest in oil refineries as well as new oil production facilities, have other objectives. Large Canadian oil companies such as Suncor Inc. and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. plan to continue to develop their oil sands production capacity, the highly specialized business that they know best."

In other words, he's also pointing out that the capital that these companies might be asked to contribute towards an oil refinery facility is not what they're interested in doing. They're interested in extracting the bitumen from the tar sands and exporting it. That's the way they get their best bang for their buck.

He concludes:

"Black cannot count on the producers to participate in his project."

[1600]

I find it a real lack of foresight on priorities when the Premier includes, as No. 4 on the list…. In a ministry that has so much more on their agenda about real things happening today, especially with treaty and non-treaty agreements, she is compelling the minister to look into a new proposed refinery that expert economists say is somewhat of a flight of fancy.

I'm glad to hear that not much work has been done right now. I don't know what the performance measure will be on No. 4 in the mandate. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on how he's going to judge whether he's met mandate No. 4 in his letter around this proposed new refinery.

Hon. J. Rustad: The member has raised a couple of questions that I think probably would be better referred to the Office the Premier and perhaps also to the office of the minister responsible for natural gas.

However, I do want to make mention that part of what we're trying to do in the province is to explore potential economic development. The LNG industry has the potential to attract tens of billions of dollars in investment
[ Page 1164 ]
and create thousands upon thousands of long-term jobs as well as construction jobs generating a phenomenal amount of potential, including the potential to eliminate our debt over time.

More than that, more than LNG, there are other economic opportunities across the province. The mandate letter, as I said…. We're to explore those opportunities with First Nations around non-treaty agreements, around the other types of potentials that we have around here. There has been a proposal that has come forward that is in the $10 billion or $20 billion range to look at the potential for a refinery.

As a province, we embrace people coming and looking at our province for economic opportunity. They have to, obviously, meet our standards. Part of what we do as a ministry is engage in whatever format we can as the projects advance. We want to try to attract investment within the province of British Columbia. It's part of our jobs plan. It's part of what we're trying to do to help build our economy and be able to provide services. That's broadly why the points are within the mandate letter.

D. Donaldson: Many of the other points in the mandate, the seven points, are something that the ministry is doing good work on and are reflected in the performance targets, in the performance measures, in the service plan. To put this proposed new refinery as No. 4 on the list makes you wonder about the seriousness, especially in light of the economic analysis by experts in the field, by the Fraser Institute.

The other seven points — most of them do have ways to measure progress based on performance measures in the service plan. But I'm wondering. I don't see anything in regards to working with First Nations in the area of a new proposed refinery, about how the minister will be able to report on his performance and whether he's met performance measures in reporting out to the Premier and others on that item. Could he elaborate on that?

[1605]

Hon. J. Rustad: I think it's probably worth noting that the service plan that I mentioned, in terms of some of the performance measurements that are in place, was a document that was tabled as part of the February budget that came forward. The proposal, in terms of a refinery and particularly the Premier's mention of that in the mandate letter to me, of course, has come after that service plan.

More broadly speaking, when you look through the mandate letter, No. 3 is: "Work with First Nations that are impacted by natural gas extraction, pipelines or LNG facilities to ensure they are provided with the ability to participate in this generational opportunity." Once again, that's working with First Nations. It's hard to necessarily have a measure around that, but clearly from our perspective, the measurement around an item like that is the enormous potential as those projects go forward.

With regards to something like a refinery, this is still the very early phases of a proposal that's coming forward. We have done some initial scoping in interest around that. If that proposal goes forward and becomes more advanced, then I'm sure there will be some other options that might be looked at down the road. At this stage, like I say, it's still very early days on things like that.

When you look across at the seven points that we have on here, if you notice, they're all designed around our strong economy, securing tomorrow and sharing those opportunities and prosperity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike — developing the potential, particularly the resource potential, within our province, creating the kind of employment and creating the kind of revenue opportunities that support programs and that can change lives, particularly for our aboriginal people in the province of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that. There's a saying. Of course, I'm not very good at sayings, so I'm sure I won't get it right. If you can't measure it, then you don't know, basically, if you're achieving anything. Including something as grandiose as a new proposed refinery that has little credibility within the financial sector, according to the Fraser Institute, in a mandate and then not have a performance measure — well, I think that addresses a lack of seriousness about it overall.

I don't want to get the two mixed up. The minister was referring to No. 3, which is the LNG. Again, this is LNG proposals. The mandate letter is: "Work with First Nations that are impacted by natural gas extraction, pipelines or LNG facilities to ensure they are provided with the ability to participate in this generational opportunity."

I understand the ministry has done that in several instances. The minister talked about the 15 First Nations that are participating. I think it's in the First Nations Limited Partnership across the north, and then we know that the ministry has been working with the Haisla on their plans around an LNG plant.

[1610]

What I would like to find out, and I'm sure the minister has some opinions to share, is what his approach is to First Nations that have not expressed an interest to participate in LNG. Specifically, I'm referring to the Wet'suwet'en, who have made a description that they're not interested in pipelines crossing their traditional territories.

Again, I believe that the minister and I share some of the traditional territories of the Wet'suwet'en, but specifically the territories that are in question here around pipeline proposals to Kitimat lie in the minister's constituency. What is his approach to a First Nation that makes that kind of statement, that they're not interested in this kind of development?

Hon. J. Rustad: I want to touch on a little bit, before we
[ Page 1165 ]
go into the LNG, the discussion in terms of the potential with projects that come forward. The member seems to believe there is a potential for a refinery, and there may or may not be. I'm certainly not an expert in that field. But the member's approach in the past, in particular around LNG before the election, had referenced…. Their party had referenced LNG as being a pipe dream.

When you're looking at potential for projects going forward, it's tough to judge whether something is going to be successful or not, but unless you actually engage and try to move things forward and move forward the potential for an opportunity, I know what the result is. There is no opportunity unless there is the potential — the work done — and somebody dreams up the opportunity and takes the risk and starts moving forward with the project and engaging with the province and with others.

That's why on this side of the House we look at the potential of projects that come forward. We try to embrace those projects. We try and embrace the opportunities. We engage with them. Some are successful; some are not successful. But from our belief, we need to be able to engage in those and actually help to create those opportunities and what they can mean for the people of British Columbia.

Specifically to the question around the engagement with First Nations on LNG, we have been working very closely with all the First Nations upstream, midstream and downstream — the 15 First Nations that are supportive of the Pacific Trails project. It is one of those projects. There are many other First Nations upstream, downstream, midstream in terms of those projects. We're engaged with them. We're looking at how we can make sure that they can engage in opportunities for training. We're looking at how we can make sure that there are revenue-sharing opportunities.

This is a transformational type of potential for the province of British Columbia, especially across northern British Columbia. It's transformational for aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. The potential coming forward with this could really turn a corner and make a real difference for so many families and individuals.

With regard specifically to the Wet'suwet'en, we continue to engage with the Wet'suwet'en on these projects and discussions, and we will continue that process, just like we are with all the other First Nations.

There are, I think, some 15-plus LNG proposals right now that are around the province, primarily focused in the north, that engage with many, many First Nations. We're involved in that process, those discussions. We're working with the proponents in what we can do, as we're working with First Nations to try to bring forward…. And we're hopeful that the federal government will also work with us and engage, in terms of how this potential can be so transformational and be successful for the province of British Columbia as well as for all of Canada.

D. Donaldson: We're straying a bit with the minister's comments away from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation as he's delving into the LNG topic. I wanted to make sure that….

[1615]

Perhaps he misspoke, but I was not suggesting in any way in regards to the oil refinery that it's a viable or a potential project. What I was suggesting is that industry experts say it isn't a viable project, and I was expressing my concerns about it being made one of the top priorities in the mandate letter from the Premier to the minister, when I believe there's a lot more important work to be done on topics that are presently before the ministry. That's on the refinery side.

On the LNG side, what I'm trying to point out here is that…. By the mandate letter, one of the minister's top priorities is to work on this file in relation to First Nations. If the government feels that this is their mandate to forge ahead on this, then there is certain due diligence that has to be done and red flags that have to be noted.

I've pointed out that — for instance, with the Gitanyow, when they signed a reconciliation agreement less than a year ago and then are told that the land use plan, part of that agreement, does not apply to pipelines; and now the Yinka Dene, when they are linking the possible issuing of permits around Enbridge to the LNG pipeline issue across their territories; and now with the Wet'suwet'en saying that they don't agree with any pipelines across their territories — there is some work to be done if the government wants to push ahead in the manner that they do.

If the government feels that they want to push ahead, then there will only be one opportunity to get this right, in order to meet the timelines that industry is saying are essential. Unless these three issues that I just addressed…. Generally, unless work is being done to address those kinds of concerns from First Nations, there will no doubt be delays. This government has said that they want to try to take advantage of this opportunity before other jurisdictions do.

This is not me, this is the minister and the government saying that this is their agenda. What I'm trying to point out is that there are First Nations who have concerns around the approach. So when the minister says that there is engagement with the Wet'suwet'en, can he describe what that engagement has been recently?

[1620]

Hon. J. Rustad: As you know, of course, it is a priority for us, in terms of LNG, the potential for liquefied natural gas — moving those projects forward. We're engaged on a wide range with First Nations across the area in some very detailed discussions on a number of fronts.

Specifically with the Wet'suwet'en, we have listened to their concerns. We're trying to work through that with them, but we're also engaged on a number of other files
[ Page 1166 ]
with the Wet'suwet'en. We're taking a holistic approach in terms of how we engage with the Wet'suwet'en on projects like Huckleberry or on social issues, on LNG, etc.

We try to do that with all First Nations. It's part of how you build relationships and how you ultimately can come to agreements and resolve some differences that come up.

D. Donaldson: I'm going to ask a specific question, so I understand you might have to talk to staff about this. When was the last time the ministry engaged with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en on governance issues that relate to the LNG proposals and the Pacific Trails pipeline?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite: could I ask you for some clarity around the question, some clarification on the question in terms of…? If I remember right, you're asking about how we engage with governance that related to LNG?

D. Donaldson: Sorry. I don't know if I posed that as…. It's getting later in the day, of course, for both of us, listening and speaking.

The Office of the Wet'suwet'en represents the hereditary chiefs and on whose territory one proposed pipeline will cross and the Pacific Trails pipeline, which has its environmental certificate, is being proposed to cross. In the past, on the Pacific Trails pipeline proposal, in speaking with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, they felt that the proponent was doing a lot of the groundwork and that the governance issue, which is a government-to-government relationship with the province, was not being addressed to their satisfaction.

Now we have this situation where the hereditary chiefs — I attended a feast in Moricetown in mid-April — declared that they were not in support of any pipelines across their territories, which meant Enbridge, which meant proposed natural gas pipelines. At the basis of that is the government-to-government relationship, I believe, which they feel needs attention.

So the question was: when was the last time the ministry met with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, the hereditary chiefs, on a government-to-government issue like this?

[1625]

Hon. J. Rustad: In recognition that it is getting a little bit long in terms of the process, I appreciate the member's patience and our ability to work through the questions that he has.

Specifically, with the engagement on a government-to-government level with the Office of the Wet'suwet'en…. For example, my assistant deputy minister, Peter Cunningham, was up there in the last two or three weeks in discussions with them on social issues and on a number of other issues. Our ministry is in contact with them almost on a daily basis, back and forth, depending on the various issues that come up.

We have a number of engagements with them. That is ongoing and continuing in terms of building our relationship and working towards finding resolution on a wide variety of issues.

D. Donaldson: Thanks to the minister for that. I'm going to move on to another topic, but I would suggest that the social issues are not the same as the governance issues that the Wet'suwet'en are interested in, especially in regards to development on their territories.

The topic I'm going to move on to now is actually in a different vein. It's the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. We're moving to a new topic area here, and I hope the minister is prepared to answer some questions on this important plan.

The off-reserve aboriginal action plan. The protocol agreement was signed in October 2012, so just about a year ago. In estimates last year the then Minister of Aboriginal Relations said that the ministry was planning to bring back a plan very soon in regards to the off-reserve aboriginal action plan.

We know that it's to address the social and economic conditions of those living off reserve — which is, from my understanding, the majority of the population of First Nations in B.C. I think the number is 72 percent of B.C. First Nations living off reserve now, 60 percent in an urban environment.

Can the minister update me on where the plan is? I went on the ministry's website and couldn't actually find the plan that the previous minister referred to last year in estimates, saying it was going to be ready very soon.

[1630]

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Welcome, Chair. Thank you for joining us today.

The Chair: Thank you. I understand it's riveting.

Hon. J. Rustad: Well, I'm enjoying it. I heard earlier that the member opposite was enjoying it too. It is a great opportunity to be able to talk about a wide variety of things that are going on in the ministry which, from my perspective, are quite positive in terms of how we're developing our relationships with First Nations and the opportunities we have moving forward.

Specifically, on the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. The number, I think, is 74 percent or thereabouts that are off reserve and 60 percent, of course, in an urban area.

On the commitment and what we had talked about with the plan before. From there, we formed a provincial coordination team that involves representatives of the
[ Page 1167 ]
aboriginal organizations and all levels of government to oversee the development and implementation of ORAAP.

We built a funding partnership with the federal government, through the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, to support ORAAP. We signed a memorandum of collaboration with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and a protocol agreement with the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, which guides the work of the parties to improve the socioeconomic outcomes for urban aboriginal communities.

From that effort, we implemented five ORAAP community-based pilot projects — I'll give you the communities of those five: one in Vancouver, Surrey, Prince George, Kamloops and Duncan — to develop plans that reflect local interests and improve socioeconomic outcomes for aboriginal people.

We also implemented an aboriginal social innovation competition to mobilize aboriginal communities and organizations to generate innovative ideas that have a positive social impact. From that information, those pilot projects going on, there is some advice and recommendations. That'll be coming forward from that, and I expect to have that information to the ministry, hopefully, within the coming number of months.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that information. I have a few questions about the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. My understanding is it's to close the socioeconomic gaps for off-reserve aboriginal people in British Columbia. That's a huge topic and wide-ranging and requires resources.

Another former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs wrote a letter to Prince George council in December 2012, just last December, outlining what the government's plans were around the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. As the minister points out, one of the pilot communities was Prince George and the friendship centre in Prince George. She wrote that ORAAP, which is the acronym for the program, will "include support for collaborative social innovation approaches at the community level."

Well, these are huge issues. I understand that some of the support was $15,000 to three different communities as winners of the first off-reserve aboriginal action plan Aboriginal Social Innovation Competition. So $45,000 is a pittance compared to what we know needs to be resourced to address this huge issue.

[1635]

When the minister talked about funding arrangements that had been signed, I believe, with the federal government…. Could he elaborate on what the plans are around that?

Hon. J. Rustad: To the member opposite: it is getting to be a little bit of a long day, and I apologize for the length of time in terms of getting the answer to you.

The process that we put in place was really around trying to bring forward innovative ideas and scalable solutions that we could move forward, looking at the process. As you know, there are significant resources that are invested both federally and provincially through a number of programs. So this is to look at some of the innovative ways that we get to use those existing resources to perhaps improve the outcomes.

Through the competition and the amount that was going out, that was part of it. That was apprised in terms of trying to drive engagement, trying to drive opportunities and bringing forward those ideas that can ultimately lead to those improvements in outcomes. But specifically around those pilot projects over the last fiscal year, the amount of money that was allocated to it — the province put $450,000 towards those pilots, and the feds matched with, I think, $355,000.

[1640]

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. I'm still unsure of the minister's answer to a previous question, whether there is an off-reserve aboriginal action plan in place yet, or whether, despite the comments in the estimates process last year from the then Aboriginal Relations Minister that the plan would be there soon, it's still not…. There's not a plan that you find on the ministry's website. So maybe if he could elaborate on that.

Secondly, he did mention that the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres is now a signatory to this process. They published in November 2011 their recommendations around actions to be included in the off-reserve aboriginal action plan. Some of them are process-oriented. I believe that the ministry has adopted some of it.

But one of them, No. 3 in their recommendations, is: "Long-term capacity fund investment in friendship centres." They have presented this in other ways, but this is the newest iteration: "25 percent increase in capacity investment over four years, totalling $3.1 million annually by year 4" — in other words, an approximate $3 million investment by the province in friendship centres after a four-year process as part of this off-reserve aboriginal action plan.

Can the minister comment on the recommendations by the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres in regards to the off-reserve aboriginal action plan?

Hon. J. Rustad: With regards to the plan as referred to in the first part of his question, it's important to note that the work on the pilots that went forward in the five areas was work that actually began in late fall of 2012. That work has now come to fruition.

We're expecting that the report will be coming up, hopefully this fall, and then from there…. Of course, the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres is a full partner in this process, and we'll be working with them and with our partners when those recommenda-
[ Page 1168 ]
tions come forward in developing the next actions that will be taken.

Specifically, though, to the funding request, as the member has asked, around the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, we really recognize the work that the aboriginal friendship centres are doing. They are doing great work around the province. We're partnering with them on that, but we also face the reality of the No. 1 in my mandate letter, as we talked about earlier, which is to support the balanced budget and to be able to live within our fiscal means in terms of that, going forward.

So the funding coming forward to this year to the friendship centres is basically the same funding level that was in place for last year.

[1645]

D. Donaldson: Well, I want to elaborate a little bit on friendship centres. Given the context of the discussion we've been having regarding the off-reserve aboriginal action plan and the growing numbers of First Nations in B.C. who are living in urban centres. They're being serviced and well serviced on minimal budgets by the friendship centres in many ways.

There's a very young component to this demographic. Some 66 percent of the urban aboriginal population are under 25. Friendship centres point out that over a ten-year period, demand for their services have more than doubled.

I think that if you're talking about efficiencies and getting the best return for your dollars spent — which is part of considerations around budget allocations — the friendship centres provide that in spades when it comes to programs they're running in small centres, and in larger centres. I mean, we have the friendship centres in places like Vancouver and Prince George and also in smaller centres like Smithers, as the minister is likely aware.

I know that funding for the friendship centres does not just come directly from Ministry of Advanced Education, but they receive some funding from the first citizens fund. That has decreased from last year to this year, and from this year to next year we see a decrease in that. We can get into that a little later in the budget on those line items. They've received funding from the new relationship trust, which is also an issue, because they've seen an inability to maintain their funding to different programs that they provide support to.

The friendship centre has made strong arguments around the need for increased core funding from the province. In fact, the minister and I shared a couple years anyway on the Finance Committee together. In the Finance Committee — I don't know if it was during our time or later — six members from the government and four members from the official opposition endorsed resolutions and recommendations in our final report to the Finance Minister around increased support for increased investment in friendship centres.

Would the minister not think that finding ways to invest…? I think the friendship centres are looking for a lift in their investment. I mean, they've got about $25,000 or a little bit less per friendship centre now in core support from the provincial government. I think that there are now 25 friendship centres in B.C. They're looking to improve that substantially, but still not a huge ask. I think that it's up to $2.9 million a year.

When you talk in the context of a balanced budget…. And I don't want to let that comment slip. We maintain that the budget presented by the government is not balanced. But beyond that, if you want to try to make the argument about money well spent, would the minister not agree that this is money well spent and he could make that argument at Treasury Board that there should be an improvement in the financial contribution, the investment by the province in friendship centres and, therefore, in issues urban aboriginal people are facing?

[1650]

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite, of course, for the question. The aboriginal friendship centres — I think we're in agreement on both sides here with regards to the great work that they do. I seem to remember the presentation coming forward one or two of the years that I was on the Finance Committee. I can't remember the recommendations around that — whether I was part of the Finance Committee that recommended it going forward or not. But certainly, the work that they do is valuable work. It's important work, especially with the number of aboriginal people that are living off reserve.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, we are in a challenging financial time, and we are working to balance our budget. That's a promise that we made to the people of British Columbia, and it's a promise that we take very seriously. I'm actually very pleased that we've been able to maintain the amount of money that has come forward with that.

If opportunities come up in the future, certainly I'd be looking at this, but I'm very much looking forward to the recommendations that come forward through the pilot projects through ORAAP and looking at how we can implement those and developing a strategy around those sorts of recommendations. Once again I want to reiterate that a balanced budget going through means that you have to live within your means, you have to be able to create the opportunities and support the opportunities that are important, such as we have with the aboriginal friendship centres.

It also means that there are many, many asks and many things that we'd like to be able to see happen, but we have to make sure that we are balanced and that we respect taxpayers' dollars.
[ Page 1169 ]

D. Donaldson: Well, I don't especially appreciate the comments about living within our means. I mean, I could get into numerous examples of where the priority of this government that the minister is representing has strayed from what I think are top priorities. We could talk about $15 million spent on government advertising on a jobs plan, and here we have friendship centres trying to beg the government for enough resources to service and to deliver programs to some of the most marginalized people in the province. We have lots of reports on how marginalized many First Nations are, even in comparison to worldwide socioeconomic standards. It's an abysmal situation.

I don't want to spend our last 25 minutes together today and in this session going back on that, but I think that the minister should give me some leeway to have that kind of response to his idea that we need to tighten our belts and set priorities and be cognizant of that. I'm going to jump to another topic because, as I said, we only have a limited time left, and there are many topics to canvass.

As I said before, I'll provide some written questions as well, the ones we didn't get to. This is directly in relation to — I won't call it a program, but one of the agencies; no, that's not even the right word — one of the councils that the minister and the ministry are responsible for. That's the Minister's Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women. Now, this came out of a forum back in June 2011. The forum was called a Collaboration to End Violence: National Aboriginal Women's Forum.

One of the outcomes of that forum was to create this Minister's Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women, and they came up with a terms of reference. It's especially to address the issue of violence in regards to aboriginal women, which is an extremely important topic. The incidence is extremely high compared to the rest of the population. In fact, the mandate is to address the root causes and social and economic challenges that often leave aboriginal women and girls exposed to violence.

[1655]

I haven't been able to find much on the government's website about what has happened since the creation of the terms of reference for the committee and the work that it's been doing and how the ministry is supporting it. So if the minister could elaborate on that, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. J. Rustad: The Minister's Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women, or MACAW, as I will refer to it…. Going through, of course, there are ten members that are on that. The chair of that is Wendy Grant-John.

They had their initial strategic planning session in March, 2012. They came forward with a number of initiatives, including things like giving voice for forums for women in communities, developing educational and awareness materials — also things like focusing on men and a number of other things that they looked at. Actually, they've just finished their second strategic meeting, which was held recently.

So we obviously work closely with them. They also work with the provincial office of domestic violence in terms of those recommendations and in terms of working forward on opportunities for us to address the issues.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that information from the minister. Yeah, I mean, it's a totally unacceptable situation. I think you would agree, when you look at the statistics and the level of violence that aboriginal women encounter compared to the rest of the population, it's a very, very grim reality.

I noticed in the news release that was issued when this advisory council, MACAW, was established back in 2011 — the news releases from that — in the quick facts that were listed was that MACAW would meet at least twice a year with the minister. So I would like to know when the minister plans to meet with MACAW.

Secondly, one of the goals in their terms of reference is to identify outcomes needed to improve quality of life for aboriginal women.

[1700]

I would ask the minister whether he will be discussing with MACAW one very important outcome that I think he and I are very aware of, that would improve the situation for First Nations women in the north and improve the quality of life for aboriginal women. It's the issue of a shuttle bus between communities on Highway 16, the so-called Highway of Tears, something that was recommended by the Highway of Tears Symposium back seven years ago, held in Prince George, where over 500 people attended, including representatives from the government side and from the opposition side.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Those are two questions: when does the minister plan on meeting — as the news release said, it's supposed to be at least twice a year with the minister — and will he be discussing with them one of the intended outcomes needed to improve the quality of life, the shuttle bus service proposal recommendation on Highway 16?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Rustad: Thanks very much. Welcome again back here, hon. Chair.

To the member opposite: to the question of this terrible issue, I think we both agree we don't want to see issues like this for women. I want to reiterate that our government is committed to a legacy of safety and security for vulnerable aboriginal women and girls.

Specifically, to the potential meeting with MACAW. The Minister's Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women were planning to try to have that meeting early in the fall. The date is still yet to be firmed up, but I'm certainly com-
[ Page 1170 ]
mitted to the two meetings per year with that committee.

With regards to the specific recommendation along Highway 16, a place where we both live and have been for many, many years, I would ask that the member canvass the Minister of Justice around that particular issue, as she is the one who is directly responsible for those implementations and recommendations.

D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome again to our last 20 minutes or so of this estimates debate.

Thank you for the response. I'll take that into consideration. I have raised it in a number of different forums, and the Minister of Justice is another good one. I've raised it with the Minister of Transportation as well. I think that together, perhaps….

It's another one of these issues that I started off today's debate about — issues in regards to the biomedical experiments with First Nations children at residential school back in 1942 to 1952 — where we could put our shoulders together and show solidarity. I think, again, with the Highway 16 Trail of Tears issue and the public transit issue around that, it's a good issue for us to work together and show solidarity on as well. Hopefully, we can find avenues to do that in.

I'm going to again jump…. We're sort of playing a quick round here of different topics, so we can at least canvass another one before our time is up. This is the new relationship trust.

We know the new relationship trust is arm's length. It's a trust that was established under the agreement when the new relationship was being negotiated. It was originally…. I think it was back in 2006 when it was originally constituted with a $100 million fund, that investment fund they have been using to support some pretty strategic activities in governance, in education, in language and culture — many important areas — economic development.

[1705]

I think the governance one is especially pertinent to the discussion these days when the province is signing so many non-treaty agreements and trying to move ahead with sometimes massive projects on First Nations territories. The support that the trust plays in the governance and being able to build capacity in a First Nation to deal with those kinds of proposals is essential if the province wants to see progress on that front.

The issue here, of course, with the world financial situation in the last number of years, is that the interest accrued from this account has not been as much as what the need is in the programming. The trust has made a decision in the last number of years to continue their funding at about $7 million a year for their programming. I think the programming is an advantage to the province in the way I've described.

They have made the decision to drop that to $6 million a year. What we see is that there is about $3 million in interest being accrued each year. What we see is the investment fund slowly depleting because the need is so great, and the trust board has decided to continue with the $6 million level and not reduce it any further.

What they have written to us about is that they feel there was a commitment made by the government, when the fund was first established, to replenish it back to the $100 million level when it was depleted. That, they believe, was a promise made by the B.C. government through former Premier Campbell.

My question to the minister is: will he be honouring this commitment and replenishing the fund, once it is depleted, back to the $100 million level?

[1710]

Hon. J. Rustad: The new relationship trust is something that I think has had a great value. It has created some significant opportunity for First Nations. It has created opportunities for First Nations, particularly to take advantage of other opportunities that actually have presented themselves to First Nations.

The spending, as I understand it, as the member has said, is about $6 million each year, allocated over the next three years. That's allocated between five areas in governance: capacity, education, culture and language, youth and elders and, of course, economic development.

We actually value the work that they're going through. It is an independent trust. It's at arm's length from government, making decisions with the governance board. Of course, we're working closely with them, encouraging opportunities as they come up.

We do value the trust and the work that it's doing. Specifically as to how the trust will be managed, those are decisions, I think, that the board is going to need to be making going forward.

D. Donaldson: I take that as a…. In the answer I didn't hear anything about a commitment to honour what the trust feels was a commitment to replenish the fund back up to $100 million when it was depleted.

Hon. J. Rustad: To reiterate, the trust is at arm's length from government. The trust is run by a board of governors, and they make decisions as to how that money should be spent on their priorities and how much of that money should be spent. As government, because it's at arm's length, we don't tell them how they should manage that money.

I want to reiterate that we do value the work that the trust is doing. We think that it has created opportunities and capacity, which is what it was set up to do. We actually we look forward to the work that the trust will continue to do, hopefully for many years yet to come.

D. Donaldson: Well, the understanding that the New Relationship Trust board has is that there was an agree-
[ Page 1171 ]
ment, as part of that new relationship, that the fund would be replenished. I take that as a no from the minister.

We've got lots time left. I'll move on to another topic before we begin to wrap up. That would be in relationship to the Site C project, which is under environmental assessment review right now.

I believe it was in the service plan that I noted the minister had some mandate to work on the Site C proposal in regards to First Nations, yet the language used seemed to indicate that the Site C project was a done deal. It's not. We know that it is still under environmental assessment review. It hasn't had its certificate issued yet.

I want to point out that there was recently an annual event called the Paddle for the Peace. I think it just happened earlier this month. I was, unfortunately, unable to attend. Perhaps the minister would like to attend next year at some time too. It sounded like a great event.

What happened is that the First Nations who will be impacted by the project, especially the Treaty 8 First Nations, made it clear again that they're in no way supportive of the Site C project being approved. Liz Logan pointed this out as Tribal Chief of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association in an article in the Vancouver Sun on July 12 of this month, following the Paddle for the Peace. They've made that clear.

This issue was canvassed to a small extent last year in estimates, when the then Minister of Aboriginal Relations said that the role of the ministry in regards to this issue is that although B.C. Hydro is the lead on it, it's to support B.C. Hydro and provide support to them, as they are the lead.

[1715]

I'm wondering. Especially in relation to First Nations issues and the information I supplied to the minister about the Treaty 8 not being in favour of Site C dam proceeding, how is the ministry providing input and support to B.C. Hydro as the lead regarding First Nations issues on this important topic?

Hon. J. Rustad: On Site C. I think it's important to note that with Treaty 8 and the First Nations in that area, there is a tremendous amount of economic activity happening up in that area, whether it's natural gas, the pipelines supporting LNG; whether it's coal development or other types of activities — forestry, etc. Site C, of course, is one of those. We're actually working with Treaty 8 around economic benefits agreements. We're working with the Treaty 8 nations around revenue-sharing and other types of agreements which encompass all of those components.

Specifically, the First Nations are being engaged by B.C. Hydro around Site C. We are supporting the work that they're doing with our staff in terms of discussions. It is part of broader discussions. I think specifically to the Site C question that you would have in mind, unfortunately that would fall under the Minister of Energy and Mines.

D. Donaldson: If this is a quick answer, perhaps I will be able to get two more in. I want to get this on the record. I apologize for hopping back and forth a little bit here, but I'm going to go back to the actual budget and the First Nations clean energy business fund.

I want to be able to make sure that we are able to get an answer from the minister on this. It is one of the major anomalies that we note in this budget — that the First Nations clean energy business fund drops by 16 percent from 2012-13 to the estimates for this year, '13-14, and then drops again by 85 percent in 2014-15. It goes from $2.151 million in 2012-13 to only $318,000 in '14-15, and then apparently jumps back up in '15-16 to $2.169 million.

When you look at financial reports and see that kind of wild fluctuation, it usually raises a red flag around what the heck is going on. My question to the minister is: could he please elaborate on what's going on there?

[1720]

Hon. J. Rustad: Specifically to the clean energy…. It is an exciting opportunity. We've had many, many First Nations across the province express interest in this, and we're working, of course, with them to try to move forward with those opportunities.

The reason for the drop in revenue, as we talked about with Forrest Kerr, is the First Nations clean energy business fund was reduced by the $340,000. It's primarily due to lower projected water and land rental revenues that come in around it. We're expecting those revenues to recover in the coming years, which is why there will be more dollars available into the future, hopefully, within that fund.

Vote 11: ministry operations, $34,552,000 — approved.

Vote 12: treaty and other agreements funding, $43,086,000 — approved.

Hon. J. Rustad: Before we rise, I also want to once again thank the member opposite for the questions, for the process that we went through. Despite a little bit of politics that went on back and forth, I think it went relatively well — certainly for my first estimates. In your first estimates for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation I hope that you found the experience good as well. We look forward to the written questions that you have brought forward.

I also want to take this moment to thank my deputy minister, Steve Munro, as well as Peter Walters and Peter Cunningham and Charles Porter, who are assistant deputy ministers, as well as Neilane Mayhew, who is the assistant deputy minister for corporate services and natural resource sector, for their support through this process.
[ Page 1172 ]

With that, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:22 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY,
INNOVATION AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

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

G. Heyman: I'm now moving to records management and archiving of government records.

The government recently lost a court case against the B.C. Teachers Federation, in which the Supreme Court ruled the government was withholding cabinet documents far too broadly in response to freedom-of-information requests. I'm wondering if the minister will be instructing information access office analysts to heed the court decision and release cabinet documents to requesters according to the principles that were set out in the case, and what those instructions might be.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I must observe that this decision was handed down last week, and the 30-day appeal period is still pending. I'm simply not in a position to comment, because I'm not aware of any decision having been made on whether or not there will be an appeal.

G. Heyman: Will the minister or the ministry be heeding the direction of the court, pending any possible appeal?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Without becoming an amateur lawyer or even a qualified one, I'd have to defer to my colleagues at the Ministry of Attorney General on whether they would be seeking any injunctive relief or whether they would be proceeding on the basis that they would observe the directions in the decision while also considering appeal. It becomes a rather convoluted issue, and I'm simply not in a position to comment.

G. Heyman: In that case, I'd ask the minister, in the event that no injunctive relief is sought or in the event that there is no appeal, to answer the question in writing at a later date, once the answer to the question is actually determined.

Let me move on to the centralization of freedom of information. This has led to a large reduction in the number of staff responding to FOI requests. Can the minister please tell the House the number of FTEs now in the information access operations program areas? How many FTEs are in FOI processing, and how many in records management?

In addition — the minister may not be able to answer this now, but perhaps in writing in the future — are there reductions in staff contemplated in either of these areas as a result of the core review?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I should correct myself on my earlier answer so that I will not be dismissed, upbraided, criticized or laughed at by the other member in the room. In fact what may be in question is whether there's a stay of the decision pending an appeal, rather than an injunction application. I apologize to the lawyers in the room.

Now, on the issue of FOI, I'm advised that there are 55 full-time-equivalents in records management and 94 in the freedom-of-information processing section. I believe that was the extent of the question.

[1445]

G. Heyman: There was also a question about whether the minister believes that further staff reductions in either of these areas could be contemplated as part of a core review or whether the minister believes that, essentially, we're at rock-bottom staffing now, given the difficulty and time in responding to requests.

Before I ask the minister to answer that question…. Seeing as he re-raised the issue of responding to the court case, I believe that, pending any decision regarding a stay or injunctive relief or an appeal, it is the responsibility of the ministry to proceed in accordance with the dictates of the court. If I'm correct in that assumption — which I have reason to believe I am — what steps are being taken?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you for restating the question. I'm sorry for not answering the first round.

In terms of the core review, I think it's fairly widely known in government now that the exact terms of reference are still in development. I can't say that I anticipate any effects of core review on this ministry until we see those terms of reference and see the breadth and depth of the core review. So I'm simply not in a position to answer at this point.

On the second issue, on whether government would be seeking a stay, I'm truly not in a position to answer that question, because it resides with the Ministry of Justice. In terms of process and procedure pending any
[ Page 1173 ]
stay application which would occur within the 30-day appeal period, again I have to refer that question to the Ministry of Justice.

G. Heyman: Let me move on to the archiving of government records. We've received information that since 2003 — when archiving of government records was moved, as a result of the last core review, to a responsibility of the Royal B.C. Museum without any matching funds to actually proceed with archiving — there has not effectively been proper archiving.

We've been told that Citizens' Services archivists continue to appraise government records. Those records determined as required for full retention are physically stored in off-site storage facilities. But if a member of the public wants to gain access to one of these documents, they're told that the archivists have no authority to order that the boxes be viewed. The reason is that these records have never been physically processed by an archivist. Therefore, they cannot be made available to the public.

Now, that's clearly, I would say, fairly serious. So I would like to ask the minister: what is the procedure to access records generated since 2003, and what is the ministry doing to ensure that the government decisions are being properly documented and archived and available to the public?

We've also heard, coincidentally, that there aren't training funds in this area or, at least, that they've been severely cut. So I'd like to know what training is in fact done to ensure that civil servants across government understand how to file and prepare documents, including electronic records, for proper archiving.

How has the now-documented use of personal e-mail by various members of the B.C. Liberal government and senior officials in ministries, which we've already discussed as skirting freedom-of-information laws, affected the historical record? In other words, can the minister assure the House that the historical record is being adequately preserved under this system?

He stated earlier that he and his ministry have made it clear that every record — including, as he said, records kept on shoes — needs to be accessible. I would ask: what is the process for ensuring that all of these records are properly archived so they can be accessible?

[1450]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That's a fairly wide swath of questions. I'm going to try and answer it as comprehensively as I can.

The member opposite is correct, in that the archiving of documents is an established process based on the olden days of pure paper records and relying upon the Document Disposal Act, which I believe was passed in 1935. There has been no updating of that act since, so in the advent of the electronic era and the proliferation of electronic data, the Document Disposal Act is a blunt and inefficient instrument.

With that in mind, over roughly the past decade records have not been processed under the terms of the Document Disposal Act but rather have been kept in physical storage, where they are fully accessible for freedom-of-information processing by the appropriate staff.

Now, this is obviously cumbersome. The pre-archiving step of, as the act says, document disposal is a committee to review the documents and decide which ones are part of the historical record for use 70 or 100 years from now. That pre-archival processing has not been going on recently, but the records have been retained. They are available.

In terms of record management, which is obviously closely linked to this issue, 1,523 key government employees were trained in records management in the fiscal year 2012-13 so that they can deal with this issue, as government attempts to find a more durable solution into the future. That will deal with this situation whereby records have not been disposed of and are just being retained for processing at a later date.

G. Heyman: If I understand the minister's comment, our assertion — that the public does not have access to documents that have been archived because they are stored and not yet archived — is incorrect, and in fact, they're accessible to the public on request. So my question to the minister: can he reaffirm that?

If it turns out that we have further documented information that that is not the case, we will raise that to the minister's attention. If the minister finds out at a later date that there is an answer that is different than the one he's just given me, we would like to receive that answer. But my information is that in fact, they are not readily accessible. They are not archived. They are physically stored off site and not processed, because there is not sufficient funding available for staff to do the archiving.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm sorry if my answer was incomplete. The member raises a valid point, in that these records which are in the preprocessing state, which are kept pending a processing decision and potential overhaul of our document management system for archival purposes….

Those documents are not available to the general public for review, the reason being that the processing committee under the Document Disposal Act has as one of its obligations to ensure that privacy issues are fully addressed before documents are processed into the historical record so that an individual does not find that their private information is suddenly available publicly to historians.

[1455]

The corollary of that is that to permit suitable public access to those pre-archived records, if I can call them
[ Page 1174 ]
that — the records over the last ten years that have been physically retained but not yet processed…. The access system to those records…. To ensure protections of privacy and security and all of the other factors that go into the decisions, those records are available through freedom of information but are not available for perusal in an archival or museum setting in their original form.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister's answer, but the fact remains that responsibility for archiving was turned over as part of the last core review ten years ago. That is a long time to have limitations on the access to archive documents because processing still hasn't happened. The minister gives the reason that that's because the Document Disposal Act requires updating. Other people think there are other reasons, not the least of which is an inadequacy of staff to do the processing.

I'd simply like to point out and enter into the record that this is not just my concern. It's a concern of the Information Commissioner, who just issued a report today. Let me quote.

"Here in B.C. in 2003 the British Columbia Archives merged with the Royal B.C. Museum, and a fee-for-service model for managing and preserving government archives was introduced. Sadly, this fee has acted as a significant deterrent." This is an additional issue around access — the fee.

"Since it was introduced, ministries have not transferred any permanent records to the British Columbia Archives. This is a matter of serious concern, in view of the damage that this can do, as mentioned above." The damage he is referring to is to freedom of information. "A full decade of inaction on the archiving of records is too much. I call on the government to remove this fee."

My question for the minister is…. The opposition has concerns. The public have concerns. The Information Commissioner has concerns. In light of this report today, does the minister have plans to meet with the Information Commissioner, as he has on other occasions — there are many issues that have been raised — and actually make moving ahead on this issue a priority?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member certainly has a valid thesis behind the line of questioning, in that all of us have to be concerned about preserving the historical record — not only for posterity so that we will all know where we came from in the fullness of time but also for reasonable levels of access for research in the recent past and, of course, freedom-of-information requests, which are part and parcel of our democracy, not only for the loyal opposition but for our media and for our citizens in general.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

In a way, what we have done is found a workable compromise while we are sorting out, as is every jurisdiction in the developed world, how to manage the cumbersome and awkward transition from the paper world — which stopped, effectively, in about 1990 — to the electronic world, which only recently got fully underway in the last couple of years.

[1500]

That transition period has been about 20 years, during which both paper and electronic records have proliferated. I think every government on this continent, certainly, and in the OECD would acknowledge that they have had difficulty with this transition.

The essence of this is that the member's concern, conceptually, is valid. We are sorting out how to deal with it in an affordable and manageable fashion. We actually met with the Privacy Commissioner this morning and heard her views on the release of the open government document, which she made earlier today.

G. Heyman: I would just say to the minister and the members opposite that I'm glad that you can find something to commend about the 1990s.

Let me ask the minister to keep me apprised, as he may be able to, about the progress of the discussions and, in particular, about the response to the commissioner's concern about the fee.

I'm now going to move on to another part of Shared Services, asset sales and outsourcing. In his budget speech the minister stated:

"My ministry also includes the integrated workplace solutions division, formerly known as B.C. Buildings Corporation, which has responsibility for the overall management of government's real estate portfolio. Ministry staff have already made good progress in the Ministry of Finance's initiative to release surplus property assets to ensure that those properties are utilized effectively in our economy…."

My question to the minister…. I would add that if the minister would like to provide this in writing at a future date…. It may, in fact, be somewhat detailed, at least judging by the statements of the minister and other members of the government.

How many government assets has the division overseen so far? What are they, and what is the value of sales to date? What are the assets specific to this ministry that have been sold? Were there any ministry assets that were considered for sale and rejected, and if so, what are they? I'm quite happy to receive that in writing, unless the minister would rather provide the information now.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm pleased to advise that 37 percent of the fiscal goal for this fiscal year has already been met. I think the member will have recalled that the Finance Minister referred to the sale of some sinking fund assets in the range of $120 million, and there has also been other asset disposal in the range of somewhat over $60 million.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]
[ Page 1175 ]

Given that we're now in the second quarter of the year, we believe this process is on track. In terms of the specific sales of assets and prices obtained and other details, we will be providing those to you in writing.

G. Heyman: I'd now like to invite my colleague the member for Vancouver–Point Grey to ask a question.

D. Eby: The Jericho lands are a park-like setting in the middle of the Vancouver–Point Grey riding and the Point Grey community — a lot of mature trees, a very beautiful area. Half of the land is federal. There is a military base there. Half is provincial.

A leaked federal memo that came out in the media in February indicated that the federal government was on the verge of disposing of its half of the property. Ever since, there has been widespread speculation within the Point Grey community about the future of this property and whether or not the province has been attending these meetings with the federal government, whether they're also planning on disposing of its half of the property.

I'm hopeful that today the minister can please clear the air for the residents of Point Grey and tell them what the province's plans are for this property.

[1505]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you for the question. The Jericho lands, as the member describes, consist of two parcels.

One is the lowland parcel between 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue — federal land which is currently operated as a military base. We understand that the federal government is in discussions about the disposition of that property.

The upper property, to the west of the federal lands, is indeed provincial lands. There are pending leases there — one to West Point Grey Academy and the other to the Vancouver parks department — which run until 2020. The province has not entered into any formal talks with First Nations, the city of Vancouver or other stakeholders regarding the provincially owned lands at Jericho.

I think it's probably stating the obvious that we will observe with detailed interest what happens with the federal lands and whether there's a disposition there.

D. Eby: My colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena says that there haven't been any formal talks. Can he advise if there are any informal talks or any talks whatever involving the disposal of this property by the provincial government, or whether the constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey can rest easy until at least 2020, at the end of these leases?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The extent of any discussions, dialogue or otherwise about the provincial Jericho lands has simply been incidental remarks with the Musqueam First Nation, who are actively discussing the federal lands with the federal government. There have been no substantial discussions with anyone that we're aware of.

D. Eby: I thank the minister for that information. I know it'll put a lot of people's minds at rest.

Mr. Chair, I would take this opportunity to ask the minister — if that does change, if the ministry does start to look at disposing of this asset — that the minister commit to a full consultation process with the Point Grey community. The West Point Grey Community Association operates a community centre. Obviously, the Point Grey Academy operates out of there. A lot of kids go to school there; their parents live in the neighbourhood.

Also, the community has a lot of thoughts about the kinds of development that could go there: environmentally friendly, that would improve affordability but that would also fit in with the character of the neighbourhood.

So I hope the minister will commit to a full consultation process before disposing of the property.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This piece of property is well known to many of us, and I think the member opposite has accurately summarized the shortlist of those who would have opinions on it and would be interested in any issues that arise or any plans that are formulating. I expect there will be fulsome consultation if there is any progress on any plan to do anything differently, other than the status quo, with the Jericho lands.

G. Heyman: On March 11 this year the government announced that it had signed an agreement to extend the contract with Maximus for MSP and PharmaCare for another five years.

I'd ask: who made this decision one month prior to the election? And what was the justification for embarking on a long-term contract so close to the election date? Was the contract tendered, or simply extended? And was there a thorough review, prior to the contract being announced, with respect to any service delivery concerns, as well as privacy concerns, that have been expressed over the years with respect to this contract? If there was a review — which I hope there was — could the minister describe what form it took and what kinds of criteria were applied?

[1510]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This issue is essentially in the bailiwick of the Ministry of Health. It was canvassed, I believe, two days ago, or perhaps it was yesterday, in Health estimates, and we really have nothing to add to what was said in the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

G. Heyman: I thank the minister.

We're ready to move on to ministry operations, Vote
[ Page 1176 ]
17.

Some time ago the Information Commissioner made some recommendations to extend the Freedom of Information Act to the subsidiaries of universities and other public education bodies after a decision that said they were exempted. In 2006 the then Education Minister announced that in fact this would happen. Last October the former Health Minister expressed an interest, notwithstanding the fact that it was six years later, in working with the Information Commissioner on this issue to achieve this goal.

My question to the minister is: does the minister or the ministry have plans to move ahead with this?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: First of all, I've been admonished to clarify my answer — I believe I stated this, but in case I didn't, I will anyway — that we will provide a list of assets that have been actually sold, and that the ones that are intended for sale…. Obviously, these are commercially sensitive situations. We don't want to be diminishing the value to the people of British Columbia by publicizing them unduly in a commercially insensitive fashion.

Now carrying on with the question about expanding freedom of information to apply to subsidiaries of public bodies. This is a rather complicated area that I have learned about only recently in terms of its degree of complexity. I've had the opportunity to discuss it twice now with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and there is a mutual acknowledgment that there are a number of issues around this that involve commercially sensitive information.

There are numerous stakeholders, who we have now embarked upon consultations with. This is a work in progress.

G. Heyman: Can the minister give us any sense of the range of consultation and bodies with whom the commissioner and/or the ministry and minister intend to consult and what the time frame for action on this will be, given that it's now seven years since a former Education Minister indicated that there was willingness on the government's part to proceed?

I appreciate that complications need to be addressed, but time is marching.

[1515]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In terms of the consultations, it turns out that there is an array of subsidiary corporations themselves that need to be consulted to see if this affects their commercial viability and any intellectual property they may have access to or have developed. The most obvious categories of these are under the universities and the health authorities.

In the universities themselves the major subsidiaries are their real estate development vehicles, which are visible on the campus at Simon Fraser University and at the University of British Columbia. They have developed or implemented subsidiary organizations in order to go through that real estate development exercise.

G. Heyman: I'll just ask one more question, which I hope is a simple yes-no question. In addition to the various subsidiaries, in terms of consultation, will the minister or the ministry be consulting with the public or with stakeholder groups with an interest in freedom of information, such as the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Yes.

G. Heyman: To the minister, I noted in the mandate letter given to him by the Premier that part of the mandate, a significant part, was to ensure the successful implementation of the B.C. Services Card, which was actually launched on February 15 by the government.

Now, I acknowledge that the minister was not at that point the minister, but the government was warned by the Privacy Commissioner of a number of concerns on February 8. There were concerns about the need to do consultation about both the benefits and risks inherent in the card and to do public consultation. She asked that the card not be implemented until this consultation has taken place.

[1520]

I note the minister has mentioned in the House that he was planning to consult, but the consultation appears to only be directed at usage options and not at benefits and risks. So I'm asking if the minister can tell us: why only now is the government responding to the Privacy Commissioner's request for consultation while the card is actually being implemented? And why — if in fact it will only be about usage options and not benefits and risks — is the advice of the Privacy Commissioner not being incorporated into the consultation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that this, like many of our answers, is a very positive and fortuitous one, and we compliment the member on his insightful line of questioning.

The services card, as he points out, was launched on February 15 of this year. There was a February 8 statement from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. At the same time as the launch, the Privacy Commissioner provided a public report indicating that the integrated program has effectively designed privacy and security considerations.

Now I'm pleased to further report that the Privacy Commissioner more recently stated that there needs to be a fulsome public consultation about the uses of the card and, as the member opposite points out, to explore with the public benefits and risks of those usages beyond simply connecting a driver's licence with MSP
[ Page 1177 ]
registration.

We had a very productive and positive meaning with the Privacy Commissioner this morning in which we described to her the terms of reference for a public consultation process, which will roll out this fall. It is designed to be widely inclusive and have a number of elements, including an expert panel and a public citizens' panel so that these issues raised by the member can be properly and thoroughly canvassed and so that we can have, for the benefit for all British Columbians, a robust, reliable and trustworthy services card which the public will be entirely comfortable with.

G. Heyman: If I understood the minister correctly — and he will, I'm sure, correct me if I didn't — it sounds like, in fact, it is going to be a fulsome consultation along the lines that I suggested and that the Privacy Commissioner suggested. If that is in fact the case, I would commend the minister and the ministry for doing that.

I hope that, given the fact that the implementation has been launched, things slow down or halt so that any results of the consultation can be incorporated before it's too late. The minister may or may not want to respond to that as a question.

But I'd also ask the minister to provide in writing — at some point, not here today — a description, essentially, of the consultation process, including how much is budgeted for public consultation, what form it will take and who will be consulted. For instance, I assume, from what the minister said, privacy experts and other experts will be consulted. Who will be leading or overseeing the consultation? Will there be a public report or a public reporting out, and when might that happen?

[1525]

I think that about covers it. But I have another question to do with the card. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner — in reaction to some significant breaches of personal privacy and unsecured data releases on which she has reported and been quite critical of the systems of both establishing clear guidelines and instruction and training in the guidelines on protection of privacy — recommended that as a parallel position to the chief information officer, the government appoint a chief privacy officer.

I'm asking if the minister is considering that recommendation, which has not been taken up, to date, and what the state of that consideration is. In other words, has it been rejected? Is it possible? Will it be done?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to the member's query about a chief privacy officer, it turns out that the current structure for managing privacy functions in our province is consistent with that in most other jurisdictions in Canada. The only province with a chief privacy officer is Ontario, and that position reports to the chief information officer.

In this province our chief information officer is able to balance the chief privacy officer functions with her other information-management duties. There is an ongoing relationship with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, where the Privacy Commissioner's views are made very clearly known to the chief information officer. In fact, one of those occurred this morning. So there is a very productive and mutually respectful relationship there, which I believe accomplishes the goal.

That goal, of course, is to support an enhanced corporate culture of privacy across government, with all responsibilities from privacy policy, risk assessment and training being the responsibility of the chief information officer, who wears this privacy hat at the same time.

Now, a privacy investigations unit with formalized reporting requirements has been created, and there has been mandatory training for appropriate members of the public service on privacy information-sharing. That has been implemented, and those functions are also managed by the chief information officer.

I like to think that within a robust and reasonable budgetary framework, we are accomplishing the goals outlined by the member opposite and that we, of course, have the Privacy Commissioner, who is more than capable of keeping us on track.

G. Heyman: We may have to agree to disagree here. Clearly, there were some massive breaches in the Ministry of Health, as well as problems in other ministries over the years, that led the Privacy Commissioner to make the recommendation that there be a privacy officer, along with a number of other recommendations, which I'll get to in a moment.

The government obviously has the ability and power to accept the recommendation or not, and in this case it appears that it will not. We will have to see what further reports from the Privacy Commissioner have to say about this — if in fact the systems that the minister says are now being implemented to meet the goals are up to the task and adequate. We may revisit this in future estimates.

Let me ask about one particular recommendation that the Privacy Commissioner made in her report with respect to the breaches in the Ministry of Health. She said it was a significant concern that after the breach, part of the ministry's reaction was to actually cut off access to the research data that was essential to meeting the needs and interests of the people of British Columbia.

She said that problems could be erased by ensuring that all research is done using a secure system such as Pop Data B.C., which controls access to information. My question is simple: is the ministry moving on this recommendation by the Privacy Commissioner?

[1530]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As the minister responsible for
[ Page 1178 ]
the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, of course I'm deeply concerned about breaches of privacy. The policy functions of government do lie in this ministry, and of course, we take extraordinary steps to disseminate and implement those policies and make sure that the affected staff throughout the public service are fully aware of them and fully compliant.

Nonetheless, privacy breaches do sometimes occur, as our media ably point out on a perhaps too-frequent basis. So since 2010 every government employee has been required to take mandatory privacy training.

We will continue to maintain our close liaison with the Privacy Commissioner to make sure that our policy framework is up to date, robust and capable of full implementation. Then, of course, we will be — along with the media, the member opposite and the Privacy Commissioner — badgering the other ministries to ensure compliance.

Now, in terms of access to data that is desirable for research and other purposes, the member opposite has pointed out that there is a facility that's been developed at UBC that goes under the acronym Pop Data B.C., which is a vehicle that provides for limited access, with full protection and privacy, to selected health care information for research purposes and requires the investigator or the researcher to be properly vetted and to be engaged in a bona fide research project.

The Privacy Commissioner has wisely stated that that kind of effort is actually a very valuable tool and should be expanded in the future to make the most of the data available in this government to improve the lot in life of British Columbians generally and to effectively mobilize that data with appropriate privacy protections.

This government will continue to explore those opportunities and, of course, at the same time, do everything we can to ensure that there is full compliance with the privacy policies that are the responsibility of this ministry. Of course, we have to look for a public environment where there is an enthusiasm for these things. Certainly, amongst the research community there is enthusiasm.

At the same time, we have to temper public expectations so that we are not, perhaps, getting beyond the social licence that one has for developing programs like Pop Data. They must be done with the confidence of the public rather than behind the public's back.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I'm a little perplexed. The Privacy Commissioner has, on the one hand, criticized the government for breaches of privacy, given a number of recommendations with respect to shortcomings of the policy and training system, and suggested that the ministry proceed on that. I appreciate the minister's answer, and I hope that there are continued efforts to ensure that everybody knows what the procedures are with respect to access to information and protecting privacy and is held accountable for following them.

But the Privacy Commissioner also said that the needs of legitimate research could be met through Pop Data B.C. or a similar system. The minister seemed to be saying that the ministry is aware of the system, aware of its possible use, kind of might be looking at it. I really couldn't tease out of the answer a clear answer about whether the ministry is actually considering using that to expedite access to necessary data for research.

By "active" I mean: is the ministry trying to respond to the very serious issue that was raised by the Privacy Commissioner about the need to have access to data to do research? Or is the minister in disagreement with the Privacy Commissioner and thinking that the Privacy Commissioner isn't fully taking into account the public's demand for privacy with respect to their data, and therefore, Pop Data B.C. may not be suitable?

[1535]

Perhaps the ministry doesn't want to move quickly on this. I don't mean to be combative here. I'm trying to ascertain whether the ministry is taking this quite seriously, along with the other recommendations, and trying to move ahead expeditiously.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm sorry if my prior answer was not quite as clear as I'd hoped, but conceptually this ministry, in administering the act, is required to be…. Whether one wants to call it a bottleneck or traffic cop or one with a foot on the brake pedal, our job is to set the outer parameters of what is appropriate data custody and control. Then a ministry such as the Ministry of Health can have external relationships with organizations like Pop Data.

We are cognizant of our role as the regulator of that data transfer to make sure that the Ministry of Health observes the parameters of the act, but the actual relationship between the Ministry of Health and Pop Data B.C. is a bilateral arrangement between them. We would hope that it is productive and helpful for researchers, but we do not go into the business of approving or mandating which data sets are available under what terms. We simply direct the Ministry of Health and regulate their activities to make sure they are compliant with the act and, thereby, make sure that private information does not become accessible to Pop Data.

The exact parameters of that relationship and what useful data and in what format and to what extent they are actually helpful to researchers — sadly, I am not in a position to answer that. Those data sets are managed and transferred by the Ministry of Health, with us simply saying what they cannot do rather than what they can do.

G. Heyman: I can feel the dead horses taking residence in the room, but let me give this one more try.

The recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner was to the minister. Does the minister pass the recom-
[ Page 1179 ]
mendation on to the Ministry of Health with any commentary with respect to: "The commissioner has provided this advice. This might very well be a way to enable research while protecting the privacy interests that we've been instructed to protect"?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I apologize if I've been, perhaps, less than clear with my friend opposite, but this is an important topic.

The essence of it is that this ministry does not mandate any particular vehicle or mechanism for data availability for bona fide research purposes. There may be other vehicles besides Pop Data. Perhaps they apply to environmental issues or labour issues, for all I know.

[1540]

The actual vehicle is not something we would have any role in designing or engaging. Given the overall title of this ministry and the lineage of my deputy minister, we have a great interest in the bona fide, legitimate use of depersonalized data for innovation purposes, whether outside government, in universities or inside government.

Our statutory role is to act as the guardian of the privacy of British Columbians so that there is no unexpected or undesirable misuse of information that could result in any compromise of the privacy of the individuals whose aggregate data are being disclosed for research purposes.

G. Heyman: Thank you, Minister. I have some questions I'm simply going read and ask for a written response to them as soon as possible.

Can I apologize? These actually refer back. They could be lumped in with the other questions on the consultation on the B.C. Services Card.

One of the questions is: what is the role, if any, of the chief information officer in overseeing the implementation of the B.C. Services Card? I assume there is a role. Can the minister please outline any other steps that the ministry or he, personally, has taken so far to fulfil the instructions of the Premier to ensure the successful implementation of the B.C. Services Card and any moneys budgeted for this program that have been spent or used, or that will be in this coming period? I mentioned steps that have been taken, but I meant steps that have been or will be taken.

That is the end of my questions on the card, and information, security and privacy.

I'd like to now move on to the B.C. Innovation Council. As the minister knows, the B.C. Innovation Council is a Crown corporation that was subject to a review in 2011 under the purview of the current member for Vancouver-Langara, then parliamentary secretary responsible, and conducted by a group called 22C Partners. The minister will also be aware that staff turnover cost this organization nearly $1 million in severance and moving costs over a three-year period. The mandate was reviewed, along with that of the Premier's Technology Council.

What is the B.C. Innovation Council's role with regard to the Premier's Technology Council? What is the interaction, if any? Did the B.C. Innovation Council play any role at all in developing the B.C. jobs plan or the technology component of it? How was that role affected or guided or influenced by the 2011 review?

[1545]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The B.C. Innovation Council provides, within its funding envelope, the minimal funding for the secretariat of the Premier's Technology Council, which is comprised of volunteers. It has been around for about 12 years now and continues to provide ongoing advice to government under the rubric of the Premier's Technology Council. Again, these are all volunteers representing various sectors around the province.

The B.C. Innovation Council did not have any specific role in providing input to the jobs plan but does have a mandate in terms of the deliverables in that the B.C. Innovation Council is actively involved in what are known as technology accelerators throughout the province. I've had the privilege of visiting two of them. They indeed provide a very supportive and nurturing environment for young entrepreneurs who can then interact, conceivably hire and fire each other and lead to prosperity in the way that only they understand.

The technology component of the jobs plan is an accountability that comes to this ministry as part of my mandate letter.

G. Heyman: I believe that the work of both the Innovation Council and the work of the Technology Council and the potential of the technology industry, both the real presence of the technology industry in B.C. and the potential of the technology industry, is of significant interest to both of us and holds great promise for B.C.'s future. I hope there are some opportunities to exchange ideas at some point in the future, notwithstanding the usual status of discussion in this building.

Let me ask if the 2011 review that was written by 22C Partners will be released publicly. Can the minister provide a list of recommendations from that review as well as any progress to date being made on them? I'm quite happy to receive that in writing.

If that's okay with you, I'll move on to the next question.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I must admit, Mr. Chair, that I have not come across this document, given that I came on the scene some two years afterwards. I will obviously take the member's query to heart and sort out what can be disclosed to the member.

G. Heyman: My final question on the Innovation Council is: can the minister list any programs that are no longer being funded, following the mandate review
[ Page 1180 ]
that was conducted? Are what might now be considered non-core responsibilities being funded through any other ministries or agencies via transfer, or were they simply eliminated?

Again, if this requires a response in writing, that's fine.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that that answer is a bit more convoluted than I had thought, so we will respond in writing.

G. Heyman: I have a couple of questions to do with the Premier's Technology Council now. In June 2012 Louise Turner was named the president of the council, and her company received a 12-month direct-award contract worth $198,000. That company is known as New Oak Investments. Yet previous presidents of the council were not paid.

This direct-award contract ended in June 2013, and it appears in the public accounts that $158,000 plus a bit was paid in the last fiscal year. It doesn't appear that anyone else has been appointed, and the council has not released a report since 2010.

[1550]

In 2011 the council was reviewed, along with the Innovation Council, and the previously mentioned review conducted by 22C Partners was overseen by the member for Vancouver-Langara, but there's been no public result of this review. As you've noted, the answer is somewhat convoluted and complicated, and I look forward to seeing the response in writing.

Can the minister tell me what the role of the Premier's Technology Council is vis-à-vis activities of the Innovation Council? Did this council, the Technology Council, play any role in developing the B.C. jobs plan or the technology component of it? How is that role affected, if at all, by the review that was done in 2011?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, in contrast to my prior substantive and satisfying answers, this is one where I fear that I will not satisfy the appetites of the members opposite. The Premier's Technology Council is run out of the Premier's office. The budget is provided through the B.C. Innovation Council.

The role of the president is not the typical non-profit president who comes in for an evening meeting now and then. The president is actually the operative employee of the organization. There has been a long tradition of very high-quality individuals — such as Gerri Sinclair, Jim Mutter, Cheryl Slusarchuk — who have performed that role in an exemplary fashion. The contract in question is effectively an employment contract for this role.

As to the actual functioning of the Premier's Technology Council, as I say, I cannot provide a very satisfying answer, because it is managed through the Premier's office, rather than through my office.

G. Heyman: Unless my understanding is incorrect, the Premier's Technology Council is under the purview of this ministry. If I am correct in that, then I would ask that the ministry gather the information from where it's available, in response to my question, and provide it in writing.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We will do our best to do that. I'm quite happy for that ongoing request to be addressed to my ministry so that we can provide a more substantive and satisfying answer to the member.

G. Heyman: The minister mentioned that it was, in effect, an employment contract, which I assumed, with Louise Turner and that the role of the president of the council is different than the role of various voluntary presidents or chairs and requires significant responsibilities in meetings.

My question is: what work was done by Louise Turner, and how does the work differ in nature, substantively, from the work that was done by previous presidents of the council, who in fact were not paid? Finally, will the contract with her company, New Oak Investments, for her services be extended or renewed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, I'll have to provide you with a written response to that question, because we simply don't have that information available.

G. Heyman: Would it be appropriate to ask for a three-minute recess?

The Chair: Yes.

The committee recessed from 3:55 p.m. to 4:02 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

G. Heyman: I notice that my remaining questions are general budget questions. I would ask the minister if he can indicate, with respect to the mandate letter received from the Premier, the steps taken to date or planned to fulfil each of the instructions given by the Premier in the mandate letter and what amount has been budgeted for each of those points in the mandate letter.

This may be something to be done at a later date in writing, but I'm open to seeing the response.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As you will note, all eight of the directions in the mandate letter are underway. We'll have to get back to the member in writing about specific allocations to them in that we've come through, I suppose, five weeks in this task, and that's a work in progress.

G. Heyman: My next question…. I may be able to remember by rote the answer that could possibly be given with respect to the core review, because I've heard it a
[ Page 1181 ]
couple of times already. Has the ministry made, planned or considered, with respect to the upcoming core review, any cuts to discretionary spending or grants?

On the next question I think I've actually received the answer in response to previous questions, so I'll simply leave it at that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to the member's query about any made, planned or considered cuts to spending or grants, the answer at this stage is no. That, of course, has to be qualified by the premise that we're still waiting for the terms of the core review to come out, so I wouldn't want to be held to that answer in case the terms come as a surprise. At this stage, certainly, there are no anticipated cuts in spending or grants that I'm aware of.

G. Heyman: It may be that the answer to my next question will be found in the recently released public accounts, which I will sadly confess I have not yet had time to review in detail. Notwithstanding that, if the minister is able to answer the question into the record, that would be appreciated.

[1605]

Did this ministry receive Treasury Board approval for access to the contingencies and new programs vote in 2012-13? If so, what ministry programs did this access fund?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to that question, the only access to contingencies in this ministry in the prior fiscal year — that is, 2012-13 — was the GCPE access that was canvassed this morning. In the parlance of government, there was no access on the other two votes, which I gather is everything but GCPE.

G. Heyman: My next couple of questions have to do with staffing, both direct and contracts. What is the current number of staff working in this ministry — or FTEs, which may be the easier way to express it? And is it up or down from the 2012-13 budget year?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The full-time-equivalent count — again, in typical government parlance — right now is 1,634.01. You and I can discuss afterwards how one comes up with a 0.01 FTE. That is as of June 2013. In August 2013 it was 1,729.29, so the difference is 95.28.

G. Heyman: I'm trying to figure out if that 0.28 is in arms and toes.

My next question is: how many FTEs are in the minister's office? Is there any change from the pre-election budget — or the 2012-2013 budget generally, which is what I'm referring to? Has there been any increase in staff costs in the minister's office since that budget that would be reflected in this one?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I must admit that the counting of humans in the minister's office is proving to be an inexact science, in that I, on arrival, found a chief of staff, ministerial assistant and executive assistant, along with two secretarial personnel. Since my arrival one of those individuals is away, and the other has left government.

[1610]

I do not know at this point what the allocated FTE count is to my office, because I count the humans rather than the FTEs. So I'm going to have to reply to you in writing. I apologize.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister.

Finally, on staffing…. No, I have two more on staffing. Has the minister engaged or does the minister plan to engage any special advisers or consultants? If the answer is yes, what would the purpose of those engagements be? What would the assignments be to those special advisers and consultants, or what particular areas of expertise would he be seeking?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Within the parameters of the minister's office there are no plans and there is no budget for retaining special advisers or consultants. If the question is more broadly addressed to the ministry, which has a budget in the range of $600 million and is involved in a number of highly specialized fields, there will be the use of consultants over any fiscal year. They would be in areas such as systems integration, real estate development and sales — all the various other features that are part and parcel of this ministry.

I think the answer is in two parts. A definite yes to: will the ministry be involved in retaining consultants? I don't have the budget at my fingertips, but I'm sure it could be found in the right line item in the budget. Secondly, in the ministerial office the answer is no.

G. Heyman: I assume, to the minister, that if the information he does not currently have is located, it'll be forwarded. You referred to some information that you didn't have at your fingertips.

My apologies for addressing the minister directly.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The point that I was making was that the elaborate budget documents that are put out and that I'm proud to say our government has put into the open government system, the first in Canada, do contain the various standard operating budget line items, the STOBs. Every STOB, of course, is allocated to certain functions. I believe there's one for consulting services. They're STOBs 68 and 61, I believe I'm told.

In a flash my able staff may be able to tell you what the numbers are under those STOBs, but I don't have them. They are apparently available on the website in what used to be called the skinny blue document but is now put onto the web instead.
[ Page 1182 ]

G. Heyman: That would be specific to this ministry. Or would it be global?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is specific to this ministry. Each ministry has its own STOBs for that purpose.

G. Heyman: Who do the staff of board resourcing report to? These are is the people responsible for all of the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Is there any reporting relationship remaining between board resourcing and the Premier's office?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The reporting relationship is for the BRDO — the board resourcing and development office — staff to report to the deputy minister of GCPE, the government communications and public engagement branch of this ministry. So they do fall within our FTE count and our budget.

[1615]

The reporting relationship, of course, of the board resourcing office is widespread because they seek to service the needs of, basically, all the ministries of government that have related boards and agencies that report up through those ministries or at least have a relationship with those ministries.

G. Heyman: I'd like to return for a moment to the question I asked about Ms. Louise Turner. I want to clarify that my understanding is correct, that funding for the Premier's Technology Council flows through this ministry and through the B.C. Innovation Council.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: That is correct. The B.C. Innovation Council provides the small funding envelope for the working staff of the Premier's Technology Council, and the board members of that council are all volunteers.

G. Heyman: May I confirm with the minister, given that the ministry has the responsibility, that the detailed answer to the questions I asked about the differences in the nature of work being performed by Ms. Turner for pay, with previous chairs performing work without pay, will provided in writing at some future date?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I believe, but I cannot recall, the earlier response to the member opposite was that the paying arrangement is through this ministry and that we'd make inquiries into the points raised by the member opposite about the functions of the Premier's Technology Council in recent years.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister's answer. I do want to point out and leave this on the record that there have been occasions in other estimates and in estimates in this session that a question should have properly been addressed to a different ministry or the Premier's estimates. Given that the funding for this position flows through this ministry, notwithstanding the fact that the minister doesn't have the answers at hand today, I believe that the correct place to ask those questions is in fact here.

I'm quite willing to accept a response that I'll receive the answer in writing in the future. But if the response was that in fact it's the responsibility of another ministry, at this late date in estimates I do not believe that will be acceptable. So I am expecting, in fact, to receive a written response at some point.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At this stage all I can promise my friend opposite is that we'll look into it and do what we can to answer his queries.

G. Heyman: At this point my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey has a question.

D. Eby: I was in the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. I was advised that the technology aspect of this question was best directed to this ministry.

There is a voucher program that has been established by the B.C. Innovation Council to assist businesses with commercializing innovations that they come up with — inventions, technology, etc. My question for the minister, related to the voucher program, is: how many of these vouchers were issued in the previous fiscal year?

[1620]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a program we're quite proud of in that it's proving to be quite productive. There were 56 applications for funding to match the skills and abilities of graduate students with commercial opportunities, and 49 of those went to full evaluation. So 39 were approved, and they were funded to the tune of $15,000 each in the prior fiscal year — that is 2012-13.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise which companies applied for these vouchers successfully and which institutions essentially redeemed the vouchers or provided students to work on these projects? I understand that the minister may not want to stand up and run these all through or may not have all the names handy, so I certainly would appreciate the minister providing that in writing at a later date, if he'd undertake to do that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Within any limitations we run into in terms of commercial sensitivity or privacy issues, we will do our best to provide that list to the member opposite.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise the costs of this program to the provincial government and whether there is any cost borne by the post-secondary institutions that participate in this process?

[1625]

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In that lengthy hiatus…. Please forgive me if I don't respond to the precise question, and I'd be happy if you need to restate it.

The funding arrangement is that each approved project with a graduate student is funded to the extent of $15,000. There is a BCIC component and a company component that goes into that fund. The two components add up to $15,000 per student, of which $10,000 flows through to the student and $5,000 is provided for the professor for the expenses associated with managing the student's participation in the program.

D. Eby: Is the minister able to provide an overall cost of this program in the previous fiscal, including the staff to administer and renew the applications and so on? How much are we paying to deliver this program?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We don't have that number available today, but we'd be happy to provide that in writing.

G. Heyman: Can the minister inform me what ministry programs are funded by gaming funds, if any, rather than out of operating funds, and the amount of these funds? And how would this compare in this fiscal to the previous fiscal?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I was able to provide a couple of monosyllable answers earlier, and this will be a two-syllable answer. The answer is zero.

G. Heyman: To the minister: that's actually two letters, not two syllables. I was an English major. I apologize.

Have there been any funds transferred from other ministries to this ministry, and if so, what programs are funded by these transfers? Have any program areas from this ministry been moved to another ministry?

[1630]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Assuming I've understood that question correctly, the transfers out were, as in the ministry title, the labour-related issues, which moved out of this ministry to JTST — Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. The items transferred in were the technology and innovation budget and the associated FTEs, which came to this ministry from Advanced Education.

G. Heyman: I think there's probably a reason the Speaker generally just refers to the Minister of Jobs.

I want to check something here. It's not immediately easy to determine, because of some of the reorganization and movement of functions from other ministries, but it looks like the overall budget for the 2013-14 year is flat as compared to the 2012-13 year.

If I'm incorrect in that, having done faulty math in accounting for programs that were moved — or something as obvious as what looks like an uptick of one staff person in the minister's office, which would likely account for the $71,000 increase — can the minister identify any areas of the ministry budget where planned spending that was moving through in the 2012-13 budget through to the 2014-15 service plan has been reduced in the service plan that accompanied this budget?

And if in fact there are any reductions, how were those reductions achieved — if in fact that's known at this point? Or is it just anticipated that they'll be achieved, by some process yet to be determined or programs yet to be identified?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: For ease of reference, page 155 of the blue book contains the ministry summary. It shows $65.29 million for ministry operations this fiscal year, which is a reduction of $239,000 from last year on the same Vote 42 line item. That represents a reduction in ministry expenditures to assist the government in meeting its balanced-budget target for this year.

The next line item there, Vote 43, shows a reduction of approximately $5 million, from $438 million to $433 million. That is explained by changes in facility management project funding, partly because some of that work has been accepted or is funded through capital programs rather than through the traditional annual maintenance programs. Those are the significant net changes from last year's blue book.

[1635]

I would be remiss in not pointing out that — a point that my friend raised earlier; actually, the member opposite, who I hope will be my lifelong friend — on page 158, the minister's office appropriation did increase by $71,000, which I understand to be the funding for the position in my office which is currently vacant. It remains to be seen whether it's a real increase or an illusory one.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for answering what was to be my next question.

Can the minister tell me if there are any funds that have been transferred for ministry programs from the federal government? If so, what are those programs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, if this were a game of charades, I think my very capable staff would have won the prize, because the nodding of heads from all involved indicates the answer is no.

G. Heyman: Will there be any increases in fees or new fees imposed for any services that are under the aegis of this ministry? If so, what are they? How much revenue might this generate? How might they compare to old fees or absence of fees?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again my staff have prov-
[ Page 1184 ]
en very effective at giving away the answer by nodding their heads from side to side, in that the only fees that are charged routinely in this ministry are for freedom-of-information disclosures. There is no anticipated change in those fees. They've been static for a number of years, and we don't expect any change. No change in revenue is anticipated.

G. Heyman: Would the no change in fees include a determination that there will not be a positive response to the request of the Information Commissioner that the fee for information being sought or access to documents be waived?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am advised that our entire fee income last year from freedom of information was $58,000 and that there is no anticipated change to that.

We are in ongoing consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner about an appropriate regime for freedom of information which allows the maximum possible access for political parties within the House and for bona fide media inquiries. There is always the issue of managing the odd and unusual vexatious query, but there is no anticipated plan to deal with that through a fee arrangement.

Sorry, in my prior answer about fee income, it has been pointed out to me that the various registries which are organs of government do charge fees, such as land title registry and the B.C. corporate registry. If the member opposite cares to delve into that in detail, we would have to provide, probably, an entirely separate briefing on that or respond in writing.

G. Heyman: Excuse me. I'm trying to reidentify a document that I previously filed away, thinking I wouldn't need it again. I might just have to go from my memory here.

The minister has stated, in response to my question about whether there has been a predetermination in that recommendation that was reiterated today, I believe, by the Information Commissioner with respect to the inhibition that the fee places on access to information and a recommendation that it be waived, that there are ongoing discussions.

[1640]

My question was: given that the minister said there'd be no change in fees or no changes contemplated, does that mean that there's been a predetermination or an immediate response to this most recent statement by the Information Commissioner or that the minister and ministry are open to continuing that discussion with the Information Commissioner and, in effect, considering seriously the recent recommendation?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps to clarify the previous answer, in terms of our ongoing dialogue with the commissioner and respectful consideration of her input at every turn…. The issue of fees is really not on the table, in terms of freedom-of-information processes and changes in those fees. I hope that's a sufficient answer for the member opposite.

G. Heyman: I apologize for fumbling through papers. I'm somewhat vexed by my inability to immediately put my finger on the page that I want.

The minister asked if the answer was sufficient or satisfying. Well, the answer is sufficient, but it's not satisfying, to the extent that the Information Commissioner has identified a significant inhibition. That, coupled with all of the other issues that I've previously mentioned….

Problems with the changes due to the earlier core review and archiving of material, the problems of training or lack of training and the problems of sufficient staff all add up and conspire to inhibit the kind of freedom of access to information that British Columbians want in order to judge the actions of government and the expenditures of government. To that extent, I regret that the ministry's statement is that, in fact, fees are not on the table.

I believe that the recommendations of the Information Commissioner should be taken…. I don't mean to say you're not taking them seriously, but to the extent that there's an immediate determination they're not on the table, I believe that they're being given what some would consider to be short shrift.

I'll now move on to another question.

Again, there's been some delineation of the number of FTEs and partial FTEs, but can I ask, within that staffing model, how many positions are vacant currently? And what impact has the hiring freeze had on this ministry generally, in terms of impacting ability to fulfil its mandate when a position becomes vacant?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Hopefully, this answer is as satisfying as most of my previous ones. The work in this ministry is sufficiently complicated and ever-changing that we don't actually maintain a vacancy count. We do it on a much more functional basis, in that we have a salary budget for each function within the ministry.

When tasks come up, because of our highly flexible workspace approach and an increasing on-line presence, sometimes these require an FTE to occupy the spot — perhaps indefinitely, as in the case of a government agent in a rural community. Other times, if they're at the large data and services facility at 4000 Seymour Street, they will be filled by a much more flexible workplace arrangement.

[1645]

As I say, we don't actually maintain a vacancy count; we do it on the basis of demand. Then if demand arises, we do our best to fill those by making appropriate applications for a waiver of that particular role within the
[ Page 1185 ]
hiring freeze.

G. Heyman: Could the minister be more explicit about what sort of situation — perhaps by giving one or two examples — might require the ministry to hire an FTE or issue a contract and seek a waiver of the hiring freeze as opposed to meeting the need in some other fashion? I'm a little perplexed because generally FTE levels are set, or staffing budgets are set, with an understanding that people are needed to do certain functions. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of setting them?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I said earlier, this is a broad ministry. The more traditional role, which is amenable to a description of an individual as having a task…. A good example of that would be B.C. Mail — which is obviously undergoing a metamorphosis, like every other mail service in the developed world — and the freedom-of-information processing staff, who perform skilled, trained work on a regular basis, so they are very amenable to FTE counts.

It's less true of individuals who are involved in systems integration work, because they do much more flexible work — for instance, the strategic initiatives office. Again, they'll be doing much more flexible work, which may require attention to a task one week, but then that work ceases to be necessary the following week and then reappears three months later. Those positions are not amenable to describing the individual as present or missing. It's really a matter of whether the work to be done is present or missing.

G. Heyman: I'm going to return to an area that I canvassed earlier with one question that I overlooked. I chose not to go back to it at the time, but I will now. Can the minister inform me of the status of the current request for proposal or tendering for an advertising agency of record?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I should be able to answer that question within about 60 or 90 seconds if you'll bear with me.

[1650]

I'm glad to read out from this note exactly what it says. The agency of record contracts for advertising services expired on July 31, 2010. The agency-of-record model was replaced with a standing offer arrangement. The comprehensive procurement process was developed by procurement services in the public affairs bureau, which is now renamed government communications and public engagement.

A request for a standing offer was posted on B.C. Bid on May 17, 2010, and to provide an update, the request for standing offer was posted on B.C. Bid on June 6, 2013, and closed on July 4, 2013.

I think that's a long way of saying that the agency-of-record model is now passé, and these standing offers become the norm for specific communications campaigns.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could explain to me how the standing offer regime meshes with the desire for public tender.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I've now been able to clarify that the standing offer process provides a mechanism for prequalification of vendors. They are then placed onto a list which they can be selected from for specific campaigns.

In this case, because it's a communications phenomenon — and if it were one of the other phenomena in government — a standing offer would be an arrangement whereby prequalified providers were on a list and could be selected on short notice to deliver the product.

G. Heyman: Could the minister perhaps elaborate with some information from staff about what the criteria that go into the prequalification are?

[1655]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I've now been able to learn what goes into one of these standing-offer arrangements. It's much like other vendors, including my own experience as a lawyer.

One must supply the skill set of the team or firm — that is, resumés; the experience in the field — in this case it would be a dossier or portfolio of prior communications materials; the rates to be charged or proposed rates; the local experience relevant to the tasks at hand — which, of course, includes a degree of market knowledge and, I would expect, language acumen for certain markets that are not in English; and a creative component.

This process, assuming the applicant is successful, puts them onto an approved agency list for two years. There's an option to renew for a further two years, and then they are taken off the list and have to reapply.

G. Heyman: That sounds like a pretty reasonable set of criteria. But to drill a little more deeply into it, what role does the question of the proposed rates play vis-à-vis the other criteria? In other words, how is the public assured, short of a formal tendering process, that value for money — the best value for the least money — is being delivered?

One could surmise, based on the previous answer, that there's a list of criteria. Rates is one of them. But I have no way, and neither does the public have any way, of assessing what weight rates play — where they play into the prequalification stage, and whether rates trump other values or other values trump rates. Perhaps the minister could elaborate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out, I am told, that fortuitously, these standing-offer openings are available on
[ Page 1186 ]
the website — historical ones as well as anything current. The weightings for these various attributes are stated on the web, and rates are 30 percent of the weighting of the decision in terms of selecting agencies or individuals or firms to be put onto the approved vendor list.

[1700]

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could tell me, with the assistance of staff, how this weighting of rates at 30 percent compares to a process with which the public may be more familiar — which is an open-tendering process?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I suppose I can call upon my prior experience in the sometimes ruthless private sector about making applications into RFPs and similar processes in that it's always a balance between the skills and experience that the firm brings to the task and the rates charged.

Obviously, less experienced organizations tend to charge less, or they're not going to be successful. Those that are more experienced and bring more acumen to the task will do their best to charge more, but given the weighting of their rates, they may price themselves out of the market and fail in the competition.

That's, I gather, exactly how this process works. It's widely used in procurement — not just in the advertising standing offers.

G. Heyman: For greater clarity, perhaps the minister could say whether the weighting of rates at 30 percent is standard in more common procurement or tendering processes, if the weighting of rates is flexible in that process or if the standing offer process is a mirror of that process.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think, in consultation with staff, the only accurate answer is that it varies depending on the type of service in question. In this particular situation we're talking about communications contracts, but it does vary within the field. The only sensible way to answer this would be to peruse the web and see how it comes up in procurements — whether it's for gravel, engineering, law firms, laboratory services or communications.

G. Heyman: To close out this line of inquiry, would I be correct in assuming that the percentage weighting of 30 percent given to rates has been fixed for some extended period of time and is intended to be fixed into the future? Or may it vary up and down, depending on the nature of the communications proposal or contract?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Doing our best to answer questions on a forthright basis right now, the answer is that — and I was corrected by one of the staff — if it's gravel, it's all about rates. It varies, depending on the complexity of the task, but in communications contracting work 30 percent is generally the tariff, generally the norm. It may vary from one communications contract to another, but it generally is in the 30 percent range.

G. Heyman: Perhaps I haven't quite closed off this line of inquiry. If the weighting of rates for a particular project or communications service were to change, would that be noted on the web in some way? I recognize that I could go there and do this research, but I don't happen to be wired at the moment.

[1705]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I've now learned that in the communications field in recent years 30 percent has been the norm. There is no perceived change from that in the future. That is how the industry norm has developed. No change from that is foreseen.

G. Heyman: I'll ask two questions together here in the interests of time, as we're nearing adjournment, I think.

If there was a change in the weighting of rates, would that be immediately apparent on the website? Is there fluctuation and variability in the other rating categories — for instance, facility in a particular language for advertising in a community other than English-speaking?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I may be the source of any confusion here, so I apologize in advance in case this answer is not entirely satisfying.

I gather that the procurement process, regardless of the product or vendor in question, now requires that the weighting be disclosed in the web-based application that is designed for procurement and that it's not subject to change once it has been publicized.

I now dredge up in my mind some Supreme Court of Canada litigation about this. One cannot change it except at one's great peril.

G. Heyman: One final question. In that case, seeing as they are unchangeable, could the minister provide the weighting…? I understand I could look this up on the web, but for the record, could the minister provide the weighting for the other factors?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the interest of time and the interest of complete disclosure, I've suggested to the staff, and they've agreed, that the simplest way to do this is to publish or print the appropriate web pages and provide them to the member opposite so that there will be no confusion or frustrating web surfing involved.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister.

I have a couple of questions about audits. Have any audits been done in any area of the ministry or ministry programs or agencies in the last year? If the answer is yes, what was the reason for the audit or audits?

[1710]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that there are two audits. The first is the Auditor General's efforts across government. They produce an annual audit plan for review of the ministry's operations. That is a normal-course, annual event. The second one — particular to this ministry or at least housed within this ministry — is an information security controls audit that is done in concordance with the wishes of the Auditor General. That has now become an annual event and is a normal-course matter.

The reason for them is that they are part of our ongoing due diligence, rather than being provoked by any particular episode or event.

G. Heyman: If I understand correctly, the information security controls audit happens annually. If that is correct, are the recommendations made public? Does the ministry routinely fulfil all the recommendations that are made? If not, which recommendations might not be fulfilled and for what reasons?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out, perhaps to my surprise as a civilian, that these information security controls audits are conducted across government through the aegis of this ministry and that they are in fact made public. Perhaps that's what surprises me, given that it's supposed to be a security controls audit.

Nonetheless, the Auditor General's office then comes up with what is essentially a compliance plan and works its way through the ministry. My staff have offered to provide this information, which I gather is publicly available. They cannot think of anything that was not satisfied in recent memory.

G. Heyman: I'd like to ask the minister whether the ministry is planning or contemplating any audits in the coming year or in the coming three years covered by the service plan that are not either of the two audits to which he's referred — or perhaps not an audit, but any review, other than the core review, of programs or efficiency of program delivery or anything else that might be of interest to the public in terms of wise use of public resources or best focus of this ministry, particularly in terms of any efforts to assist the development of the technology industry or other modes, other than the two councils we've canvassed previously, to assist and promote the technology industry and innovation.

I don't restrict my question about reviews or audits to simply that area.

[1715]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm now becoming conversant in all of this lingo that you see in airports that doesn't really mean anything until you stand in estimates and face the fearsome member opposite.

The lean process is an ongoing continuous improvement exercise under the Six Sigma standard of corporate and accounting behaviour, which requires ongoing review under the lean rubric. Any further details will have to be in writing, I'm afraid.

There is also an ongoing, routine deal review conducted by the strategic projects office to deal with data management outsourcing and those areas. After each transaction is completed, there is a thorough review to see if we could have done better or learnt more about it for the next time around.

There is an ongoing review of the identity management system that is being conducted by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner — which is, again, a normal-course effort in their watchdog role. Part of my mandate letter requires a review of innovation spending conducted by the government.

If anything else comes to mind, we'll inform you in writing.

G. Heyman: Chair, I have been signalled by you through the Deputy Clerk that my time is running out. I will ask one question quickly that I think the minister will be able to give a short, if not one- or two-syllable, answer to, and that's to go back to the issue of the approved list. Am I correct in assuming that approved lists of advertising agencies that have replaced the agency of record are also posted and that the names of the agencies are posted?

Before I wrap up this question, because I may get cut off, let me close by thanking you and your staff for your answers to the questions. I look forward to receiving the written responses which I requested — which of course I did through the Chair, not directly — and I've appreciated the interchange.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that the advertising and communications agencies are considered to be a matter of public record and are posted to the website.

I should close by thanking you for the thoughtful, orderly, substantive and cordial way in which we've conducted these estimates.

Vote 42: ministry operations, $65,290,000 — approved.

Vote 43: Shared Services B.C., $433,001,000 — approved.

Vote 44: government communications and public engagement, $36,147,000 — approved.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I move that the committee report resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:20 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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