2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 23, Number 1

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Anton: Today we are joined in the House by six Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer award recipients from across British Columbia. They are Moira Clark for emergency social services, from the northeast district; Louis Dery for Provincial Emergency Program Air, from northeast district, Prince George; John Howe for search and rescue, from Squamish, southwest district; Neil Townsend for radio communications, Vancouver Island; Dave Laramee for Road Rescue, from the Central Kootenays; and Cindy Heslop for lifetime achievement, from Vancouver Island.

From all of us across this province that depend on these volunteers, I would like to offer our deep and sincere thanks. Much like saying it takes a whole community to raise a child, we all know that it takes a whole community of volunteers like these six award recipients to keep our communities safe and our province safe.

From our roads, from air, from water, from across beautiful British Columbia’s back country, these volunteers and the people they represent keep us safe every day here in British Columbia.

[1005]

I know all members on both sides of this House will please stand and make them feel welcome and give them a very loud round of applause.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a really exceptional group of young people and adults who are visiting today for the first time from New Westminster. They are the New Westminster Youth Ambassadors, and they are seated just opposite me there. This is a group of really wonderful young people who volunteer every single day, every weekend in the community. I’ve been privileged to have them help out with Diwali celebrations and lunar new year and many other events in my community office. They’re there for seniors. They’re there for students. They’re there for the entire community.

They are here with their leaders, Lynn Radbourne, just a distinguished citizen of New Westminster; and her husband, Bill Radbourne, the previous deputy fire chief in New Westminster; as well as parents Marianne Kazemir and Victoria Henssler. These exceptional students are Carli Henssler, Sandra Fario Basheer, Megan Hill, Raunaq Singh, Kevin Wang, Alex Zang, Nick Gomez.

Hon. Members, these are the leaders of the future, and I hope that you will join me in welcoming them to this House today.

L. Throness: From time to time we’re privileged to have former members return to visit us. I’m still trying to live up to the high reputation of my predecessor and friend Barry Penner, who served the riding of Chilliwack-Hope for 16 long years, seven of them as minister. He’s back with us on the floor of this place today. I’m sure he’s still ready to stand up and answer any tough questions that are thrown at him. Would the House please welcome Barry Penner.

K. Conroy: It’s not often I get to introduce people in the House, and especially the surprise today. It’s actually a woman that’s known me for a long, long time. She was my grade 2 teacher, and I think she started teaching when she was ten, because she still looks absolutely incredible. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Davine Bird to the House.

M. Farnworth: I would be remiss if on this side of the House we did not acknowledge the presence of a former member from Chilliwack who served in this chamber for many, many years and earned the respect of all of us on this side of the House. At this point in time I think all of us can truly say that Barry Penner is awesome.

J. Sturdy: I would like to add to the Attorney’s recognition of the public safety lifeline awards and specifically speak to Mr. John Howe. John, who currently serves as the president and search manager for Squamish Search and Rescue, is here today to receive a Public Safety Lifeline Volunteer award. John has worked with Squamish Search and Rescue for over 25 years and led the development of many specialized rescue disciplines, including the development of the provincial mountain rescue training program.

John is a professional firefighter. He was honoured as Squamish’s Citizen of the Year in 2006 and in 2010 was recognized by Premier Campbell for his work in the Olympic Park venue construction, where one of the trails is christened Howe It Goes in his honour. Would the House please join me in recognizing and welcoming this fine British Columbian.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the gallery this morning it’s my pleasure to introduce Ken MacKenzie. He’s a retired executive officer with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. In fact, he was a founding member of that board. He now enjoys golf with his buddy, Don Smukowich, who is well known to members of the House as the EA in Agriculture. He is one of the first individuals I met when I entered politics — and a warm welcome he gave me to that. Will the House please join me in welcoming him here to the House this morning.

[1010]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ARENA IN HAZELTON

D. Donaldson: It served well, but its life is done. During a minor hockey practice on March 12, an engineer told players and coaches to get off the ice and leave the building. The Ken Tromblay Memorial Arena in Hazelton is closed. Deemed structurally unsafe after 44 years, it’ll be torn down. Built largely with volunteer labour, it is an unique building with large logs making up an A-frame design. The roof often let in snow or leaked when it rained, and sometimes it was colder inside the building than outside, with water bottles freezing on the bench.

Despite this, it served the community well as a gathering place, not only for sports but for community events like graduation ceremonies. It was essential as a place where relationships were developed between people from all walks of life — the kind of thing that makes a small community strong and resilient when outside pressures they can’t control, like the boom and bust in the global economy, disrupts lives.

So now the Hazeltons need a new facility. The communities have come up with $3 million to $4 million in a fundraising campaign called the Heart of the Hazeltons, an amazing amount for an economically depressed area. The design and construction plans are in place. What is needed now is support from the provincial and federal governments. I have spoken with the Minister of Infrastructure. He is well aware of making this a priority, and his staff have been very supportive. Now we need the federal government on side.

I’ve received 80 letters in less than four weeks since the closure. These are not form letters; they are individually written. I’ll pass them on to the minister today. They’re from kids, parents, workers, organizations and seniors — an amazing outpouring of stories about how a new facility will mean much for the fabric of the community.

I’ll finish with a letter from a young elementary school student. “We need a new ice arena. Please give us money. I go skating with my friend Kailey. Kailey figure skates, but I don’t. I am sad our arena is closed. I want to skate again. Thank you. Love, Drew.”

Drew, it is my hope you’ll be skating again soon at a new Upper Skeena recreation centre.

BOB “BO” WORK

D. Barnett: Behind every successful motorsports race is a team of mechanics, working on the sidelines to ensure success on the track. I join with residents of my constituency and motorsport enthusiasts across the province to recognize a South Cariboo resident with many claims to fame throughout his career.

Bob “Bo” Work was recently inducted into the Canadian Motorcycle Hall of Fame for his long and illustrious career in racing mechanics, which contributed to several wins at Daytona and a World Formula 750 Championship. In the 1960s Bo was behind the track record that was set by Yvon Duhamel riding a Yamaha motorbike that reached 242.8 kilometres per hour. He later joined investors to start the first North American Yamaha distributor in 1962.

Work has travelled through North America and Europe for races, but his career was not limited to motorcycles. In the 1970s Bo was a member of the Yamaha Snowmobile Race Team, where I first met him in 100 Mile during the days of competitive snowmobile racing. He has tuned a winning Yamaha-powered mini sprint race car, been in three movies, made commercials and has been on the team for more than 40 Canadian championships and close to 100 provincial championships.

I congratulate Bo Work for all his accomplishments in his amazing career in racing mechanics and would like to honour him for being the local inductee to the Canadian Motorcycle Hall of Fame.

ENDOMETRIOSIS AWARENESS

K. Conroy: March 28 was International Endometriosis Day. This is a crippling disease that affects about one in eight women and girls. That’s roughly 200 million people and about ten times the prevalence of autism. A friend was telling me about her daughter being one of these women. She suffers every day, even after five surgeries and countless other treatments.

Around the world on March 28 people participated in organized marches to get the word out that this is just not about bad cramps but is actually a serious disease, with severe medical consequences if left untreated. Endometriosis is the growth of menstrual tissue growing elsewhere, usually in the abdomen. This misplaced tissue responds to the menstrual cycle in the same way that the tissue lining the uterus does. Each month it builds up, breaks down and sheds.

[1015]

Menstrual blood from the uterus flows out of the body through the vagina. However, the blood and tissue from endometriosis has no way of leaving the body. This results in inflammation and sometimes scarring, both of which can cause painful symptoms and may contribute to difficulty getting pregnant, or even to infertility.

Even though endometriosis has been researched extensively, it is a complex disease that can be challenging to diagnose and treat. Many symptoms, such as severe menstrual cramps, painful intercourse and gastrointestinal upsets — such as diarrhea, constipation and nausea — are similar to a wide variety of other conditions. As well, each woman with endometriosis will experience symptoms differently, depending on the location and extent
[ Page 7139 ]
of her disease. This means that the combination of treatment options that work for one woman may not necessarily work for another. That’s why it may take years for a diagnosis and to find an effective treatment.

The good news is that this is a condition that can often be successfully treated and controlled. If you are experiencing pelvic pain, there are options designed to reduce or even eliminate your pain and help improve your quality of life.

However, more needs to be done to end the silence about endometriosis so that millions of women and girls can receive a proper diagnosis, quality medical care and, hopefully one day, a much-needed cure.

AUTISM AWARENESS

J. Tegart: April is World Autism Awareness Month. It is a time to think about the daily challenges and celebrate the many successes of people living with autism spectrum disorder.

Autism spectrum disorder occurs in one of every 68 births. There is no cure, and its causes are not yet fully understood. We do know that it is four times more common in boys than girls.

ASD is characterized by problems in communication, social interaction and restrictive, repetitive patterns of behaviour. These characteristics present themselves in a wide variety of ways and to different degrees of severity. They can cause people with autism spectrum disorder to have lifelong challenges in how they connect to people, objects and events.

Early intervention for young children with ASD is the key to treatment, because it may help them develop communication and other skills, resulting in a more meaningful involvement in their community.

I’m very proud that the B.C. government provides funding to 8,500 children and youth diagnosed with ASD, and to their families. About 1,400 children under six years of age and 7,100 children and youth over six are currently being served by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Of course, government does not act alone. The Autism Society of British Columbia and Autism Community Training are exceptional community partners that provide outstanding support and advocacy. Together, we are making a difference in the lives of people with ASD. We must continue to raise awareness and build a society in which those with autism spectrum disorder can prosper.

I ask that you all join me today in recognizing and celebrating World Autism Awareness Month.

VAISAKHI

B. Ralston: Last Saturday, April 11, in Vancouver and this coming Saturday, April 18, in Surrey mark the celebration of Vaisakhi in our province’s two largest cities. Vaisakhi marks a very significant day on the Sikh religious calendar. In 1699, in Anandpur Sahib in India, Guru Gobind Singh Ji founded the Khalsa Panth that has since continued to be the heart of the Sikh faith. He emphasized the achievement of social justice by advocating the equality of all, regardless of their caste of origin.

Vaisakhi also marks the celebration of the wheat harvest across north India and is widely and inclusively celebrated by all. In addition to these aspects, both with local parades, or Nagar Kirtan, are an exciting blend of floats, live music, booths and a huge cross-section of people from all cultures and religions. Delicious food of all kinds is generously given free to anyone who wishes it.

Civic pride obliges me to note that the Surrey Vaisakhi celebration is the largest one of its kind outside of India. This important occasion also permits us to acknowledge the important contribution to British Columbia and Canada made over successive generations by this important part of our community.

For over 100 years, British Columbia has been the proud home of one of the largest communities of Sikhs outside of India. Both Canada and the Sikh community are rightly proud of the success achieved in business and science, the arts and in politics and many other fields of endeavour.

As we proudly see the children of older immigrants grow and prosper, we continue to welcome new immigrants who find economic and social opportunities, religious freedom — and another generation who call British Columbia home.

Vaisakhi di Lakh Vadhai.

[1020]

Moira Stilwell: I rise today to reiterate, because today millions of Sikhs all around the world, especially here in British Columbia, are celebrating Vaisakhi. Our Sikh community has made British Columbia so much richer and better off.

As our colleague described, 100 years ago the first Sikh pioneers came to B.C. seeking a better life for themselves and for their families. Since that time Sikh British Columbians have made B.C. a better place, contributing in many ways, whether it’s business, public service, medicine or serving with pride in the Canadian Forces.

This past weekend Vancouver held their annual parade, and tens of thousands of participants joined in the celebration of Vaisakhi. On Saturday the Surrey Vaisakhi parade will take place with over 250,000 people in attendance. It really is a time not only for the Sikh community to come together but all of our communities. This event in Vancouver grows every year, with more families from more backgrounds coming to enjoy.

As we celebrate the birth of Khalsa, Vaisakhi is also a chance to reflect on how far we’ve come in building a strong and diverse society. Our Vaisakhi celebrations are the biggest in North America and of which we should be
[ Page 7140 ]
very proud. I hope everyone can make it and take part in these joyous celebrations.

Oral Questions

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND
IN BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

For some time now we on this side of the House have been concerned about the government’s haste with selling public lands to meet their budget objectives. In fact, we raised these issues before the election, we raised these issues during the election, and we’ve been raising them in this House ever since.

So to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who is responsible for this through Shared Services B.C: what steps did he take to ensure that we got fair value for lands sold by this government?

Hon. A. Virk: Property sales are indeed part of government’s ongoing plan to release unused and surplus government properties and assets for new development. There are properties that are indeed surplus, that are indeed unused. It’s in the best interests of British Columbia’s public to reuse and to reinvest that in education and to reinvest that in health. This province is absolutely committed to ensuring that we get the best value for the land that we sell.

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

J. Horgan: Here I am agreeing that government should get best value for properties that they sell. In the case of the Burke Mountain lands, recently sold for $85 million, that appears to not be the case.

When we raised this issue, we asked for an evaluation of the properties, and we were told we can’t have it. We went through FOI, and we got redacted documents. We now, with the efforts of the Privacy Commissioner, have access to the appraisal documents, which show that the Burke Mountain lands were appraised at $128 million and sold for $85 million.

My question, again, to the Minister of Citizens’ Services: what possibly went wrong when we had $128 million worth of property and, to meet your single-year budget objectives, you sold them for $43 million less than they were worth?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said before, it’s important to ensure that those surplus lands that we have in the assets of government be reassessed, be re-evaluated on a continual basis. We continue to re-evaluate and reassess those lands that we have, and we continue to ensure that we get the best value for the land that we sell.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: That borderlines on an outlandish answer to a fairly simple question. The government retained Equity Valuation and Consulting Services, as they should, to assess the value of public properties before they were disposed of. They must have paid a considerable sum for that evaluation. They got a 137-page report appraising the value of the Burke Mountain lands.

[1025]

The report says in part: “In determining value, the appraisers considered various sources, including aerial maps, consulting with the city of Coquitlam, MLS information, Land Corp, B.C. Assessment Authority, realtors, developers and other persons knowledgable to the local marketplace.” They said, specifically, that to get maximum value for these properties, they should be exposed to the marketplace for six to nine months to get full market value.

Even though they hired someone to do the valuation, got a detailed report about how to best maximize the public benefit from this sale, instead of having the properties out for six to nine months, they did it in three. They did it in three, and they gave them away at $43 million less than the appraised value.

Again, to the Minister of Citizens’ Services. If I had something that was worth a whole lot of money, I certainly would not sell it for 33 percent less its value, particularly when it wasn’t mine. It was the people of British Columbia’s. Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services put aside the speaking notes and explain to the people of B.C. why he gave away public lands when he could have got $43 million to go into health care, to go into education, to go into any number of good public purposes, maybe even an arena in Hazelton?

Hon. A. Virk: The release of surplus assets is nothing new. In fact, since 1981 there have been 1,500 properties sold in British Columbia. In the ’80s there were 600 properties sold. Between 1991 and 2001 the member opposite may certainly recall that there were properties in excess of $500 million sold. That takes into account a whole host of factors — assessments, market value.

This government is committed to ensuring that if there are surplus properties, they are continually reassessed and sold such that they can be reinvested in education, in health, in infrastructure.

S. Robinson: The minister speaks of best value. Well, one parcel was given a market appraisal of $5.6 million and was sold for $100,000.

Here’s another example of best value. Another parcel was given a market appraisal of $17.5 million and was sold for $6.9 million. Another parcel was given a market appraisal of $20.6 million and was sold for $13.9 million.
[ Page 7141 ]

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, why did government ignore its own real estate expert and sell these lands for far below their actual market value?

Hon. A. Virk: The Burke Mountain property is going to result in 800 units of mixed housing, single and multiple families. It’s going to result in about 4,500 full-time jobs and over $20 million in regional and municipal improvements. Construction may have started, or it’s going to start very shortly. There are economic benefits that occur to the region, to the district, to the province by the sale of these surplus properties.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: To make matters worse, the Coquitlam school district will soon need to buy back some of these lands to build two new schools. So much for planning for the future.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Why would government sell public lands to a developer and then force the school district to buy them back to build schools?

Hon. A. Virk: I remind the member opposite that…. They may recall the ’90s. They sold $500 million worth of property with a value today of over $1 billion.

The sale of surplus properties has occurred since 1981. They may recall in the ’90s they sold over $500 million. We’re continuing to reinvest those into health care and education and….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

[1030]

Hon. A. Virk: Government is committed to getting the best value for lands that they sell to reinvest in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: “Where to begin?” is all I can say. Where to begin?

We are in the midst of one of the biggest housing booms in the province of British Columbia. Land values in real estate spark bidding wars. Land values spark bidding wars, yet this government’s own expert appraiser that they get on the land said it’s worth $6.9 million, and they sell it for $100,000. Where in the Lower Mainland can you buy anything for $100,000? How is that getting good value for the taxpayer?

Maybe what we have to do is look at who they sold it to. Mr. Khosrowshahi and Wesbild got that piece of property, appraised at $6.9 million, for $100,000. Yet since the government’s asset sale program was launched in 2012, Mr. Khosrowshahi and Wesbild companies, his companies, have donated $228,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services tell this House why the only person in the Lower Mainland able to buy buildable land worth $6.9 million for $100,000 happens to be someone who donated $228,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite certainly knows that I am unable to comment on specific land sales in specific locations.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Virk: The sale of surplus lands, as I mentioned, has been occurring for over 30 years. It looks at a whole host of options. It looks at current and past projections. It looks at investments. It looks at a whole host of variables and ensures that we get the best value for British Columbians.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: This has got to be the first time in the history of British Columbia that $6.9 million worth of land is given away for $100,000. If that’s the sense of the business acumen on that side of the House, I know one thing. Jimmy Pattison won’t be asking any of that lot to go work for him any time soon either.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The members will come to order.

M. Farnworth: The minister said that he can’t comment on individual land sales, but let’s look at the facts. The Minister of Forests, who released the land, said: “The province made land available at market value.” The Minister of Citizens’ Services is the one that sold the land. The Minister of Finance is the one that books the money. Either way you look at it, one or all three left $43 million of money for the province of British Columbia on the table. That’s not good business.

Again, to the Minister of Citizens’ Services: how is selling a piece of land worth $6.9 million for $100,000 good value for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[1035]

Hon. A. Virk: As I mentioned, the specifics of this particular land sale — I don’t have that information available. I can certainly have a look into it and have the discussion with the member afterwards.
[ Page 7142 ]

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PROJECT ISSUES AND COSTS

J. Darcy: Well, speaking of value for money, let’s turn to health care. In February in this House we asked about a Health IT project, the clinical and systems transformation project, which has a whopping price tag of $842 million over ten years. We had been hearing disturbing reports at the time that there was a major dispute between the government and the contractor. We brought the minister proof in February that the 2015 start-up date that had been planned had been scrapped and that nothing would be going live until at least 2016 or later.

What did the Health Minister say in February? “I have full confidence in this project.” Well, we now know that the project has gone completely off the rails. According to another leaked memo dated March 23: “The health organizations and IBM have agreed to end the current contract.”

Can the minister tell this House how much money this government has spent on a project that has now completely collapsed?

Hon. T. Lake: The clinical and systems transformation project for the Lower Mainland is critical to ensure that we have improved patient safety, that we have improved quality of care and that we have a single patient record for patients throughout the Lower Mainland, whether they’re dealing with Vancouver Coastal, Providence Health Care or the Provincial Health Services Authority.

This IT transformation project is where the future of health care is. It is a large project. It has been challenging, no question. I don’t know of any computer system anywhere that hasn’t been a challenge to unveil.

The fact is that IBM and the CST project team decided to part ways. But all of the work…. Some marriages don’t work out, but sometimes they produce great children. This marriage didn’t work out, but the children are beautiful. In fact, those children will grow to become a great clinical assistance transformation project.

This project is alive and well. I can assure the members opposite that this will result in better patient care for the citizens of the Lower Mainland. We will continue to work hard on this project to ensure that it is, in fact, successful.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: It is clear that we have reached a point where the platitudes and the empty reassurances by this Health Minister just don’t cut it. They have been warned time and time again that this project was at serious risk of going off the rails, and they chose to ignore it. We’re talking about health care dollars. We’re talking about $72 million that the government moved out of health care each year over several years to help to fund this project — invaluable health care dollars.

They did this at a time when, according to the seniors advocate of British Columbia, frail seniors in B.C. desperately need more home support and rehab therapy in order to live independently in their homes for as long as they possibly can — programs that this government refuses to fund the way they should be funding.

The government had an IT project that they knew or should have known was doomed to fail, yet they continued to pour more and more money into it. So what’s the total figure? Will the minister tell not just this House? Will he tell the people of British Columbia how much health care money was put into a project that was doomed to fail from the start?

Hon. T. Lake: We have doubled the health care budget since 2001 in the province of British Columbia. We are No. 1 in health care outcomes in Canada, No. 3 in the world.

[1040]

This government knows how to deliver health care. A critical component of delivering health care today and into the future is having the proper electronic health records to ensure that patient records follow that patient wherever they may go. The proper clinical systems are in place for standardization.

We have done some very good work on this project that will be preserved. I can assure this House that this project will continue. It will be successful. I have great confidence in the project board, and this project will be completed within the assigned budget to provide the very best service for the patients in the Lower Mainland.

G. Heyman: Apparently this minister thinks it’s all right to be number one in IT systems waste. While he may want to make fun of failed marriages, how much is the ministry’s divorce costing the people of British Columbia?

It’s been two years since the official opposition received a leaked, confidential risk profile that assessed the clinical and systems transformation project as high risk in 12 out of 13 categories. So it’s a little disturbing that the minister would give us the all-is-well brush-off in February when internal memos warned that this project was showing signs of failure. This government has tried to hide the fact that their $842 million project has been falling apart from the beginning.

Will the minister tell us exactly when he knew that this project was coming undone and why he wasn’t forthcoming about this in February?

Hon. T. Lake: It is not unusual in projects of this magnitude to have challenges and to have project teams disagree on some things. But extremely valuable work has been done. Team IBM worked with the CST project team. They have done work with the health authorities to standardize systems on how records are collected and reported, including reconciling medications that a patient’s
[ Page 7143 ]
taking at home and in hospital; standardizing the process for registering patients upon admission; standardizing the admission process for patients from the emergency department through to the in-patient unit.

All of this work will still be used as we move forward. It’s critical that we identify problems early. This project is 15 percent underway. Better to identify the problems at this stage and correct them so we know that we have the best possible project when we come to the end of this project, which will serve the people of the Lower Mainland and serve as a basis for all the British Columbia electronic health records in B.C.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: This minister has been stonewalling questions about this project for two years, so how he can say it’s important to address problems early is beyond us on this side of the House.

The minister has a responsibility to ensure that health care dollars are spent wisely. Yet here we have an instance of the government yanking $72 million a year out of patient care to fund a project that they knew for years was failing.

Did the minister never think to step in and cut off funding for this project that he knew was failing so badly?

Hon. T. Lake: At the first sign of trouble, we just don’t cut and run. Problems were identified.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. T. Lake: Concerns were raised, and we worked with IBM on those concerns. I met with the project board and the health authorities. We were working through some issues. We were working hard to resolve those issues.

[1045]

At the end of the day, IBM and the project board decided it would be better to reset this project using the work that has already been done, which can still be used as a valuable foundation for the project, and go on to complete this project in the best way to serve the residents of British Columbia.

INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

D. Routley: This government certainly has a history of expensive computer messes. Now they insist that their latest adventure, the integrated case management system, is completed.

I have a simple question for the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. How can this government say the integrated case management system is finished when we’re still using the antiquated systems it was meant to replace?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. The ICM management system is a large and complex system that involves multiple ministries. It’s a system that was brought in, in multiple phases, to ensure that we would have the best-developed system in place. The 9,000 staff that currently use it on the front line serve over 200,000 of our clients in multiple ministries, both MCFD and SDSI. Currently it is up and running, and it is functioning on its best capacity.

Madame Speaker: The Member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: I can understand why the minister ignored the question, since we know that fully two-thirds of what the previous minister called “creaky, rusty, legacy systems” are still operating.

Can the current minister please explain why this government says the integrated case management system is done if we’re still using those systems it was supposed to replace?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite is correct. Many of the programs and services that we deliver are over 30 years in use. They were obsolete. There were many programs that we are now delivering through the ICM, ensuring that the technical aspects that the staff are using at the front line are able to better serve our clients. The B.C. employment and assistance program, MCFD’s autism program, child and family services — all of these systems are in place to help ensure that we are better delivering the services to our clients in the ministries.

M. Mungall: This government keeps saying that the integrated case management system is finished, but it simply is not. Two-thirds of the old system, the obsolete systems that the minister referred to, are still in place because this government can’t get it right.

The question to the minister is: how much more money is this government going to throw after its pet project until they actually get the job done?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Again, the ICM was brought in, in a phased approach to ensure that we were meeting the issues that we needed to develop in order to better serve our clients. As our policies change within our ministries, because we continue to break down barriers to help better assist British Columbians, we will continue to see changes in ICM to ensure that our front-line staff are constantly being able to best serve our clients.

Madame Speaker: The Member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.
[ Page 7144 ]

M. Mungall: The only reason staff at MCFD and MSD are using old computer systems is because ICM is actually such a failure, despite what the minister over there is trying to say — crashes, shutdowns, complicated and time-consuming forms that the minister seems to say are great. These are actually taking away from the services, the front-line services, that these ministries are supposed to be delivering to people.

[1050]

Interjections.

M. Mungall: : Yes, they are. Every report says that staff are spending 20 percent more time on administration and less time on working with the people they are supposed to serve. That is what ICM is really all about.

Now we know that this mess is just going to continue, with two-thirds of the old system still in place — $182 million wasted on this system already. Let’s count up some other numbers from today: $72 million on a failed health IT project, $43 million lost on public land sales. My goodness, the taxpayers are taking a beating today from this government.

My question to the minister is this. How does this minister or any minister over there think that all of this is okay for the taxpayers?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: One of the ways is to ensure that the staff in both the ministries now have better, more efficient information management programs and a system that responds to the needs of the work that they do to serve our clients.

I have quotes from many of the staff workers who are using the system, who say things like, “Finally, a system that makes effective sense in the real practice of social work,” or: “A much better system. The hours of time it will save the workers will be incredible.”

This is from the feedback that we have received from the staff to ensure that they are continuing to serve the people of British Columbia in the services and the programs that we deliver each and every day to ensure the best outcomes for British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

D. Donaldson: This petition is signed by more than 350 residents of the Hazeltons and Upper Skeena requesting financial support from the province to match the close to $4 million the communities have raised for a new Upper Skeena recreation centre to meet the fitness, recreation, health and education needs of those living in the area.

S. Simpson: I have a petition signed by 250 students from Vancouver Technical Secondary School calling on this House to oppose the expansion of the exports of American thermal coal through the Fraser docks.

D. Eby: I have a petition signed by over 200 people in my constituency, put together by the Defend Our Future high school student coalition, opposing the expansion of thermal coal exports through British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, I neglected at the end of March, on the Thursday two weeks ago, to, as I customarily do, advise the House — though I had advised the hon. Opposition House Leader — that the presentation of bills on that day represented the completion of the government’s legislative agenda for this session. We are now endeavouring to work through and finalize a schedule that will see timely consideration of those bills.

For today in Committee A, Committee of Supply, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Education, and in this chamber second reading of Bill 24, the Societies Act.

[1055]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 24, the Societies Act, be read a second time.

This is the statute that provides the legal framework for British Columbia societies — that is, if I can use another term, not-for-profit corporations organized mainly for social purposes and prohibited from distributing profits to their members.

There are in B.C. over 27,000 societies. They, as I think most members know, fulfil a wide variety of valuable social purposes. Those social purposes include health, housing services, sports, cultural and other community-based activities, environmental endeavours and social advocacy, of course. Those 27,000 societies cover a broad spectrum in terms of size and, to be fair, their sophistication.

The legislation that provides for the creation and governance of B.C. societies hasn’t been substantially revised since 1977. The act that we presently have, for which societies are obliged to be familiar and conduct themselves in accordance with, is, I think it’s fair to say, significantly out of date, not only in terms of new corporate law developments but also in terms of technological advancements
[ Page 7145 ]
that in many ways are now part of the mainstream and can be utilized to ease and simplify the work in terms of governance and the relationship between a society and the state.

[1100]

This new Societies Act, I think it’s fair to say, completely revises and updates the framework legislation that governs societies. The new act reflects and accommodates, I believe, the diverse nature of the not-for-profit sector in British Columbia and attempts to balance that sector’s desire for a modern, flexible legal framework with the need for a relatively simple, accessible set of applicable laws.

As well, in light of the special public role played by most societies, the new act that is before the House today for its consideration attempts to balance the desire for flexibility with broader concerns about transparency and accountability. The new act which we are considering today, in my view, modernizes the legal framework for societies in a number of ways, adopting many new provisions from the Business Corporations Act and modern not-for-profit laws of other jurisdictions.

By way of example, the new act contains a comprehensive set of court remedies, as well as rules for corporate reorganizations, winding up and restoration. Expansion of these standard corporate provisions has resulted in an act that, I must concede, is somewhat longer than the current act.

But I might point this out from a practical point of view. The new act is purposely organized so that the operational matters that concern societies on a daily basis are found in the first 85 sections. And it is drafted, I believe, with readability in mind so that it actually accomplishes something that often eludes us in the world of statutory construction. We hope that it is actually user-friendly, in ways that the existing act is not.

It’s also intended to be technology-friendly. The new act recognizes modern systems for record handling and communications. It will enable electronic filings with the corporate registry and remove unnecessary steps in the filing process. It will create an electronic database for all societies and enable every society’s constitution and bylaws to be kept updated and accessible on line.

As well, the new act will allow societies to store their records on computers and send them out electronically and will provide for long-distance participation in members’ and directors’ meetings by electronic means. Our hope is that these technological innovations will help streamline societies’ operations and, in the process, save some of the hard-earned money that these organizations often work very, very hard to raise in the first place.

The new act will also provide new flexibility for societies in how they manage themselves. Annual general meetings can now be held without having an actual meeting, if members consent, and special resolutions will require only a two-thirds vote. Default rules can be altered or opted out of by bylaw. Societies will ensure, if they do decide to opt out of the default bylaws, that they have a clear basis upon which to operate. At the same time, this will allow them to structure themselves in a way that meets their own unique needs.

By way of example, the new proposed act will allow management to make borrowing decisions without a special resolution, unless the bylaws of the society so require.

Insofar as what have been termed “unalterable” provisions, a phenomenon that exists under the present act, although unalterable provisions in a society’s constitution are no longer recognized, the act before the House today expressly permits societies to adopt higher voting thresholds to make certain changes possible. In fact, under the provisions of the act before the House, a society could, by virtue of its bylaws, require 100 percent, or unanimity, in order to change certain of the provisions in their bylaws.

While the new act adds flexibility, it will also maintain and enhance fundamental accountability provisions for those societies that rely on public financial support. This includes the current requirements to have three directors and provide public access to financial statements, as well as restrictions on the distribution of assets when the society winds up.

[1105]

In addition, new accountability measures have been added, including rules respecting board composition and a requirement for public disclosure of directors’ remuneration under certain circumstances. These accountability requirements will only apply to societies that receive significant public donations or government grants but not to what are called member-funded societies that rely on their own member contributions and, therefore, require less oversight.

The new act also strengthens members’ rights by enhancing their ability to ensure that societies and their directors live up to their obligations under the act and the society’s bylaws. For example, the act preserves a member’s right to look at directors’ minutes and accounting records, unless such rights are restricted by bylaw. Members will be able to exercise their democratic rights not only by requisitioning meetings but also by requiring that proposals be brought before an annual general meeting for discussion.

There are also several new provisions that address the role of directors. The act clarifies that societies may pay their directors if permitted by the society’s bylaws. The directors’ liability for improper payments has also been clarified with a new defence of due diligence, and greater court discretion to excuse mistakes has also been added.

Societies may now indemnify their directors for their good-faith actions without needing a court order. As well, standard directors’ qualifications have been added to ensure consistency with other corporate laws.

The provisions include, by the way, the possibility of regulations that would allow younger individuals to become directors of certain societies, such as student soci-
[ Page 7146 ]
eties or those that deal with youth services. I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Finally, I’d point out that the new Societies Act will also address the current lack of effective legal relief in the not-for-profit sector by providing societies and persons involved with them with standard court remedies already available to other B.C. corporations. These include compliance and restraining orders, the right for members to complain about oppressive or unfairly prejudicial treatment, and the ability to apply to court to correct or reconstruct erroneous or missing records.

Societies do provide a wide spectrum of valuable services and benefits to British Columbians. I believe that this new Societies Act will assist in the continued development of this important sector by ensuring that all societies have a modern governance framework and the tools they need to continue to perform their unique and important role in our society.

Before I conclude my remarks at this stage, I also want to say a word of thanks to members of the society community who have laboured long and hard, with a view to achieving a modernization of this legislation. They have sought those improvements, I would suggest, not in pursuit of any kind of partisan agenda but to make legislation more workable and user-friendly and to take into account some of the changes that have evolved over the years.

I also wish to pay tribute to a small but dedicated group of public servants who have worked with them through many, many years and through the various stages of this project that have seen us arrive at this point.

The final thing that I would wish to say relates to the work that has been undertaken in the last year or so and the engagement that we have had — and, in the final stages, that I have had — with societies and representatives of societies in British Columbia.

I think the members will know that when the white paper was published last year, it attracted some attention. I see that, actually, as a good thing. It was my stated purpose, and the government’s stated purpose, in releasing the white paper to make it as specific as possible.

I find, over the years, sometimes governments are inclined to release discussion papers or white papers that espouse in a very general way certain principles that are difficult for people, really, to disagree with. But in the absence of details, when that discussion paper, white paper, converts into legislation, people end up being surprised.

[1110]

The white paper in this case was, I think it’s fair to say, very specific and, for that reason, attracted some specific criticism, which the government has endeavoured to respond to.

I’m sure members will comment on some of the changes and, perhaps, more particularly on what is not in the legislation than what…. Although, I hope what is in the legislation will engage some positive commentary as well.

I do, though…. This will be brief but self-serving. I was gratified in the aftermath of tabling the legislation to receive numbers of correspondence — voluminous, I might add — from a variety of sources — in one case, West Coast Environmental Law.

The message was pretty straightforward: “Thanks for listening.” “Thanks to the government for listening to the concerns of societies regarding the provisions of B.C.’s proposed Societies Act.” “I appreciate that section 99 of the act, as proposed in the white paper last fall, has been removed.” That did attract a fair degree of attention, and the government has responded.

There’s another matter, though, which I just referred to a few moments ago, that I think is also worthy of attention. At the consultation sessions, and one in particular where we brought people together, there was initially a group of younger people, students, who made the point about our initial proposal, as contained in the white paper, to apply what are very standard corporate law provisions around the qualifications of directors. There is a rational argument around applying that and restricting eligibility to people, we’ll call, of the age of majority.

These younger folks made the point that there are two circumstances where that could be problematic: in the case of a student organization — where, admittedly, the prejudice is not likely to be dramatic or long experienced because the notion of someone being in a university under the age of majority is generally a September to December phenomenon. But they are obliged to pay student fees, and there is an argument around that.

The other argument that was advanced, which I was almost more taken with, was advanced not just by the younger people but by others in the room, other societies — which I find quite compelling. It is: at a time in our history when it is increasingly difficult, some would say, to have young people get engaged in societal process, whether it is politics or the non-partisan work of societies, shouldn’t the option of allowing people under the age of 18 to be directly involved be preserved? Of course, they can be involved in a variety of different ways — but perhaps even to the extent of serving on a board of directors.

Upon reflection, I found that, too, to be a compelling argument, perhaps the most compelling of all with respect to this issue. So the enabling provision contained in the act, which we’ll get to specifically when we’re in committee stage, is designed to allow for that to happen.

We’re still working through the specifics of what that looks like, but the intention is clear. That is, in certain circumstances to allow for people under the age of majority to serve in a directorial capacity on a society.

The Alliance of B.C. Students — I thank them for their acknowledgement of the inclusion of those provisions. They made the point that the ABCS, “the largest non-partisan post-secondary advocacy group in the province commends the government’s open and transparent consultation process that led to the new Societies Act.” It’s also pleased to see that there is “consideration being
[ Page 7147 ]
given to the potential for those 16 and 17 years of age to serve on a board of directors, an important change for more equitable representation of students and youth.”

[1115]

I, firstly, would like to pay tribute to those young people who made those submissions and took the time to make those submissions. I should say that the torch was picked up by others who found their arguments compelling. At the end of the day, so did I, and so did the government, and it reveals itself in, I think, an important change or inclusion in the legislation as compared to the white paper.

Many in this chamber have served long years and with passion in societies that serve their communities, serve the province and, in some cases, serve the country in pursuit of some very important societal objectives. I know for that reason some will have comments. I am hopeful that in most cases those comments are favourable and hopeful and commend to the House the provisions of the proposed Societies Act that are before us now.

C. James: Thank you to the minister for outlining the changes in Bill 24. I’m pleased to stand and speak to second reading in support of this bill and in support of updating and modernizing the governance of not-for-profits in our province.

I think the minister has outlined well that this has not been a short process. This has been a long, ongoing process. In fact, years have been discussed at changing the act — what kinds of changes need to happen. I think the minister outlined some of those, obviously, with technology. That creates changes around filing, around voting, around documents. But I think there are a number of operational issues that have changed over the last number of years in societies and not-for-profit organizations in our province.

This, in fact, has been a long consultation process. In particular, the consultation, I think, as the minister has outlined as well, really was focused around the draft white paper that came out in this last year, in the summer of 2014. I want to say thank you, as others have done, to the minister and to the government for doing what I believe was actually the right process in this case. I will say that has not always been there when it comes to legislation or to making changes.

In fact, in this case I will give credit where credit is due in that this was a positive process in putting out a white paper and giving an opportunity for those most impacted by the decisions to actually have a chance to be able to give good quality feedback and to have time to be able to review the document. The Societies Act, even before the new, bigger document that we’re now talking about today came forward, is a complex process.

As the minister pointed out, we also have a very diverse group within societies and not-for-profits. We’re not talking about a uniform kind of organization. There’s everything from a very few members to hundreds of members, from very few staff or no staff to huge numbers of staff, from private entities to government contracted not-for-profits. So it’s a very diverse group. To think that a diverse group could, in a very short period of time, go through this kind of document….

I think, as I said, it’s a positive that in this process we actually saw that there was consultation. There was time to develop a draft. There was time for that draft to go out and have decent consultation. There was time for government to listen and make changes — I’ll talk a little bit about that — and then bring the draft back.

I just want to take a minute to note that, in fact, that process was actually defined way back when by a former Premier, Gordon Campbell, when he set the fixed legislative dates.

There was a great deal of discussion when the fixed legislative calendar came forward that it would, in fact, provide an opportunity for exactly this kind of process. It would provide an opportunity, with a fall session and a spring session, to actually put legislation together as draft, to table it, perhaps even into the House as draft, and then give an opportunity for groups and organizations to be able to make comment and recommended changes.

[1120]

I mean, we’ve seen government bring forward legislation that comes back in a following session that needs to have amendments made to it. Well, often those amendments could have been prevented by taking the time for decent consultation, by taking the time for an opportunity for that to occur.

When the fixed calendar came in, Gordon Campbell actually suggested that that be the process, that you have the legislation introduced in one of the sessions and that you then would take the legislation and pass it in the next session, after there was an opportunity for consultation. Far be it for me to be the one to stand up and say that there were things positive done, but there were things positive done, and this was one of them.

I think, as we know, this has not necessarily been practised. Although it was there, it has not necessarily been practised. We’ve seen far fewer fall sessions, and it appears to be words on paper and not necessarily followed, but the policy notion was the right one.

When you introduce legislation that’s going to impact, as most legislation does, groups and organizations in our communities, they are the ones who know what impact it’s going to have, better than anyone — better than legislative drafters, better than ministers, better than individuals. The people on the ground know best.

I understand that most legislative drafters and ministers and their staff certainly do the work that they need to do to be able to gather the feedback from those who are going to be impacted. But true feedback doesn’t happen until the specifics are out there. It’s often difficult with government to allow legislation to be seen by others be-
[ Page 7148 ]
fore it’s introduced because of confidentiality, etc. That’s often a very difficult thing to go through. This process actually provides that opportunity — provides the opportunity for the specifics to go out, for people to be able to have time to consult and to address it.

This bill is actually living proof of that, as the minister mentioned earlier, with a very contentious part of the legislation that was in the first draft. That was there as something to be considered by those groups and organizations. That was the section called section 99. That is no longer in the bill.

As the minister has said, it was a very contentious part of the bill. I think, if nothing else, it certainly provided an opportunity for a very diverse sector to come together and be able to give their feedback. It united a very diverse sector to say that this section was not a section that they supported.

This previous section of the bill was a section that allowed any member of the public to be able to sue a society that they believed was not acting in the public interest. It was very broad and did not have limitations. It was a very broad section.

We saw, as I said, the not-for-profit societies truly come together to be able to be united. There was a letter that was signed by over 50 societies. There were hundreds of letters from citizens and from others who had previously sat on boards or who had experience sitting on boards. They expressed their concern with the potential of what that section could have allowed.

The real concern in that case was that the previous section 99 had the potential to open up the door to SLAPP lawsuits. SLAPP lawsuits really are a way of stifling good public debate, a way of stifling public participation. As we know with not-for-profits, with societies, they cover a broad range of issues — sometimes ones that people in positions of power are comfortable with and sometimes ones that people in positions of power are not comfortable with.

That’s why it’s extra important to make sure that when you’re taking a look at the laws that govern societies and govern not-for-profits, you don’t move to stifle that public participation and you don’t move to stifle that public debate.

It’s certainly not an unreasonable concern about this — an unreasonable concern by societies or by the members of the public. We’ve seen in this last number of years — and more particularly at the national level, but we have seen it at the provincial levels as well — governments and people in positions of power using a variety of tools to stifle public debate, to silence not-for-profits, to silence the scientific community, to silence community members from speaking out. That is not just something that might not happen. This, in fact, has been happening.

[1125]

Whether all of a sudden all the not-for-profits and societies that may disagree with government at the federal level on a particular issue are having audits done, are having incredible scrutiny that wasn’t there before…. They may be on the opposite side of government, and all of a sudden they find themselves in a very difficult place. As I said, it’s not unreasonable for societies to be concerned about that.

Bill C-51 at the federal level — another example where it could have the effect of stifling legitimate public debate, which is not something that we certainly support. We’ve seen it, as well, on large projects, whether it’s corporations or others who are doing what they can, using the legal system to be able to stop people from expressing a valid legal ability to be able to protest or to speak out — all those things that make our democracy strong.

At a time when there’s a lot of public apathy, at a time when we all express concern in this Legislature and in our communities about a lack of public engagement, the last thing we need to see is something coming forward that would, in fact, discourage public engagement, would discourage public voice. We need to be looking in the opposite direction and making sure that we’re not muzzling any kind of legitimate debate.

In this case, as I said, I know that the minister certainly heard those concerns. I know that there was a meeting held with a number of the not-for-profits where the minister had an opportunity to hear that, so I’ll add my thank-you to seeing section 99 removed from this bill. I think it’s a very important statement — that people gave their feedback and it was listened to. It doesn’t always happen, doesn’t always happen with government, but in this case it did. I think this is a positive move.

Certainly, in that section, which talks about members of a society taking the society to court, there are still some worries. There are still some concerns that have been expressed. I know we’ll have a bit more opportunity to get into this when we get into the committee stage of the bill.

There are still concerns about an individual member of a society joining a society to be able to take that society to court and to be able to stifle debate. So there is concern that that section still has potential for abuse. It’s a valid concern, particularly with the small not-for-profits that don’t have the resources. They certainly don’t have on their staff or in their directors — who are just volunteers coming to support — the ability to fight someone who wants to silence their cause.

I think that in committee stage we’ll talk a little bit with the minister about why those sections are needed, why the existing court system isn’t already there to provide that kind of support, why these sections are needed in the bill and why that has to occur. I think we’ll have an opportunity to explore that a little bit more and address those concerns that are still there.

There were also some concerns in the early discussions of this bill, in the early discussions of the consultation, that the Society Act was going to be changed to follow the model of the Business Corporations Act. There were, again, very valid concerns raised, particularly by small not-
[ Page 7149 ]
for-profit societies. Did it match? Did the rules that a corporation has to follow when it comes to filing documents, when it comes to voting, match the not-for-profit sector?

I know there were a few clauses that appear to have been adapted in the bill, but the major changes still apply to the not-for-profit sector. Again, I see that as a positive direction and good work on the consultations piece.

There are some changes in this bill that are related to the different kinds of societies out there, which again, I hope will be helpful when it comes to filing, when it comes to groups and organizations seeing the work that they need to do as societies.

There is a distinction in this bill between member-funded and publicly funded societies. It talks about various disclosures, depending on whether the society is publicly funded up to a threshold or whether it’s an individual society that is privately funded. Certainly, we believe in transparency. We believe that’s important. Hopefully, this will provide some clarity around the societies and the work that they have to do.

[1130]

There are also — again, we’ll get into this a little bit more in committee stage — requirements around a majority of board of directors not also being employees or contractors of the society. There’s a disclosure piece around that, which again, I think, is something that will be interesting to explore and, I think, for most people makes common sense around conflict-of-interest issues. There’s also a disclosure around senior staff or directors’ compensation, which again, I think, for most people is understandable.

Most of the other changes, as the minister said, are around reporting, administrative clauses and some regulations to follow that will be important to watch for societies as well.

The one piece that I think is going to be really critical with this bill, and a piece that I hope that the ministry will undertake, is going to be the education piece. When major changes like this come forward and when major changes around reporting and regulation come forward, particularly for very small societies, for small not-for-profits, they don’t always have the time or the resources or the staff to be able to take a look and see the kinds of changes that need to occur and what they need to do to make sure that they stay in legal right with the new legislation.

I would certainly hope that the minister through the ministry will make sure that they work with organizations like Board Voice and others to be able to share the changes out there with societies, to be able to make sure that people understand what needs to happen, to make sure that people know the changes and when they take effect.

I think for none of us the intent is that societies would not be following the law because they missed a change that had to happen, or they missed the timeline that they needed to change the way they were reporting. I’m hoping that that will be part of the package that occurs around the legislation to make sure that those not-for-profits that are working so hard have the ability to be able to understand the changes.

I know that the minister will have received some correspondence from the SFU Graduate Student Society and the SFU Student Society regarding section 67 of the bill. Again, I know we’ll get into this when we get into committee stage, but there are worries from the student society — and I’m sure there are others out there who will be reviewing this piece of the bill — that the intent could be used to override mandatory membership for some societies.

As we know, the societies that will vote on it — student members, where every student has to be a member of the society…. That helps them with their capacity, with their ability to provide programs. It is voted on by the society itself.

There are some worries about the interpretation of that section and whether it could be interpreted that way. I think that’s again a piece that we can certainly talk a little bit more about when we get to committee stage.

The minister raised the other outstanding piece, which is just the issue of youth holding positions. I appreciate the minister’s comments on that issue because I know that there’s a commitment to explore this area — that the minister has made that commitment to the groups and the organizations.

I think it fits, as I talked about earlier, with the piece around public engagement. I think that all of us have an obligation to do what we can to encourage public engagement, to encourage that debate and that discussion, because that will address the apathy and the worry that’s out there that people are disengaging from our democratic process.

We all need people. Regardless of your party politics, we all need people to engage in our democracy. That will create a healthy democracy. When people start disengaging, and we see the kind of apathy we have right now, it’s a real concern.

I appreciate the minister recognizing that there’s a real need out there to be able to further discuss this and determine that if there are opportunities for young people who are excited and who are engaged in a particular issue — and it could be a variety of issues, as we know from this sector — we don’t discourage them from getting involved, that we tell them that you’re not quite old enough to be able to be a member of a not-for-profit. I’m pleased to know that there’s a discussion.

Just in the last few minutes that I want to take, I want to talk a little bit about the subject of this bill, which is the not-for-profit sector in our province. I think the minister started off his comments talking about the 27,000 registered societies in British Columbia. I think it’s important, as we look at this bill, that we remember who we’re talk-
[ Page 7150 ]
ing about and the value and the contribution that they make to our province and to our communities.

[1135]

In every area that you could imagine, there is a not-for-profit or a society out there in our communities working on that particular cause. We are all beneficiaries of that work that goes on in our communities, because it really does impact the quality of life in a positive way for our citizens, for our communities — and also has a huge economic impact in our province. I think people sometimes forget that not-for-profits are responsible for billions of dollars in public, charitable and private funding — billions of dollars.

They manage hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteers across our community. A report that was done in 2006 estimated there were 114.3 million hours of work that were done by not-for-profits and for charities and for societies. Just imagine if that work wasn’t happening in our province. Imagine if we didn’t have that huge contribution in our province of those kinds of hours of volunteer work. It really is a reminder about how important the work is that is done.

Not-for-profits employ over 140,000 people in our province. Again, those are real jobs in real communities, helping people in our communities, helping organizations, arts and culture, etc. I always think of the not-for-profit society as the fabric of our community. It really is the fabric that knits a community together, when you think about the work of those societies and the work that they’ve done.

I think it’s also important to look at how they do that work, because when it comes to government services, there’s a very clear criteria. Government services really are provided with a very clear criteria on accessing services. It’s often very restrictive, as sometimes it has to be, based on the budget and the program that’s there. But that work is often also done in silos. The government program looks at people who come to them for this government program and doesn’t look at the myriad of issues that may be impacting the citizen or may be impacting the organization that comes there.

Well, not-for-profits, in fact, often do the opposite. They have criteria — no question. They require focus for the work that they do. But not-for-profits have the ability to be more adaptable, to be more responsive, to be more flexible. We often say that it’s very hard for government services and programs to change on a dime. Well, not-for-profits have the ability to do that. They have the ability to be able to meet the needs of the person coming to them.

They have the ability, when it comes to issues, to look at the big picture, to not simply say: “Well, we’re in this ministry. If you want that program or service, you have to go over there to get it.” A not-for-profit will say: “Well, we work in partnership with this group and organization. Why don’t we make sure that we provide that support to you?”

It’s also important to recognize that I have seen no one stretch a dollar, or partner a dollar, like a not-for-profit and a society, whether it’s arts, environmental, social service organizations. They’ll partner. They work across sectors. They work collaboratively. They do what they need to do to be able to get the work done for someone who comes to their door. Again, that’s a huge strength and, I think, something that we all in this House need to recognize, to support and to respect in our communities.

It’s also important to note that many government services are provided by not-for-profit societies. People think of government providing services, but in fact, many of the services the government provides are contracted to not-for-profits, to societies.

I have to say that it hasn’t always been that government has treated the not-for-profit sector, or the society sector, with respect. They have often been treated as though they are wasting public dollars, as though they’re not focused in spending in the most efficient way. Certainly, my work and my involvement with the sector — and I think others in communities would say the same thing — shows, in fact, just the opposite.

Government could learn from this sector on not only how to spend dollars but also how to break down silos and how to break down barriers. Most importantly, from my perspective, government could learn a lot about treating all citizens, citizens with a diverse range of abilities, with respect.

That’s certainly what I have seen in the not-for-profit sector. I’m so grateful, I’m sure as other members are, for this sector in our community, for the support that they do, for the hours that they put in, for the range of issues that they touch on.

[1140]

As I said earlier, whether it’s arts and culture, whether it’s community, whether it’s seniors and children’s groups, environmental, groups supporting those people who struggle with homelessness and mental health and addictions issues, the health and education sectors, sports and recreation, veterans, seniors — you name it — there is a group of people who, in their passion, have come together to look at what they can do to help resolve the issue or to help provide support to those in the issue that they care about.

We can’t take it for granted. I think sometimes we’ve seen this government I call it unravelling the threads of that fabric of the not-for-profit society. And I think we are all fortunate that despite that, the societies and the not-for-profit sector has been strong, has been resilient and has continued despite all of the pressures, despite the cuts in programs and services that have occurred over the last 11, 12 years, despite the reorganizations that happened, the amalgamation, the pressure for groups and organizations. They have continued providing quality services and quality work in our province.

While I’m very pleased that the government is bringing forward these changes…. I think the changes have ad-
[ Page 7151 ]
dressed much of the feedback that was given during this process. We saw, as I said, the offensive piece removed from this bill.

I certainly would hope that this is just a start of what I would like to see, which is more support for the not-for-profit sector and more recognition of the work that they do and the kinds of ideas and approaches that have been brought forward, in good faith, by the not-for-profit sector for many years — everything from coordinating, reporting and funding requirements.

I can’t tell you the number of executive directors or staff I’ve talked to, or board members in organizations that don’t have staff, who have had to spend hours and hours writing applications for a tiny little amount of money that doesn’t provide them with ongoing funding. Yet it’s probably the same reporting requirement that was required by another ministry for another little tiny pot of money to provide them support.

I think government wouldn’t see that as efficient within a government organization. Yet the pressure is there for not-for-profits to take that on, to have to provide that kind of accounting. And every hour that is spent on those forms and repeating them is hours taken away from direct service to individuals. If government is looking at other areas, that’s certainly something I would hope they’d take a look at.

Longer-term funding. We all hear from not-for-profits about the flavour of the day. A new program is created by government all of a sudden, even though it’s something that they’ve already been doing somewhere else. But it’s a new program, so government puts out another requirement, another RFP for funding. It’s never ongoing; it’s one-time. And again, it doesn’t provide support for the good work that’s going on already in communities.

I think human resources and recruiting issues are big for not-for-profits. Again, when you take a look at government funding, that may not keep up with salaries. Increases that happen in the public sector then cause difficulties for the not-for-profit sector.

I think there’s a long list of suggestions that come from the not-for-profit sector that I would hope…. Perhaps the Societies Act change in Bill 24 will be a kickoff to a day of respect for the not-for-profit sectors and perhaps an opportunity to be able to recognize and respect the good work that they do and the fact that we all benefit from that in our communities.

With that, thank you for the opportunity to speak to second reading of Bill 24, and I’ll take my place.

D. Barnett: I am pleased to stand today in this House to support Bill 24, entitled Societies Act.

Over the years many of us who live in small rural British Columbia communities have participated with volunteer societies who provide so much to all of us in our communities and in British Columbia. To take this act that hasn’t really been revised since 1977, that had some issues in it that were impediments to non-profits and other societies, I commend the minister. I know the process that he’s gone through has been long, has been engaged and, at the end of the day, will certainly make our non-profits feel that they are part of a system that we are supporting now.

[1145]

It’s amazing to see how many non-profits there are in British Columbia. The number of non-profits really doesn’t say how many people are actually engaged. It’s not just the society that is there providing the service, but it’s all those businesses and community members that participate in putting together fundraisers to help the neighbour cut wood. It can be anything that is done by non-profit societies.

Yes, it is up to government to make their life easier. It is also up to government to have an act so that these societies are protected against those who wish to have litigation against them, those who wish to do things that are not aboveboard and those who don’t believe in volunteerism and other aspects of our community lives.

What the Societies Act does is it provides the rules for creation, governance and dissolution of not-for-profit organizations in British Columbia. My colleague across the floor — I like what she said about the education piece. It is going to be very important that we deliver the message back to these non-profit societies — what the changes are and what the benefits are.

Sometimes when government makes changes, people do stop and say: “Why do I want to participate if the rules are going to be ones that we don’t understand, ones that we are certainly opposed to and ones that we are afraid of?” So the education piece will be very important, and I have every confidence that the minister will ensure that the education is out there to ensure that our non-profit societies understand what the regulations are.

There are several fundamental changes in the new act which have been designed to better reflect the diversity of B.C.’s not-for-profit sector, because they are a very diverse group. The new Societies Act distinguishes between publicly funded societies, which include those with charitable status and those that receive significant public funding, and member-funded societies, which include organizations such as sports clubs and professional organizations.

The new Societies Act will reflect changes in technology, in that it enables electronic incorporations and other electronic corporate filings, which is, of course, a real asset to our non-profits. It also provides for more flexibility by allowing societies to create governance rules through bylaws, based on the unique circumstances of their organization and the communities they serve, and accountability of publicly funded societies under the Societies Act.

The fundamental accountability measures in the current act have been carried through to the new Societies Act. These include requirements to have three directors, one of whom is ordinarily resident in the province; to pro-
[ Page 7152 ]
vide public access to financial statements; and upon winding up, to distribute their assets only to other asset lock entities. That is a very important piece to many non-profit societies which have assets that are vital to their communities and to other organizations that they collaborate with.

In addition, the new Societies Act requires that the majority of the board of directors be unaffiliated with the society — for example, not staff members — and that compensation paid to the society’s directors and highest-paid employees be publicly disclosed. Many societies have no paid staff, and many societies who do should actually — it is a good part of the Societies Act — be accountable to the public, because many people who donate to these societies need to know where their funds are being spent and the advantage that is being given to their communities.

The new Societies Act and member-funded societies, differently than publicly funded societies in order to allow them to function more effectively…. It is an act that…. It is time for change, and I truly believe that the change will be to the benefit of all our societies and to those whom they serve in the province of British Columbia.

[1150]

I now will pass on the torch to my colleagues across the floor and will listen to what they have to say. Once again, I commend our minister for the great work that has been done in providing this information and the great work that will be finalized once this act is passed.

L. Krog: I thank the member for her kind words of introduction to me, although I think you should never suggest that you pass a torch to a member of the opposition. They might be tempted to start a fire that would burn down the government.

But that aside, this is one of those occasions where I have to be a little bit cheeky to start and say, rather like Nixon in Vietnam, we could simply declare victory and go home. As the minister acknowledged in his remarks earlier today, when the bill was put out for public viewing last fall, there was a great deal of public interest in it, and it wasn’t complimentary.

Indeed, notwithstanding that the bill is filled with many good things that have been argued for and sought by many members of many societies in British Columbia — over many decades, actually — it was all overshadowed by the inclusion of the less than inspiring section 99, which would have had the effect, I suspect, and many believed, of chilling participation in societies and of encouraging, as many believed in those societies, unnecessary litigation that would be designed to, in fact, suppress the activities of many people who participate in societies in British Columbia.

As the minister in his remarks pointed out, and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill as well — 27,000 societies in British Columbia. Now, some of them, in fairness, are quite small. Some of them have hundreds, indeed, thousands, of members. I think it’s important to recognize that they are a very important aspect of the modern world. I hesitate to say modern society — sounding a little bit too redundant.

But it was the executive director of what was then the Island Crisis Care Society in Nanaimo, some years ago, who pointed out to me that although they weren’t all societies, in Nanaimo alone there were 800 societies or organizations if you included all the Rotary clubs, the Kinsmen, the Kiwanians and all those various other groups, let alone the incorporated not-for-profit societies, and there were major ones like the Haven Society, the Nanaimo Women’s Resources Society, the Nanaimo Empire Day Society, the Bathtub Society. So 800 organizations in a community that, at that time, probably had a population — every man, woman and child within the city limits — of about 80,000.

When you think of that, and the contribution they are all making…. Some of them may have had some purposes that might not have met with complete public acceptance, but the vast majority of them were. They were people coming together in their community, in my community, trying to make a better city, a better community — trying to encourage those kinds of activities that bring out the best in us, whether it’s the amelioration of poverty or assisting those who are suffering health issues.

As I think any of us who drive on Vancouver Island are well aware, you often see the vans hauling cancer patients down to Victoria — them obeying the speed limit, some of us not so much, perhaps, but nevertheless, giving literally, in those cases, a full day at least of their time to drive people in need.

It is that kind of inspiring activity that reminds us that no matter how negative we may be in this chamber from time to time or how dismal the news may be — and I think we’re all conscious of the old line about “if it bleeds, it leads” — that the world indeed is filled with people of goodwill. They will continue to do their best to try and bring about a world in which people feel safe and secure.

So what’s the point of this legislation, the new Societies Act? It is a tangible recognition that people who organize themselves into societies perform a significant role in our communities. They have looked for improvements in legislation for a very long time.

I recollect back to my first time in this chamber, for a little over 4½ years in the ’90s, and a society in Coombs, and I won’t bother mentioning any names, in the Errington area that was undergoing a great deal of political upheaval and was always looking to the government — perhaps, I believe, it was the registrar of companies responsible, ultimately, for society registration in British Columbia — to assist them with their difficulties.

[1155]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The reality is that the act has been outdated for a very long time, and as much as people have been able to
[ Page 7153 ]
circumnavigate its difficulties, it was well past the time to bring forward a new Societies Act.

I’m particularly grateful to Jim Emmerton and the B.C. Law Institute, who laboured long and hard on preparing the draft of this legislation.

Jim Emmerton…. For those in the chamber who have had any contact with the B.C. Law Institute, it’s the successor to the B.C. Law Reform Commission. His team — I won’t name them all, but it’s a very small team — has done great work. Their efforts were reflected in the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, passed by this Legislature some years ago. The now Minister of Finance and I spent a great deal of time laboriously going through that particular piece of legislation, which was a significant piece of modernization of legislation.

Given that Jim is actually retiring this year, as I understand it…. Hard to believe, but I’m sure he’ll find something else to do, because I can’t imagine him moving into a rocking chair on a porch somewhere with any great comfort. But Jim Emmerton and his team deserve the thanks of this Legislature.

Noting the hour and wishing to reserve my chance to continue the debate, I move adjournment of the debate.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 10:58 a.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $5,460,832,000 (continued).

R. Fleming: I wanted to just begin this morning by asking the minister some questions about the curriculum review which is underway.

[1100]

This is a fairly ambitious undertaking. I know it has been significantly delayed because of the labour dispute, so I might ask him how those five months where government was fighting with teachers impacted the timeline that was originally presented.

I wanted to ask him, essentially looking towards the end of this process, about how this significant transformation might be undertaken where, beginning with K to 9 and then moving to the 10-to-12 grades, the learning modules that we’ve had, the content-based education system, will become something that is a concept-based type of learning. As I think we discussed last year, big ideas are what count. Those are the outcomes and the critical thinking skills we want students to have.

This will require quite a change in the way that teaching is done, in the culture of teaching. It will require the teaching profession’s embrace of it, and I know that there is significant participation and engagement thus far in this exercise.

What it will also require — and I want to get the minister’s comments on this — is resources for the leadership of implementing the curriculum change. It will require resources for in-service training for current teachers. It will perhaps even require resources and coordination with the faculties of education for new teachers who are in the preservice training.

Looking at this budget, where the curriculum review continues, in the service plan of the ministry, I don’t see any additional resources allocated to curriculum revision. The last time I think we canvassed how many employees within the ministry are designated in terms of their responsibilities in the department responsible for curriculum. The FTEs have declined over several years from something like 21 to currently four or five. The minister can correct me if my figures are wrong. I use those figures, though, to illustrate that it has been a steep decline.

How can something that his government has described as a transformation in the way that teaching and learning are done in the schools, via the curriculum, not have any resources assigned to it, when clearly at the heart of it, to make it successful, it has to, by necessity, involve the 38,000 public school teachers in the province?

[1105]

Hon. P. Fassbender: In answer to the question, there are many elements to it. One of the things I want to say is that the negotiations with the teachers did not cause delays in the work that was being done on the K-to-9 curriculum. The first draft was out before we got into negotiations.

We’ve had significant feedback, and the work is continuing. We are on schedule, and at the current time we have well over 500 teachers directly involved in not only
[ Page 7154 ]
the K-to-9 but the drafting of the first round of the 10-to-12 curriculum. We have literally thousands of teachers across the province that are working with the ministry team to do that.

In the ministry itself we have eight FTEs that are working on the curriculum review. Quite honestly, it is a whole new model than what we have done in the past. Historically, the ministry developed curriculum and then gave it to the system. In this case — and I think this is the right model in terms of collaboration and cooperation with the BCTF and the teachers in the province — we are getting engagement by teachers in the entire process, and the rollout schedule and how that will look is being done with teachers as well.

R. Fleming: The last time there was an ambitious curriculum review like this was the year 2000 program. That took a number of years, beginning in the late 1980s and going through to the early 1990s. There were extensive resources allocated to the development and in-service training for teachers to accomplish that shift in curriculum. So far in this exercise we haven’t seen any details available about the implementation phase, about whether there’s going to be things like release time allocated for teachers.

[1110]

These things cost money. They’re expenses that districts — we talked about them yesterday and the budget pressures that they’re under — can ill afford and will need ministry coordination and support to be able to accomplish.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide any details, as this process is ongoing, about whether there are going to be comprehensive, regionally appropriate, in-service training and learning resources for teachers, particularly around the shift to have enhanced aboriginal content throughout the curriculum. This is going to be an ambitious undertaking, to say the least.

I appreciate that there are a number of teachers volunteering their time on the various curriculum committees right now, working with government. It’s the implementation phase, where the vast majority of their colleagues will become most involved in this exercise, that concerns me. It looks like the ministry has so far given no signal to districts that there’s going to be a role for teacher-librarians, that there are going to be coordinator positions in different regions and districts to help implement this new curriculum.

I think that that is going to be…. That’s a risk of a major snag being hit, in terms of the successful and smooth transition to a new curriculum model in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It’s a good question. One of the things that is very obvious to me, as I’ve travelled around the province, is that the ongoing upgrading of teachers’ skills, as the curriculum changes, as technology has a larger impact, is going on every day in school districts and in schools.

[1115]

We will be working with the school districts to make sure that whatever resources we currently dedicate to that process, from whatever source they come, will continue to be used to provide the time to the teachers and the districts to implement the new curriculum.

But I will say this. In travelling around the province…. I think I mentioned yesterday that I was in Kelowna just the other day, and I saw a teacher round, a leadership round where the teachers were released from their schools by the district. I should emphasize that all the people who’ve worked on curriculum development were released by their districts to be a part of it. They were paid for their contribution — as they should be. They not only were released, but they were also dedicating a lot of their time even when they went back to their districts.

The reality is, in this teaching, learning round that I saw, in talking to teachers: they’re excited about what they’ve seen in the draft of the curriculum. We are not loading on new things. We are actually reducing the number of outcomes that they currently are required to teach, to have broader concepts so that they can work and coach students as they start to explore new learning opportunities.

What I have seen and what I believe and have heard from teachers is that they are absolutely of the mind that this is the way education needs to go. It frees them up to have more time in the classroom than they currently have.

I think looking at all of the resources we dedicate to ongoing upgrading of skills and opportunities will be evaluated as part of the process. The ministry team has a number of people on the ground travelling through the districts, working with the school districts.

But we know that the resources we commit to each district…. Some of them may be realigned to ensure that any needs that there are as a result of the curriculum change will be met. But I’m confident that the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that we dedicate to that will be well used to ensure the success of the transformation of the curriculum.

R. Fleming: Maybe one last question on this section.

The gentleman sitting behind the minister, Mr. Rod Allen, of course has been the face and the promoter of the B.C. ed plan around curriculum transformation. I want to first of all congratulate him for taking on a new position as the superintendent of Cowichan school district. I understand that will take effect in the coming months.

My question simply is: given Mr. Allen’s central role in keeping all the stakeholders on board and pushing in a positive direction on the curriculum changes that are conceived of, who is going to replace him in the ministry?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I do want to thank the member for his very positive comments about Rod Allen and his role within the ministry over many years and within education over many years. He came from a school district,
[ Page 7155 ]
was seen as a leader in the province, and that is one of the reasons that he was asked, and he rose to the occasion, to join the ministry team.

From my discussions with him, I think what is exciting for him at this stage of his career — and he said to me very clearly — is that this is his opportunity to go back into the field, on the ground, in a community that came through some very challenging times and is now on a solid footing, to take on the role of superintendent in a district that has a great future.

[1120]

I say without any hesitation that I have been impressed with Mr. Allen’s career, his passion. We’re not losing him. We’re actually keeping him in the system as a superintendent. He is going to be one of the implementers of the very thing that he’s worked on as an individual within the ministry.

That being said, I’ve clearly recognized in all of my career, be it in the private sector or the public sector, that change sometimes has two dimensions. You can fear it and fear that things are going to be lost, or you embrace it and say that change is a good thing because it gives you an opportunity to move ahead.

In my discussions with the deputy, and even when we were at the international conference in Banff, I’ve seen a lot of good work going on around the world. Suffice it to say that when I was in Banff, I was not at all hesitant to spread the word that Mr. Allen was going to a new opportunity, an exciting one, and put the word out that we were seriously looking for someone who could move in and take the responsibilities. But there are some key criteria.

One, the person has to be an educator with a track record in education and in curriculum at every level. Secondly, they bring the credentials that they understand the education system in the province of British Columbia. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to be from British Columbia, but indeed, it’s important that whoever is going to work with the sector will do that.

The other thing — Mr. Allen and I have talked about this, and the deputy and I have talked about it — is we’re underway right now, looking. The word is out. We’ve had a number of people who have indicated an interest in the position. I can’t speak to who they are because, of course, that wouldn’t be appropriate at this stage. But we are not going to lose any time in finding a replacement.

Mr. Allen has committed and is continuing to work with us as we take the regional forums from the Wosk Centre around to ensure that we’re engaging all of the community in the future of education and the new vision. I think we have a great opportunity as we move ahead.

As I’ve said, we’re not losing him. We’re gaining him as a superintendent. I think he’s going to be one of the leaders within the ranks of superintendents to challenge his peers in that world to ensure that we have them as active participants in the transformation agenda.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about a direct contract award. Just to preface that, I think this is probably as neutral as I can put it. The longest school disruption in B.C. history had many, many casualties. I think I have heard even somebody representing government say that there were no winners.

There were only losers in that situation — losers for the government, because it burnished further the reputation as a government that can’t be trusted on public education. The teachers came out losers — because so many of them lost income and went through so much anxiety personally, financially and otherwise, for a very extended period of time — and, of course, the kids and parents most of all, who lost education time that will never be replaced. Parents lost a considerable amount of income and time, and the stress and anxiety were obviously not compensated in their lives. We can all agree that everybody lost in that situation.

But potentially, there was somebody who did win significant amounts of money, through a direct contract award. I want to ask about KIMBO Design company and ask the minister, I think first of all, how on earth this company could have been given a direct contract award. I have the procurement guidelines for government, and I can’t see any of the exemptions that are typically offered being relevant to the direct award that was ultimately given to KIMBO Design.

The competitive process, for example, did not interfere with the ministry’s ability to maintain security or protect human health, animal or plant life. I don’t think that clause applies. The ministry couldn’t prove that strictly one contractor was qualified and nobody else was. I don’t think that applies. There are lots of communications consulting companies that can provide similar amounts of services.

I would ask the minister how this firm could do so well by his ministry during this period of strife that I have just described — a $79,940 invoice for the teachers strike on line, whatever that is. I’m reading the line items of the billing information.

[1125]

It’s $317,000 for the education on-line phase 1 campaign. The dates of these invoices, by the way, are all either in the May school disruption or the September-October school disruption. And a final invoice for $21,000 — all directly awarded to a firm that nobody had ever really heard of but now we know has a very close relationship to this government through the Premier’s leadership campaign in her own party and even some design work for the B.C. Liberal Party. Apparently this firm, KIMBO, designed the logo for the B.C. Liberal Party.

Now they’re getting considerable amounts of government work. I’ve listed three invoices that were submitted of funds that were paid directly to this firm during the period of school disruption. I just wonder how on earth this firm could have been given a direct-award contract in the amounts of money that I’ve just described.
[ Page 7156 ]

[1130]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

First of all, I want to make very clear the process that was involved in selecting any communications firm. Having been in the business many years ago, I think I understand probably better than most. That is that communications firms here in the province, around other provinces and federally are asked to come in and prequalify by making presentations on their capabilities, their depth, all of their experience. Then there is a prequalified list that is established.

When any communications project comes up through government communications, they look through the prequalified list of people, and they select the company based even on contact with them — if they have the time, the capacity, their capabilities, if they are specialized in a particular area — because not every company has the same qualifications.

That process was followed in this case by civil servants in the province. It was not politically directed or otherwise. It was selected from that prequalified list. This company was on it, along with other companies, and they were selected based on the criteria that I just mentioned — their capabilities, their experience, the staff they have available to dedicate to the project.

I do want to say this as well. Government stood, and I stood, in the House a number of times and said our responsibility during the negotiations and during the challenges that we had was to communicate effectively and consistently to the people of British Columbia what was going on, what the steps were and what the government’s position was as it related to things like the support for parents payment. That was critical for us to make sure that British Columbians knew what the issues were, how they could qualify and so on.

I do want to point out that in this particular contract — and I’m sure the member knows this — that out of the total amount, by far and away the majority of the dollars, over $300,000, was used to buy the space to get the messages out to the taxpayers, the parents of this province. I stand here, as I have done in the past, making no apologies for our responsibility to communicate to the parents.

I think the proof of the pudding is that we had over 100 percent subscription, for example, to the parent support payment at a time that was disruptive, and we did that clearly to help parents at a time when they needed that extra assistance.

R. Fleming: I have to say I’m a bit surprised by the minister’s answer to say that this is some kind of a normal routine for government on how communications contracts are awarded.

This is a firm that nobody had heard of two years ago but has done a tremendous amount of work since the current leader of the B.C. Liberal Party became the Premier and has a close relationship with this firm.

They’re billing over $1 million a year now. They did very well out of this dispute. I think to say that it was civil servants making neutral decisions — I mean, every contract award that has been made to this firm — is asking a lot of the public in terms of stretching their belief.

[1135]

I want to ask a little bit about the invoices and the work that was performed by this firm, in particular as it relates to how social media was used in this dispute. Government already had accounts under the B.C. Education and Literacy brand — Facebook and Twitter accounts and these sorts of things. The subscribers to these social media services were generally people involved in the education sector. It was generally a clearinghouse for neutral information that was related to the B.C. education plan. I know a lot of people who used these and subscribed to them.

All of a sudden, in the middle of this heated labour dispute, when government was pursuing a lockout and was going over the cliff and that school would not resume on September 2 — all of those sort of pivotal moments — the B.C. education and literacy social media accounts abandoned using neutral message about the B.C. education plan. They started to put out government messages that were highly partisan.

For example, I can remember the tweet that said “government’s number one priority is class composition; all the BCTF wants is to grow their ranks” — I mean, very, very slanted commentary. This is not putting out a view about bargaining progress or any of the other issues around parents accessing a fund in the event that a labour dispute continued. It was hard-line negotiation spin from the government.

I want to ask the minister: who authorized using what were neutral accounts that provided information about the ongoing rollout and evolution of the B.C. education plan and turned them into mouthpieces for the B.C. Liberal Party’s views on the strike?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m sure that there are many communication firms that he’s not aware of, because until it’s brought up, nobody may know. There are a number of organizations that provide services throughout this province and to the provincial government.

[1140]

I will again reiterate that it was an appropriate process that was used to put companies on a prequalified list of suppliers who could provide communication services. This was not a B.C. Liberal, as the member characterizes it. This was government communicating with taxpayers, with parents, and ensuring that the message around the
[ Page 7157 ]
status of where we were at in the negotiations, where we were going in terms of the parent support fund….

I stand here clearly saying that I make no apologies for the fact that we communicated effectively. The results were that people knew exactly where the government was in its negotiations with the teachers. We had a responsibility to communicate that. We took that responsibility seriously.

My own office had no part in awarding the contract to a prequalified firm. That was done through government communications. I believe that the end result was what it should be — that the people of this province, the taxpayers, knew where the government stood. It was government policy and direction that was being communicated, not a partisan political message.

R. Fleming: I think I will move off this topic. I think the suspicions around this firm and how the awards were made and the political involvement — there’s been nothing said today that clears that up.

I want to ask about a program that we talked about last year in estimates, the BCTES grant, the RESP. The minister last year, I think…. We had a discussion about how it was budgeted for.

Government claimed it was open and available to everyone. They wanted every British Columbian that was eligible, who had a child born between the various years of eligibility in the program, to have a 100 percent takeup rate, although government has only budgeted for something like 57 percent of the population to participate. So they’ve discounted 43 percent of participants as likely to get involved in this program. We went a little bit back and forth on that. I want to ask the minister again about the status of this program, what the takeup rate is.

The government that this government copied the program from is, of course, Alberta. This was a Ralph Klein initiative in 2005. They were the first to create an RESP-based savings plan for parents in that province. I do note that just the other month Alberta actually wound down this program, and they were criticized for doing so. But the ACES program, as it’s called in Alberta….

The government’s rationale, just to help the minister here, is that the evaluations of the program that the government of Alberta did showed that “it is ineffective at helping lower-income Albertans save for post-secondary education, as accessing the grants requires a higher level of financial literacy and engaging with banks or financial advisers.”

They were frustrated by the takeup rate. They didn’t feel that this savings plan was helping those that most needed help in terms of acquiring savings to help their kids access post-secondary education as they went through school and became of an age to become post-secondary students.

I’m just wondering, given Alberta’s decision, if there’s similar analysis that’s going on in British Columbia’s much younger program and what the status is.

[1145]

Hon. P. Fassbender: To the member’s question…. First of all, I’m not going to try and speak for the province of Alberta, but I will say this.

[1150]

I was just recently with the minister from Alberta after the budget was presented, and we had a long discussion about the program here and there. Quite different circumstances. British Columbia is in sound financial shape. We have a balanced budget. We’ve maintained our triple-A credit rating because of our fiscal policies. We don’t have to make the hard decisions when it comes to programs like this, which are of benefit to every parent and student who chooses to apply. Let’s remember that this is a voluntary program that people can choose to be a part of, whether it is the parents or the grandparents in conjunction with the students.

I can say this. We don’t have the takeup rates yet. We’re finalizing all the details, both with the federal government and with financial institutions. I will say this. Central 1 Credit Union and every credit union in the province, which is very community-based, different than the circumstances in Alberta, are signed on to be supportive of this and will be promoting it through their auspices. The Royal Bank has indicated interest in coming on board, one of the largest chartered bank institutions.

We are developing a very comprehensive communications program where families, as they register their children for elementary school, will be given information about the program. At the end of the day, I believe, and our team believes, as we designed this program, that it will cover all of the socioeconomic categories in our province. We’re working with First Nations to communicate to them that it is eligible to their students as well.

I have the utmost confidence that our takeup rate is going to be very robust. We, quite honestly, would be delighted to see 100 percent takeup. Reality says, and working with the financial institutions, that this kind of a program may start slowly, but it builds momentum as people talk to their friends and their neighbours.

As we move forward, I think this is a significant benefit to every single family and every single student. A $1,200 contribution to a registered education savings plan that is established for that purpose allows parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles to top it up to whatever extent they can afford. But I can say this. I don’t think there is any person in this province who has children that fit into the category that will not benefit from a registered education savings plan, and we’re committed to making it successful.

That being said, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada