2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Parks system and proposed national park in South

Okanagan area

S. Chandra Herbert

Paralympic world championships and participation by

Parksville-Qualicum MLA

E. Foster

School closings in south Nanaimo

area

D. Routley

Lindsey Babineau and school fruit and vegetable

snack program

D. Plecas

Refugee experience of Mohammed

Jawara

R. Chouhan

Symphony in the Park event and piano accomplishments of

Avan Yu

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Implementation of multicultural outreach

strategy

A. Dix

Hon. T. Wat

Multicultural outreach strategy investigation and

e-mail from former Multiculturalism Minister

J. Kwan

Hon. T. Wat

Hon. A. Wilkinson

S. Simpson

Alberta residency requirements for oil and gas

companies

V. Huntington

Hon. T. Wat

Call for independent investigation into multicultural

outreach strategy

B. Ralston

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Attorney General response to multicultural outreach

strategy issues

L. Krog

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2012

WorkSafe B.C., annual report, 2012

Petitions

D. Routley

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

N. Macdonald

Petitions

D. Routley

Orders of the Day

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the

Premier (continued)

A. Dix

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

B. Ralston

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act,

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Stone

G. Heyman

B. Ralston

S. Robinson

M. Karagianis

D. Eby

K. Corrigan

L. Popham

S. Fraser

D. Donaldson

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

Hon. P. Fassbender

R. Fleming

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Routley

V. Huntington

H. Bains

J. Kwan

D. Eby

A. Weaver

M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act,

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

[ Page 721 ]

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the gallery today we're joined by Brenda and Brian Harrott, who are

from Kelowna and are friends of my chief of staff. We were all fortunate

enough to attend the wedding of my chief of staff and his new bride, Sophie,

two weeks ago in Kelowna. Would the House please welcome them.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is someone who has been shadowing me

for the morning and into the afternoon. He's a young man from Langford in my

constituency, Ravi Parmar. He will be known, I'm sure, to the Minister of

Education.

It was Ravi who led a walkout of students at Belmont high school a

year ago that led to George Abbott having to sit down with him for half an

hour. Now, thanks to the good work of the Ministry of Education, we will

have a new high school in Langford, and it's all as a result of Ravi Parmar.

Would the House make him welcome.

Hon. T. Wat: Today, alongside the Speaker, the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of

Social Development, I had the pleasure of having lunch with representatives

from Richmond Centre for Disability.

Joining us today in the House and in the gallery are Vince Miele, the

board chair; Tom Parker, the board vice-chair; Angela Gauld, board member at

large; Shirley Liang, board member at large; and Eileen and Peter Kalshoven.

Would the House please join me in giving them the most warm

welcome.

V. Huntington: I'm extremely pleased to welcome to the precinct today Peg, Eric and

Nick Keenleyside, who are residents of Delta South and wonderful supporters

of mine. Will the House make them welcome.

[1335]

D. Horne: Joining us in the members' gallery this afternoon is His Excellency

Ali Al-Sammak, the Ambassador for the State of Kuwait to Canada. The

ambassador is here on his first official visit to British Columbia and will

be meeting with the Lieutenant-Governor at Government House this afternoon.

Would this House please make him feel welcome.

D. Routley: I've invited several guests to the House today. They're parents and

people affected by potential school closures in the south end of Nanaimo, in

the Cedar and Wellington communities: Olivia and Kathie Aarsen; Andrea

Bonkowski, a former school trustee in Nanaimo, and her husband, David;

Steven Bowen; Coleen Burke; Sheilagh Gourlay; Garry Hein; Scott Kimler; Alec

McPherson, the Nanaimo regional area director for the community; Caeleigh

and Tiffany Nelson; Steve and Melodie Rae; Madeline and Debra Shred; Lloyd

and Delaney St. Cyr; and Peter Yoon. Can the House please help me welcome

these folks to Victoria.

L. Reimer: I'm pleased to announce that today is the birthday of my wonderful

brother Bob Chambers. Would the House please join me in wishing him a very

happy birthday.

D. Eby: Joining us today in the gallery are representatives of the Alliance of

B.C. Students, who represent over 180,000 British Columbia students in

post-secondary institutions. I know they've been having a lot of productive

conversations with my colleague on the other side of the House, and I wanted

to ask the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Each year since 1903 British Columbia has selected a Rhodes Scholar to

attend Oxford University for further education. That's from a period more

than a decade before these buildings came into use.

I'm pleased to announce that this year's 2013 Rhodes Scholar for

British Columbia, Ms. Tara Paterson, is here in the gallery. I must note

that she is politically active. I'm trying to convince her that there are

other ways to see the world than the one she currently sees it through.

Whether I'm successful or not, I am hopeful, and I anticipate that we will

see her in this House one day.

D. Plecas: I have two guests in the gallery I would like to welcome today. One is

Geri Bemister, who is a professor at North Island College and one of the

most inspiring people I know, and my youngest son Sean, who's a university

student. I'm fond of telling him that he can do anything he wants with his

life after he gets a PhD.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PARKS SYSTEM AND PROPOSED NATIONAL

PARK IN SOUTH

OKANAGAN AREA

S. Chandra Herbert: This Saturday, July 20, people from across British Columbia and,

indeed, across Canada will be celebrating Canada's Parks Day.

As members will know, B.C.'s first provincial park was Strathcona

Park, established in 1911. At the time, MLAs spoke in the Legislature

about how it would open up British Columbia to tourism and bring untold

millions

[ Page 722 ]

into the provincial treasury. Well,

Strathcona Park and, indeed, the over 800 parks that have come since

have done that and more.

I fondly remember my dad taking me and my brother on our first

back-country camping trip to Strathcona. The wonder of nature seemed to

stretch on into infinity, and the mischievous whisky jacks were just a

lot of fun. It helped grow a desire in me to stand up for our

environment for generations to come.

Parks play that role for so many and have inspired countless

British Columbians to improve our parks by giving back. They deserve our

thanks and support through investing in the park system.

Parks also play a vital role in maintaining healthy and resilient

ecosystems and protecting critical habitat for species at risk. But

there's an area in B.C. which still needs more work done. I'm speaking

of the South Okanagan and the proposed national park. This area of

unique beauty and rare ecosystems is home to 58 species at risk,

one-third of B.C.'s total. Unfortunately, the fragile grasslands of the

South Okanagan are in danger of being lost.

[1340]

As we celebrate Parks Day, I'd encourage us all to look at the

growing support for this creation of a national park, to consider the

economic and conservation benefits that it could deliver and to start

again.

The Okanagan Nation Alliance, the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen, the Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association,

numerous town councils, chambers of commerce and more all recognize the

value this park could bring to British Columbia. I hope this House will

as well.

PARALYMPIC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

AND PARTICIPATION BY

PARKSVILLE-QUALICUM MLA

E. Foster: Wilma Rudolph, a legendary American Olympic track and field

champion from the 1950s and '60s, said we should "never underestimate

the power of dreams and the influence of the human spirit. We are all

the same in this notion. The potential for greatness lives within each

of us."

These words ring true, especially for all of those who participate

in sports, be it for fun or competition. I think it is safe to say that

all of us, at least at one point in our lives, have dreamt of becoming a

world-class athlete and reaching that sports pinnacle by winning a

championship or representing one's country internationally.

Dreams drive and motivate us. We should encourage and applaud

those who strive to achieve them. Thirty-five Canadians will join 1,100

other athletes from nearly 100 countries in Lyons, France, to live their

dream and achieve greatness at the International Paralympic Committee

2013 Athletics World Championships, which start tomorrow.

It is a vision of the IPC to enable Paralympic athletes to achieve

sporting excellence and to inspire and excite the world. We are

fortunate to have one of those world-class and inspirational athletes

with us today, and that is our member for Parksville-Qualicum. Our

colleague exemplifies the potential for greatness and has inspired

Canadians, young and old, to dream and achieve excellence.

I hope everyone will join me in wishing all of Canada's athletes,

especially our colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, our best as they

represent our country at the IPC Athletics World

Championships.

We'll be cheering you on.

I know that the member for Parksville-Qualicum and the entire

Canadian team will do our country proud.

SCHOOL CLOSINGS IN

SOUTH NANAIMO

AREA

D. Routley: The south end of Nanaimo, including Cedar and South Wellington,

are deeply rooted and historical communities. They are welcoming to

newcomers and still the home of pioneer families. They are the

traditional territories of the Snuneymuxw and Chemainus First

Nations.

The soul of a community is an aggregate of its history and its

present, its people and its institutions. There is perhaps nothing more

important to the binding of the past, present and future of a community

than its schools. In south Nanaimo recent plans by the school district,

driven by deficits in resources, called for the closure of several

schools. These are excellent schools that produce great results. The

First Nations students and their families bring cultural

vibrancy.

The Cedar Community Secondary School is the sixth most improved

secondary school in B.C. South Wellington, the pride of its community

and staff; North Cedar; Woodbank — all of these schools are home to many

First Nations students. Their leader, Chief Douglas White, complains

that despite the contribution to the district of over $1 million in

educational funds, his nation has not been adequately

consulted.

There are consequences to school closures that go well beyond the

immediate educational costs. Do retail businesses look for a community

closing its schools to locate their operations? Do realtors brag to

prospective buyers that this community is closing its schools? Do local

social groups and sports teams benefit from the closure of the

facilities they depend on?

How will students participate in extracurricular sports and other

school activities when they must queue up for a long bus ride? How do

parents participate in the classroom and school from long

distance?

These are not trivial issues that are lost in the chess

[ Page 723 ]

piece movements of assets in such educational plans that

fail to recognize the values of the community. I am calling on the

provincial government to respond to south Nanaimo's communities,

families and voters. Hear us. Help us by appointing an adviser and

necessary resources that can help the district, First Nations and the

community arrive at a solution that better suits them.

Madame Speaker: Member, you heard the direction I provided in the chamber days

earlier. I'd ask you to take it into account.

[1345]

LINDSEY BABINEAU AND

SCHOOL FRUIT AND VEGETABLE

SNACK PROGRAM

D. Plecas: We've heard a lot recently in this House about food, local

purchasing and the benefits of B.C. agriculture, so I thought it would

be good to bring to the attention of the House a remarkable Abbotsford

resident, Lindsey Babineau. Lindsey was a schoolteacher who, 15 years

ago, established the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation. She

did this out of a concern for what she saw students eating and a belief

that there was a need to teach students more about healthy living and

B.C. agriculture.

At first, her focus was just on providing information. Ultimately,

that changed. In 2005 she actually started delivering fruits and

vegetable snacks to students in ten schools. Ultimately, that resulted

in the government helping out with some money, and today we have a

situation where we're under the umbrella of the B.C. school fruit and

vegetable nutritional program.

With the work of more than a thousand volunteers, fruits and

vegetable snacks are delivered in 1,400 schools around the province to

over 500,000 students. Collectively, this amounts to their serving seven

million servings a year. This year, with a million dollars in new money

from the government and in a partnership with the B.C. Dairy Foundation,

they've added milk to the initiative.

This program accomplishes many goals, including promoting healthy

living and supporting local businesses and communities and B.C.'s

vibrant agriculture. Importantly, it's an example of how government,

communities, businesses and schools can all work together to do great

things.

I think we should all be proud of this program. We should be proud

of it especially because it's the only one of its kind in Canada, and we

should be especially proud of Lindsey Babineau, the person who started

it all.

REFUGEE EXPERIENCE OF

MOHAMMED

JAWARA

R. Chouhan: Last Friday I had the opportunity to meet with Mohammed Jawara, a

young man from Liberia who has written a short book about his traumatic

experiences in the refugee camps in Africa. He was only 12 when his

mother, uncle and aunt were killed by the Liberian rebel soldiers.

Mohammed, along with his sister and two brothers, escaped the attack and

fled to a refugee camp in Sierra Leone.

Shortly after their arrival the Liberian rebel soldiers attacked

the refugee camp, slaughtering and raping — including pregnant women.

This attack left over a thousand people dead in and around the refugee

camp. Jawara's brother lost his arm, but they were able to get out and

fled to Guinea. After a couple of years living in Guinea, they applied

for refugee status and were accepted to Canada.

Mohammed, now 26, lives with his siblings in Burnaby-Edmonds's

Hillside Gardens, a subsidized housing complex with many more refugee

and immigrant families who share similar stories of struggle. To help

him cope with the trauma he experienced, Mohammed was encouraged by

adult education teachers to write his story. With perseverance, he

self-published a short book titled The Tears of the Innocent and the

Bloodshed , which came out in March.

Although it was a painful process for him to write this book, he

felt it was important to share his story to inspire hope in others and

to encourage the community to work together to help refugees become

successful citizens in their community.

I wish Mr. Jawara, his sister and two brothers a very peaceful

life in Canada and thank him for sharing his story with us.

SYMPHONY IN THE PARK EVENT AND

PIANO ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF

AVAN YU

R. Lee: This past weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 25th annual

Symphony in the Park, featuring the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra, with

other members of the House from Burnaby. Since the first Symphony in the

Park on August 10, 1989, over 160,000 people have enjoyed the talents of

the VSO in Deer Lake Park.

We are so lucky to have the beautiful Deer Lake Park as a

community gathering place for cultural events in Burnaby. With the

generosity of the city of Burnaby and other sponsors, all members of our

community are able to attend this annual event free of cost and enjoy

young rising stars.

[1350]

Last Sunday the program featured a young Canadian pianist, Avan

Yu, who performed the Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme by

Paganini . Mr. Yu moved to

[ Page 724 ]

Vancouver from Hong Kong at the age

of nine, has performed with elite symphonies around the world and is the

winner of the prestigious 2012 Sydney International Piano Competition.

He first played with the VSO in 2002 in Burnaby, and we are happy to

have welcomed him to Burnaby's Deer Lake Park last weekend. Again, the

event finished with Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture , complete with

fireworks simulating the 16 French cannon shots in the

finale.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Yu and Vancouver Symphony

Orchestra on an excellent performance and an exciting 25th anniversary

event. I encourage all members to visit Deer Lake Park and the Burnaby

Village Museum to enjoy any of the great cultural events that our

community is proud to host throughout the year.

Oral Questions

IMPLEMENTATION OF

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH

STRATEGY

A. Dix: For days in this House and outside, the Premier and the government

have denied that the so-called hush money e-mail was ever acted upon.

Yesterday, however, it was established that an inducement was offered to

silence a staffer who had information that would be "damaging to the

Premier."

Now let's turn to another government denial. For months the

Premier and the government denied the larger quick-win strategy was ever

implemented. Today we have in our possession new information that shows,

despite the government's denial, that the larger quick-win strategy was

also put into effect.

Let me quote from an e-mail, from the private e-mail of the

Premier's Minister for Multiculturalism of the time, the member for

Richmond-Steveston, to a public servant of the time and Liberal

operative, Brian Bonney. "Have you received Sepideh's lists?" it begins.

"I realize she's been busy, but she has an obligation to you and me and

our Primrose to meet this contact-list requirement as part of our

multi–election campaign strategy."

In light of this e-mail, can the Minister for Multiculturalism

confirm that the multi–election campaign strategy was indeed

implemented?

Hon. T. Wat: As I have said in the past three days, since Monday — today is the

fourth day that I'm going to reiterate myself again — all the e-mails,

including the last e-mail and the e-mail you refer to, were wrong. The

approach and suggestions being made in the e-mail were wrong and

inappropriate.

The Dyble report found that there's no evidence that the e-mails

were acted on by the government. The Dyble report was fulsome, was

exhaustive and was comprehensive. It did show that some individuals

clearly acted outside of the guidelines for public servants and for

political staff. This e-mail falls into this category.

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

A. Dix: Well, this e-mail was not even available in the material released

by the government after the election, and it's not about political

staffers. This was the minister sending this e-mail from his private

account to avoid freedom-of-information laws and confirming that there

was a "multi" — presumably short for multiculturalism — election

campaign strategy that was using public funds to advance the Liberals'

partisan interests.

It's not me testifying to this. It's the former minister. It's the

member for Richmond-Steveston. It's the Parliamentary Secretary to the

Minister of Justice. It calls for the creation of contact lists which

then could be used by the Liberal Party in the election.

[1355]

Here we have a minister of the Crown demanding of a supposed

public servant where Ms. Sarrafpour's lists were — lists that were for,

in his words "our multi-election strategy."

Will the Minister for Multiculturalism finally admit to this

House, based on this incontrovertible evidence provided by her own

colleague — her own colleague, hon. Speaker — that the Liberals'

multi-election strategy using public funds was indeed

implemented?

Hon. T. Wat: Our former Minister for Multiculturalism has already apologized

and considered the mistake by resigning already, so we have taken the

responsibility.

It is clear by this line of questioning from the leader of the

opposition that the members opposite have not yet read the whole Dyble

report. Here's what the report said: "Those interviewed understand that,

while some initial work was completed on looking at the potential use of

Win software for caucus, it was not pursued. Every person interviewed

was clear that no database was ever developed."

The report goes on: "During the records search, no evidence was

found of a database having been created." As members of this House, this

side, we all trust the work of our distinguished civil servants, and I

hope that the members on the opposite side will do the same.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: This was nine months after they set out that strategy in that

document, which of course referred to strategy before and after it. Nine

months. This was three days after a meeting held in the Premier's office

where they were developing lists and demanding that lists to further a

multi–election campaign strategy be produced by people paid for by the

public.

This is the collecting of lists of contacts and passing them on to

the Liberal Party, all using tax dollars. In

[ Page 725 ]

fact, it's

the member for Richmond-Steveston in this e-mail who specifically

contradicts what his successor, the Minister for Multiculturalism, just

said, hon. Speaker.

Will the minister finally admit that this was indeed the

government's strategy from the start and that this plan had nothing to

do with the public interest, nothing to do with governing? It was a

scheme that had one purpose: to promote the Liberal Party.

Hon. T. Wat: It has now become clear, extremely clear, that the opposition

wishes to refight the last election. The voices of the electorate were

loud and clear. They gave us a mandate to create jobs, to expand trade,

to promote the economy and to secure a better future for our

children.

I am ready and members of this side of the House are ready to roll

up our sleeves and get to work. I strongly urge the members of the

opposition to do the same.

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

INVESTIGATION AND

E-MAIL FROM

FORMER MULTICULTURALISM MINISTER

J. Kwan: I know that the minister and the government like to claim that the

Dyble report was thorough and comprehensive — same as the now member for

Richmond-Steveston, who actually claimed before the election that the

document "never hit my desk." We now know that the government

deliberately delayed the release of the 10,000 pages of documents until

after the election. It was a deliberate strategy to hide what they were

doing.

[1400]

Now an e-mail has come to light from the then Minister for

Multiculturalism that confirms, in his words, "the multi-election

strategy" was, in fact, being implemented. I have a copy of that that

e-mail in my hand right now, dated August 16, 2012, from the then

Minister for Multiculturalism to Brian Bonney asking specifically for

the contact lists for the election from Ms. Sarrafpour.

Interestingly, this e-mail was not found in the 10,000 pages that

the government released after the election. Maybe it was blanked out

amongst the 5,000 pages that were blank. My question to the minister is

quite simple. Was this very telling e-mail hidden by whiteout, or was it

hidden by omission by design?

Hon. T. Wat: Honestly, I don't know what the member of the opposition was

referring to. It's 10,000 pages of documents that were posted on the

website. Let me reiterate once again that the Dyble report was conducted

by four of the most senior public servants in the government. It was

thorough, it was timely, and it was released prior to the

election.

All the e-mails were ones of the 10,000 pages of documents that we

looked into and released as part of the report. The report found no

evidence that the document that you guys are mentioning was acted on.

There was no evidence. If there was any evidence that it was acted on by

the government, it would have been included in the report and

recommendations would be made.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The evidence is actually not in the minister's script, but it is

all around her, surfacing each and every day. Now, during the estimates

debate this morning the Leader of the Official Opposition asked the

Deputy Premier if the Dyble review team had obtained all the relevant

documents needed to conduct the investigation. The Deputy Premier

replied: "We feel we did."

Can the minister explain why this damning e-mail, an e-mail from

the former Minister for Multiculturalism confirming that government was

using public money for partisan purposes, was not included in the

material reviewed by Mr. Dyble? And can she tell this House how many

other e-mails and hidden documents are there that somehow were

overlooked by this very thorough, comprehensive Dyble review?

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

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: If the member opposite would refrain from so many interruptions,

you might get some answers.

This has truly become the "Dance of the Seven Veils." With each

passing day, the members opposite pull yet another scrawny rabbit out of

the hat. But thanks to the members of the gallery, yesterday there was a

particularly insightful question from media in the hallway. They turned

to the Leader of the Opposition and they said: "What do you know about

the mystery woman?" And the Leader of the Opposition was obliged to

agree that the NDP have actually interviewed the mystery woman but

didn't bother to tell this House.

[1405]

Interjections.

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

doth protest too much.

It's time for the opposition to come clean with this House. We've

had this silly cat-and-mouse game all week, four days of pulling scrawny

rabbits out, pointing to the scrawny rabbit and saying there must be

stew on the other side. It's time for the members of the opposition to

come clean, present their evidence to this House and let the court of

public opinion decide.

[ Page 726 ]

S. Simpson: Maybe if the exhaustive investigation had interviewed Ms.

Sarrafpour, we'd be further along than we are today. Minister after

minister has claimed that the Dyble report tells us all we need to know

about the quick-win scandal. Yesterday the Multicultural Minister said

that the report was comprehensive: "It was exhaustive." The Innovation

Minister said it was a "wide-reaching investigation." This morning the

Deputy Premier said: "Commonly accepted forensic techniques and tools

were used to search across the aggregated data."

How is it possible that a comprehensive, wide-reaching

investigation using forensic techniques missed a government e-mail from

the minister to political staff asking where the contact lists were for

multi-election strategies? And if it wasn't missed, why was it

hidden?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We're faced now with our fourth day of sanctimonious

pronouncements from the opposition. It's time to get some facts on the

table. The facts behind the NDP ethnic outreach fiasco are rather murky,

but this is what we know. These facts had to be ferreted out by the

Auditor General, and then the NDP did everything they could to suppress

them.

The NDP — 27 members opposite — siphoned off $200 a month from

constituency funds paid for by the taxpayer, handed them over to the

ethnic outreach slush fund over the years. Six years — count the

fingers. We know they have ten, so perhaps they have four years to go on

the slush fund.

Over the six years, $372,000 of public funds are paid out from

ridings like Columbia River–Revelstoke, from North Coast, from

Maillardville. Those are paid into an NDP ethnic outreach slush

fund.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The legislative comptroller administered that money. I wonder if

they administered the money for the quick-win scandal. This

e-mail….

Interjection.

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

Speaker.

This e-mail is from the former Minister for Multiculturalism, hon.

Speaker. This e-mail is from the former Minister for Multiculturalism to

Brian Bonney using government e-mail.

[1410]

It refers to contact lists for use in the B.C. Liberal election

strategy. In the e-mail the MLA for Richmond-Steveston says that Ms.

Sarrafpour has "an obligation to you and me and our Primrose to meet

this contact list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign

strategy."

This contradicts the Premier, who claimed that this scheme was

never put into play. It is time for some truth and some honesty in this

process. It is time for an independent investigation with the power to

get at the B.C. Liberal Party, to get at the Liberal caucus and their

staff and others. Will the Deputy Premier order that investigation

today, or is he going to keep hiding?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Let's look at the consequences of these actions. The minister in

question, from Richmond-Steveston, resigned. Where's the resignation on

their side? When this came to light, there was immediately an

independent investigation on this side of the House. Where are the

disclosure and investigation, on their side of the House, about public

money being spent on slush funds? This side of the House promptly paid

back $70,000 of taxpayers' funds. Not one nickel has been paid back by

the 27 members sitting there.

Finally, Madame Speaker, let me quote from NDP insider Bill

Tieleman in 2011 — quoting community organizer Katrina Chen, "As an

adviser for the B.C. NDP, Gabriel Yiu has significantly helped the party

to raise its profile in the Asian community" — the year that Gabriel Yiu

was paid $74,000 by 27 of the people on that side of the

House.

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

ALBERTA RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS

FOR OIL AND GAS

COMPANIES

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

The government's campaign platform included a promise that B.C.

will ensure Alberta lives up to its TILMA obligations not to

discriminate against B.C.-based companies that want access to Alberta's

oil and gas play. I can't tell the government how pleased I was to see

that my previous questions on this subject had made it into your

platform.

Even so, it was a curious election promise, because just before

the election the former Minister of Jobs told the House that the trade

dispute had been resolved. Meanwhile, my office had been advised that

while the negotiators might have agreed on regulatory equivalency,

neither government had signed off on the agreement.

In the last four years alone, Alberta's residency requirements

have led to residency audits on at least 17 B.C. companies. One

constituent of mine was forced to move his family, his company and its

jobs, taxes and talent back to Alberta.

Given that this House has been told many times that the deal had

been concluded or was about to conclude, can the minister responsible —

and I've just recently found out that it might even be, for some reason,

the Minister of International Trade — tell us when her gov-

[ Page 727 ]

ernment will

step up, be as hard-nosed as Alberta and take control of a situation

that has penalized B.C. companies for over a decade?

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you, hon. Member, for that question. As a small, open

economy, B.C. recognizes the crucial importance of trade for our

economic prosperity. Improved market access leads to freer flow of

goods, services and also labour, which helps to diversify our markets,

increase trade and create jobs. That is why our government is a leader

and active partner in numerous domestic and international trade

initiatives.

[1415]

Domestic trade agreements — like TILMA, as the hon. member

mentioned, and the new west partnership — eliminate barriers to

interprovincial movement of goods, labour and investment and bring about

a more open and stable domestic trade environment within Canada. It is

through this initiative that we can grow our economy, diversify our

markets and create family-supporting jobs.

Madame Speaker: Member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I'm sorry that the minister feels that that's an adequate answer

to a question that's been hanging over B.C. companies for over a

decade.

Last session the former Minister of Jobs also told the House that

thanks to the successful culmination of the new west trade partnership's

dispute resolution process we were "starting to see head offices being

set up in British Columbia." He was referring to B.C. firms operating in

Alberta's oil and gas play.

Can the minister confirm this statement, and will she provide this

House with the names of the companies that have returned to

B.C.?

Hon. T. Wat: Thank you, hon. Member, for the question. I will get back to you

on the name of the company, but I would like to say that my ministry,

along with the Oil and Gas Commission, is working to conclude the mutual

recognition agreement with Alberta that is in B.C.'s best interest. Once

this MRA is signed, energy companies with head offices in B.C. will have

full access to the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT

INVESTIGATION INTO MULTICULTURAL

OUTREACH STRATEGY

B. Ralston: It's clear that the B.C. Liberals took money from the public and

used it to build party lists aimed at "swings in B.C. but focused in the

Lower Mainland." They used public money to "recruit supporters to help

local MLAs" with the election.

If the Minister for Multiculturalism truly believes these actions

were wrong, will she support a full, independent investigation into how

the Liberals abused public money in their bid to get

re-elected?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I don't intend to be repetitious and use up the good offices of

Hansard to restate what has been said 25 times already this week.

Rather, I propose a homework list for the NDP MLAs as they return to

their ridings this weekend to explain a few things to their

constituents: (1) draft a letter of apology to the four deputy ministers

who put together the Dyble report; (2) apologize to their constituents

for a week of bungled questions on an issue they already knew the

answers to; (3) each of them, all 34 of them, raise $11,000 from party

members to contribute to the $372,000 cheque that they will bring next

week, payable to the Ministry of Finance, to return taxpayers'

money.

Assuming they have some spare time this weekend before they come

back to the House next week, they could arrange to issue bogus e-mail

addresses to each other to continue the frauds of the 1990s that led to

hiding their messages from the FOI.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONSE

TO MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH

STRATEGY ISSUES

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

I'm wondering what the Attorney General has done in light of all

the evidence presented over the last two weeks. We have an e-mail

outlining a scheme to offer inducements to buy the silence of Ms.

Sarrafpour. We have the revelation that she was never interviewed,

notwithstanding, supposedly, the claims of a wide-ranging investigation

that was anything but.

[1420]

The revelation now — a new e-mail from a cabinet minister at the

time laying out what her obligations were and, I would suggest, hon.

Speaker, pretty clear evidence over the last two weeks that this scheme

was in fact implemented, notwithstanding the repeated denials by the

Premier and other members of the executive council, denials obviously

contradicted by the evidence that is now clear and in the public

realm.

To the Attorney General…. And before she gets up to answer, I'd

like to remind her of her dual role as both a member of cabinet, as a

political member, and her separate and independent role as the chief law

enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia. What steps, if

any, has she taken to protect the integrity of the justice system and

the public service of British Columbia?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Order.

[ Page 728 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member refers to doubt. There is no doubt about the need for

the members opposite, all 34 of them, to collect that money from their

NDP funds and bring it back here on Monday to pay back the Ministry of

Finance.

Very briefly, we've been joined just now by an esteemed member of

the press gallery. I'm going to paraphrase him by saying that if this is

the pattern that the NDP are setting, this is going to be four very,

very long years.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

J. Horgan: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege with

respect to the comments from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the annual report for the calendar year

of 2012 by the Labour Relations Board and the annual report for the calendar

year of 2012 by WorkSafe B.C.

Petitions

D. Routley: I rise to present a petition to the House. This petition is collected

by parents of the South Wellington School. It calls on the government to act

to stop the closure of their school. It also calls for the removal of the

Nanaimo school board.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

N. Macdonald: I'd like to rise and reserve my right to raise a point of privilege

with respect to a statement made by the member during question

period.

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

N. Macdonald: Well, I guess that I would be confused if it was the Justice Minister,

but I think it's the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Petitions

D. Routley: I rise to present another petition. This petition is collected by

parents of the Save Cedar Schools group. In a period of 24 hours they have

collected over 1,800 signatures. They are calling on the government to

provide the resources necessary to keep their schools open and to appoint a

special adviser to review the progress of the Nanaimo school

district.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call Committee of Supply — for the information of

members, the continuing estimates of the Office of the Premier in

Section A,

Douglas Fir, Committee of Supply; and the estimates of the Ministry of

Transportation in

Section C, the Birch Room, initially Committee of Supply

estimates for the Ministry of Education — and, I believe, by agreement, at 5

p.m. we would do, and I alert members, committee stage on Bill 2.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege based on

the comments by the Minister of Technology uttered during question

period.

[1430]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 2:33 p.m.

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

(continued).

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

of the Premier.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Is that right? That's exciting. These are the innovations we have.

Two innovations: we can't reduce the Premier's salary to a dollar, and

we can't do anything about this. These are the changes we have. It's

very interesting.

A question in terms of the e-mail question today, in question

period. It's an e-mail from the former Minister for Multiculturalism,

from his private e-mail, to Mr. Bonney, in his public e-mail.

[1435]

There is nothing in the e-mail that seems to us to indicate that

such an e-mail — I'll just read to you the relevant sections here —

would in fact be withheld under freedom of information. It says as

follows — from, as I say, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the former

[ Page 729 ]

Minister for Multiculturalism:

"Have you seen Sepideh's lists? I haven't heard nor received any

copy. I recall on Monday" — and the Deputy Premier will recall the

Monday we're referring to is the meeting held in the Premier's office

that is referred to in the report — "she 'promised me' the lists would

be submitted by Tuesday — Wednesday, yesterday, at the latest."

It goes on to say:

"She has an obligation to you and me and our Primrose to meet this

contact list requirement as part of our multi–election campaign

strategy. She has been very late on her reports.

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

With the minister's initial at the

bottom.

Why is this document — which specifically contradicts on issues of

lists and development of lists, conclusions of the report — not in the

10,000 pages?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I have stated previously about the lists, all matters were

reviewed by the Dyble report. If the opposition would take the time to

read the report, they would know that they concluded no database was

ever created.

Here is what the report says, from page 24: "Every person

interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed." The report

goes on to conclude: "During the records search no evidence was found a

database had been created." I trust the findings of these distinguished

public servants, and I suggest that the members opposite might want to

do the same.

The reality is that people resigned or were terminated over this.

We acted upon it. There have been recommendations of the Dyble report

implemented within government. The Premier immediately apologized to the

people of B.C. and took the steps that were necessary. We know what did

and did not happen, and it's all contained in the report.

J. Kwan: Was the e-mail that the Leader of the Official Opposition just

read into the record amongst the 10,000 pages that were released by the

government?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the e-mail in front of me, and neither do my public

servants. There's no ability to actually respond to that specific

request relative to the 10,000 pieces. I do know that there was a very

extensive database search done. I do know that the report concluded that

no database was ever created out of this. The whole search

package….

[1440]

One of the members quoted me from earlier today that we had the

right people on this. We had people who do work with regard to computer

and database searches, searching for e-mails with key words to find all

the information we possibly could; 10,000 items were actually released

on this.

I'll repeat what the report says. The report says: "Every person

interviewed was clear that no database was ever developed." It goes on

to conclude: "During the record search no evidence was found of a

database having been created."

J. Kwan: Well, as it happens, the e-mail was actually sent by the former

Minister for Multiculturalism to Brian Bonney, to his government e-mail

account, so it wasn't hidden in a private e-mail, presumably. It was

actually sent to Brian Bonney, who was the then director of

communications, to his government e-mail account.

Again, I'd like to know: if the minister says he doesn't know

whether or not that was amongst the 10,000 pages that were released,

will he commit to find out so that we can have that information, so that

we have clarity about whether or not this e-mail was in fact amongst the

10,000 pages that were released by the government?

Hon. R. Coleman: You have clarity, hon. Member: "Every person interviewed was clear

that no database was ever developed." It also concluded: "During the

record search no evidence was found of a database having been

created."

But for the member's interest, because she may not have heard

earlier, I will go through how we did the record search

again.

"On Friday, March 1, 2013, the review team provided instructions to

the logistics and business services division — responsible for

information access operations, the IAO — and the office of the chief

information officer, responsible for information technology and

investigations in forensics, on the records search for the

review.

"Search criteria were provided specifically specifying all potential

individuals involved, and specific search terms were provided.

"For the physical records, individuals within the Ministries of

Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; Advanced Education, Innovation and

Technology; government communications and public engagement; and

respective ministers' offices were asked to search e-mail, hard drives,

LAN, SharePoint, Groove and physical files.

"All staff participating in the search were required to complete and

sign an investigation records search sign-off form. Each area was given

until 11 a.m. on Monday, March 4…to complete their searches and print

all records. Staff from IAO arrived to collect boxes of records at 11

a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013. Employees who indicated they could not

collect material at this time were asked to provide the records

available within the time period and to follow up with additional

records as they became available.

"All records were scanned into electronic format, maintaining the

order in which the records were collected by program areas. Electronic

files were labelled with the area of government and the name of the

individual that supplied the record. Optical character recognition, OCR,

was applied to all records to facilitate key-word searches. IAO

estimates that approximately 10,000 pages of records were

collected.

"The investigation and forensics unit, information security branch,

office of the chief information officer, conducts investigations related

to cybersecurity and the unauthorized or inappropriate use of government

information and resources. The primary focus of the unit is on the

collection, analysis and

interpretation of electronic evidence.

"The unit was engaged to assist by collecting electronic data from

government systems and by searching that data based on the time periods

and key words supplied.

"Current and historical data from mailboxes, home drives and

computers was also collected. Commonly accepted forensic tech-

[ Page 730 ]

niques and

tools were used to search across the aggregated data. This data related

to specific persons identified by those leading the investigation. The

unit also responded to ad hoc requests for additional or more specific

information.

"The results and analysis were provided to the investigation team in

various ways, including in-person interviews."

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

developed.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I think there's a lesson amongst cabinet ministers to

be trained to not answer the questions that they're asked. That wasn't

the question that I asked. The answer that the minister gave was not to

the question that I asked.

[1445]

So let me repeat the question very clearly for the minister. I'm

asking whether or not the e-mail dated Thursday, August 16, 2012, at

1:51 p.m., from the former Minister for Multiculturalism, from his

private e-mail, to Brian Bonney — Bonney, Brian, GCPE:EX, address

brian.bonney@gov.bc.ca — which is a public e-mail account address from

government….

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

follows:

"Hi, Brian:

"Have you received Sepideh's lists? I haven't heard nor received any

copy. I recall on Monday she 'promised me' the lists would be submitted

by Tuesday — Wednesday, yesterday, at the latest.

"I realize she's been busy with the Iran earthquake–related issues

and a PCCA event, but she has an obligation to you and me and our

Primrose to meet this contact list requirement as part of our

multi–election campaign strategy. She has also been very late on her

reports.

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

It is signed by the initial of the

minister.

I am asking specifically whether or not this e-mail is amongst the

10,000 documents that were released from the government.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will repeat for the member opposite that there was an extensive

investigation, and 10,000 pieces of information were posted. The work

was done by, as I described a minute ago, very qualified people. The

report says, on page 24: "Every person interviewed was clear that no

database was ever developed." Now, also on page 24: "During the record

search no evidence was found of a database ever being

created."

Through this investigation, or this review, we determined that

those things did not happen. The member can ask the question a hundred

more times in a different way. The fact of the matter is that I will

continue to give the member the answer that no database was created. No

database was developed, and that is part of the Dyble report. I would

suggest the member take the time and read the sections of the report

that are pertinent to that.

We also, as the member knows, dealt with personnel issues. People

were terminated. A minister resigned. Those things were taken in full

public view with regards to this matter, and the Premier actually

apologized in this House with regards to the issue.

A. Dix: As I understand it, this e-mail, which in the words of the former

Minister for Multiculturalism essentially contradicts the assertions

that he makes in the report itself that are used as evidence and

foundation, which were said to be confirmed…. It absolutely contradicts

that.

The minister says it doesn't contradict it and that he was

seeking, from a government employee, lists — demanding lists coming out

of a meeting about lists held in the Premier's office — and that the

requirement was part of their multi–election campaign

strategy.

That contradicts the conclusion of the report on these questions.

The report seems to suggest that these items were not pursued. They were

pursued. The meeting in question was even referred to in the report, but

there was nothing about this in that referral to that August 13 meeting.

In fact, the August 13 meeting — which magically has disappeared from

the calendar of the Minister for Multiculturalism when we FOI'd it, but

there it is — was about lists. It said it was about lists.

Now, we know that they were demanding actual lists. It wasn't

theoretical, in the future. This e-mail shows it, so it's legitimate for

us to ask: did the report find this e-mail or not? It was in Mr.

Bonney's e-mails. We know that because it was sent to his government

e-mail. It was sent from the member for Richmond-Steveston's private

e-mail.

The question, I guess, is pretty straightforward. Did the Dyble

report see this e-mail, and doesn't it say explicitly that the minister

is out there getting lists, which is consistent with what he was going

to do in the draft strategy document?

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to refer back. This is on page 23. I did some of this,

this morning, as well, with regards to databases and lists.

"The December 2011 spreadsheet makes specific reference to the Win

'13 software for the ability to create ethnic lists and the creation of

an ethnic database. Those interviewed understand that while some of the

initial work was completed on looking at potential use of the software

for caucus, it was not pursued. Every person interviewed was clear that

no database was ever developed."

To the hon. member, I can read the rest of page 24 and over to

page 25 into the record, but I would refer him to that information in

the report that clearly deals with this.

The fact of the matter is that there were activities going on that

were wrong. That's why people resigned; people were terminated. That's

why a report was done. That's why the research was done. That's why the

decisions were made. The policies were directed back to government, from

the report to there. But the fact of the matter is that no matter what…

I mean, whatever activity was going on, no database was ever

developed.

[ Page 731 ]

A. Dix: Well, here's the relevance of the e-mail. The minister said it was

not pursued. The report says it was not pursued. What the e-mail shows

is that it was pursued. So the question is: did the Dyble review team

have the e-mail or not? Because the e-mail is explicit. The Dyble report

could not say that if they had that e-mail.

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely, it could say that. Just because there's a conversation

about lists being developed doesn't mean that you ever did get to where

you had a database developed, which is the case. No database was ever

developed. It's on page 24 of the report, hon. Member.

A. Dix: So the meeting, Monday, August 13, referred to in the document —

right? — in the same paragraphs that the minister's talking about. This

is, "I recall on Monday," says the former minister in his testimony

here. I don't know what his testimony was like to the review, but his

testimony in this e-mail is pretty clear. He says: "I recall on Monday"

— this meeting — "she promised me the lists would be submitted by

Tuesday — Wednesday…at the latest."

The report accepts that building databases was a forward-looking

assignment for the four community liaison officers. It wasn't a

forward-looking assignment. They were doing it, and the minister himself

was demanding the list. Why was he demanding the list? To promote the

Liberal Party. That's what the e-mail says.

The e-mail says — about that exact meeting, the exact meeting —

they were meeting to get these lists. The minister himself was demanding

the lists. And the report says it was a forward-looking assignment that

wasn't being proceeded with.

So my question is simple. I mean, you cannot have the minister

saying, "I was promised lists on August 13," and then saying that that

wasn't a database being developed. Of course it was.

I guess I ask the minister again: did they have this e-mail? This

e-mail clearly shows, nine months after the document was put in place,

that this list-building was part of a multi–election campaign strategy.

How could they have drawn those conclusions about that report if they'd

had this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: Nobody's denied that…. Even in the report it refers to stakeholder

lists, event lists and that sort of thing. But no database was ever

acted upon and developed for the use of anything. It was not

done.

The lists were requested, but there was no database put together,

nor was it acted upon to do any databases. That is evidence that's very

clear in the report.

[1455]

Now, I can refer the member to page 24, paragraph 2, of the

report, and to page 28, paragraph 3, of the report for his own reading.

But if he wishes to continue, I'll be happy to read both of them into

the record.

A. Dix: Well, what we have is a minister of the Crown who said that this

wasn't being done — that this plan wasn't being put in place, that this

was a draft strategy document. Then we have the Premier, who said: "Oh,

it didn't happen. I never heard it happening. All of my senior staff

were at the meeting and never heard anything about it."

We now have the minister of the Crown who was saying that,

acknowledging nine months later…. He hasn't acknowledged it, of course,

but he says it clearly — that it precisely was happening.

Perhaps the minister could tell us what the Dyble report had to

say about the multi–election campaign strategy referred to by the

minister himself. On August 16 the minister himself is talking about a

multi–election campaign strategy nine months afterwards, right? The

minister himself says this.

How is that consistent with the repeated statements by the

government that there were some unfortunate excesses in the document put

in question? This document was being put in place here, and it was being

used to promote the Liberal Party.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll go to page 24 for a couple of sentences, I guess.

"Stakeholder lists, event lists and references to the development of

lists were all found in the records search." Lists — not a computer

database, not something that would be used for the purposes….

I know that the Leader of the Opposition goes to events, and

their e-mail address. I'm sure the member opposite writes a thank-you

letter to them for attending a function or an event that's official in

kind, which is a normal activity of government on both sides of the

House. Back in the constituency, as well, where you actually meet people

and you meet with groups, you do write them and thank them, and that's

the function.

Those are lists. To create a database on a computer system that's

a database for all of this to be combined did not take place. So

although there were lists of different meetings and people that attended

events and stuff like that, it was never developed into a database for

any other purpose.

A. Dix: What was the contact list requirement? It's referred to. Just to

say: "She has an obligation to you and me and our Primrose" — who was

the executive director, presumably, of the B.C. Liberal caucus — "to

meet this contact list requirement as part of our multi–election

campaign strategy."

This is a cabinet minister talking to a public servant about

another public servant, right? This is what this is. I didn't read about

this in the report — saying that there is a contact list requirement. So

what's that?

[1500]

[ Page 732 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll go back to the member again. On page 28: "No evidence was

found that work was underway on an ethnic database. However, lists were

being generated to support events and record attendance at events — not

uncommon. That way, you can communicate back to people who have

participated in something and also get feedback on whether they thought

the presentation was worthwhile or whatever the case may be. That's not

uncommon in the role of an MLA — I know that — or in the role of a

minister or in the role of government.

The issue that was at hand here is that there were a number of

e-mails that showed that Mr. Bonney forwarded over 1,100 e-mails from

his government account to one of three personal e-mail accounts. That's

in the report, Member. It's public. Nobody is trying to hide from

them.

The analysis was to create an impression. They were adamant in

their interview, however, that they did not share anything

inappropriately. Given that, plus the fact that no database was created,

the conclusion of the report was that every person interviewed was clear

that no database was ever developed. And during our records search no

evidence was found of a database being created.

A. Dix: Well, no database was created within government. Presumably, if

you're looking at this list requirement as part of a multi–election

campaign strategy…. And with great respect, I would be very surprised if

the Deputy Premier had ever instructed a public servant to create lists

to forward as part of an election campaign strategy in this way. I would

be very surprised. I bet he's never done that.

The lists were being presented for someone's database, you bet,

but it wasn't in government. The Dyble report, of course, couldn't

review any of those questions or the e-mails in question, because they

didn't seek to do that. They chose not to do that. So the answer is: we

don't know.

The best that the report could argue is that we don't know whether

such a database was developed. It wasn't developed within government,

but it was being developed by the government as part of a multi–election

campaign strategy of the Liberal Party. I think that's the relevant

fact. It's perplexing to us how such an e-mail, which speaks to these

questions, wasn't, I guess, reviewed by the Dyble investigation

group.

I just want to, then, get back, I guess, to understand the search

of documents here. I mean, it's pretty plain that this document, had it

existed, would have formed part of the narrative on this question. It

could not have not done so. The specific meeting and the specific issue

of lists were addressed. I am presuming that this e-mail was not

produced as part of that document search — even though, of course, it

went to Mr. Bonney and it dealt with some of these issues.

I guess the question I have is: as part of the search of

documents, what were the keywords that were used to search for the

documents? I mean, we might want to search those. Which keywords would

have electronically flagged the activities and documents that we

referred to in the inducement e-mail, page 2639 of PDF 3? What keywords

would have electronically flagged the frequent references to partisan

activities on the part of the Liberal government in list collection — on

pages 2636, 2637 and 2639 — but not picked up in this case?

That's, I guess, the question we have. They are one part of a

proper investigative technique, presumably — such keyword searches. And

given the time frame of this investigation, that's what clearly was

being done here. That's what the report acknowledges being done here.

But it's also critical, surely, to actually read the document. Did the

review committee that wrote the report read the documents?

Hon. R. Coleman: Page 81 of the report is very clear. I've actually read page 81

into the record in this House twice today already.

[1505]

A. Dix: I just want to talk about timelines with respect to the report.

Initially, when the Deputy Premier referred in the House to the report,

there was talk of a one-day report. Then that became a two-week

report.

But I guess what I want to know is when, in light of this, the

writing of the report happened. We had the interviews, we had the review

of the data, and then we had the writing of the report. How did the

drafting of the report happen, when was it completed, and who was

involved in writing the report?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I should tell the member that on many nights people

worked past midnight to work on this report and on this review. They

worked weekends. They worked holidays. It wasn't a nine-to-five thing. A

ton of work was done.

The ability to start drafting the

preamble to the report was there

around the eighth of the month. It really was the context of who the

review team was, starting the chronology of the events but more so about

what already existed in government policy and

summary and those types of

things to start to get context. Then that context would have filled in

the blanks relative to the specific report over the ensuing time, as all

the data was taken together and put together, analyzed and compared to

the interviews.

The report itself was probably put into its final draft around the

13th of the month and released on the 14th. That was how it was

approached.

I do know that the four senior public servants each had a hand in

writing portions of the report, in collaboration with their colleagues.

They would, I'm sure, rely on other research and information coming from

the searches and

[ Page 733 ]

those sorts of things relative to what they were

dealing with, with regards to the report, comparing it and bringing it

together into a final conclusion as a group as they worked through the

entire package.

A. Dix: I guess the question is…. Having read the documents myself, a task

made easier by the dramatic extent of the redaction that the government

had in the documents…. Even in my own case — working after midnight,

which I frequently do as well, so I share something in common with the

Deputy Minister to the Premier — it took a significant period of time to

go through this material, quite a period of time, in fact, to find

certain of these documents.

You'll recall the document we were referring to this morning,

where senior officials of the government, the cabinet, Liberal Party

MLAs and others were on an e-mail which talked about inducement of

another employee or former employee to stay silent and not damage the

Premier. It took us, actually, quite a long time to find that document.

It was in reverse order in the e-mail. It was after pages of redaction.

It was difficult to find.

I guess the question is: did the review team read all 10,000 pages

before presenting the report?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: There was a team of people. There were the four senior public

servants who were leading the review. There was a war room, for lack of

a better description, of people that went through every single document

in detail. They would pull out documents that had any reference back

into anything to do with this. They would provide that to a member of

the review team, who would take home stacks of that paper and read them

every night and then come back with questions and follow-up. The team

would coordinate that among themselves.

The explanation would be that there was a lot of people doing work

to make sure they were coordinated to get the information together. They

worked very hard and very late at night and on weekends to accomplish it

so that this report could get done and we could actually understand if

there was misuse of government funds — which obviously, the member knows

was refunded; about $70,000 was the concern — and in addition to that,

how these folks were acting outside the rules.

They were disciplined in various ways — things that affected their

future careers and what have you for some of them perhaps. But this was

all done in order to make sure that we could build some standards around

this for the future as to how these things should not be done. That's

what the exercise was about. I believe it accomplished that.

Having read the report and having gone through the notes with

regards to the information that I have…. About no database ever being

developed, things weren't acted upon, and there was this group of people

that had come and written a plan that never got acted upon. But the

reality is that as they did the plan, their language or discussion and

how they thought they would do it were wrong. We said that back in

March, when we started this process with the report.

The Premier apologized about it. We said, "We're going to get to

the bottom of it," which we did. We came back with this report that

gives recommendations on the future operations of things within

government, which I think was a valuable exercise for both sides of the

House.

A. Dix: What the Deputy Premier is saying is they reviewed 10,000 pages of

documents and didn't call back a single witness. They didn't have a

single question, either about the inducement or about this or anything

else. They didn't have a single question for any witness after reviewing

10,000 pages of documents.

Hon. R. Coleman: The information was being shared in parallel paths as interviews

were taking place. I answered this question this morning, as to how the

investigation was conducted and how it was coordinated. As interviews

were taking place, documents were also being reviewed, and they were

used in conversations with the people that were being interviewed. There

was, in fact, one person that was brought back for a second discussion,

and that is on the interview

schedule that is on page 77.

The fact of the matter is: I answered this question this morning.

I told the member that they were running in concert and in parallel. I

didn't say that one was isolated from the other. As interviews were

taking place, documents were being reviewed. Discussions coming out of

those were matched up to the documentation so that we would actually be

able to confirm that the information we were receiving in interviews

matched up with what was going on with regards to the electronic piece.

The conclusions are in the report, and the report was

published.

[1515]

A. Dix: I wanted to return to the matter that the Deputy Premier referred

to this morning that left me puzzled. I asked several questions about

document collection and analysis and the failure of the review to query

matters raised in the e-mail by calling witnesses back to be

interviewed. In fact, on an issue as serious as the inducement e-mail,

one would have logically thought that several witnesses who were part of

the inducement scheme would have been called back. They, of course,

weren't.

What puzzled me was a statement by the Deputy Premier as a reason

that Mr. Bonney, among others, was not recalled. The Deputy Premier said

this morning: "In addition to that, during the interview with the

individual, the individual did not flag this as an issue" — referring to

Mr. Bonney.

Am I to take it that those who actually engaged in the misconduct,

using government resources for partisan

[ Page 734 ]

purposes — those who had been

involved in the scheme, right? — if they didn't voluntarily raise the

issue, then the misconduct wasn't flagged?

Hon. R. Coleman: The context, obviously, of that statement was in a broader

conversation this morning, but I'll clarify for the member that during

interviews, the discussion was about the conduct of people, their

duties, what each one was doing within the interview context. Portions

of that information are obviously redacted for FOIPOP purposes because

that's the law.

I stated previously to the member opposite that the process of the

investigation, the information, how the interviews were done and what

came out of that, matching up to the database information, the

information we collected from e-mails, looking at all the documents….

The report found that…. That particular question the member brought up

this morning was not acted on. It would have been included in the report

if it had been acted upon.

It's the same thing where I say earlier, on page 24, that no

database has been created — because the report found that no database

had been created. Therefore, that's the answer to the member's

question.

I've already twice explained how the data was being collected and

matched up, using forensic methods that are common in doing an

investigation on large amounts of documentation and sharing that

information — how people were reviewing the information, providing it to

the team of people with regards to the pertinent things that they needed

to review as part of the reports they were working on and how they came

together at the end with all of the information, reviewed it, and made

their conclusions, as a team of people, by going through all of this

stuff and working long, long hours, seven days a week, in order to

accomplish this, to make sure that they met, basically, the test of

getting this done as quickly as possible and getting the information out

to the public and providing them with conclusions on this particular

issue.

We have said — as I said this morning, as I said earlier, have

constantly said — that this was not acceptable to us. The Premier made

that clear. That's why the review was instituted very quickly after it

came to light. The work was done.

Now, the member opposite can argue with timing on certain things,

but I think — given what I know and having read the report and gone

through some of the information that is provided as a result of

estimates — that the process conducted, how it was conducted, and the

professionals that did it, even the search side of this thing, the

people that reviewed the documentation in cooperation with the team of

senior public servants, did, frankly, a yeoman's service to us with

regards to getting this done.

A. Dix: The Deputy Premier referred to a war room, going over the

documents. Did the war room short-list the inducement e-mail and forward

it to the review team?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. I didn't refer to a war room. I said "for lack of

a better description, a war room." I mean, you could call it a document

room. You could call it a room of people that when major companies are

making takeovers, they'll have a room that's shut down so every document

relative to the takeover can be in a place and accountants come in and

go through it.

We had it set up so that the people we had who were supporting the

team of people in the review had a place to go through all the

documentation. They would identify pieces of the documentation where

information was in it that needed to be passed on to the team doing the

interviews, working on the rest of the coordination of what the

interview said versus what was collected in data — all of

that.

That work was done by a group of people who worked very long

hours, as I said, in concert with the four senior public servants that

were running the review, plus the technical people we had, whose

specialty, really, is to do this. Certainly, I could not describe how

that would work. It goes way beyond my technical ability, to explain how

you do, I guess, a kind of word search issue — maybe like doing Google

but certainly not a forensic review of documentation that these people

have the expertise to do.

All of this was done, and at the end of the day, the report was

produced. It was very clear about it, and we were very clear, too, that

this was not acceptable behaviour, and this is what we're going to

change in the future in government to make sure it never happens

again.

A. Dix: I know that the minister wanted to respond to his use of "war

room." I was just quoting him.

Did they short-list the inducement e-mail and forward it to the

review team? Did Mr. Dyble read this e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: The review team did read the document. The sequencing, when you're

dealing with 10,000 documents as to which time, which day, which

evening, which morning — you know, where: "Who had it first or second?"

— I don't have that information, and I wouldn't expect that I would. You

track the information as it comes in; you track it as it moves. The

reality is that it's impossible for me to give you that answer. But I

can tell you the review team had the documents. They did it and dealt

with it, as part of the report.

A. Dix: Given the nature of the document, can the Deputy Premier provide

an explanation as to why Ms. Sarrafpour wasn't interviewed? Why all of

the other community outreach workers — whose activity was, in part, to

collect lists that were a central part of the plan they were

implementing, which was supposedly never

[ Page 735 ]

implemented but was being

implemented — why none of those community outreach workers was

interviewed by the review team?

[1525]

Hon. R. Coleman: The individual left in September of 2012. We did interview the

persons that were responsible for their supervision and what their roles

were. Since no database was created, there was no need to interview the

individual. Because there was, frankly, no job or contract found within

government relative to the individual, there was no activity subsequent

to that particular e-mail. They made the decision of who they would

interview and how they would coordinate that information through

interviews and the 10,000 pieces of documents, and that's how they did

it.

A. Dix: According to no less a figure than the member for

Richmond-Steveston, and the minister who was directing this scheme, they

were doing just that, but it was going to the Liberal Party. Of course,

that was beyond the scope of the Dyble report, although the Dyble report

does mention that activity — but again, can't draw any conclusions about

it. It was beyond their scope.

So basically, all of those people who knew and were developing the

databases weren't seen as witnesses worthy of questions in that process.

That's an interesting assessment.

I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier if the Premier and others

received an advance copy of the report?

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to the member's question, whether the Premier got an

advance copy specifically to her: no. Cabinet was briefed in the morning

in cabinet on the report by Mr. Dyble, which obviously is not unusual

for cabinet — to be briefed on a report like this. There were no

discussions about anything other than: this is the information; this is

the report. Then it was immediately taken out and released to the

public.

A. Dix: Just one final point on the inducement e-mail. The minister, the

Deputy Premier, just confirmed that Mr. Dyble read the e-mail. I know

that when I read the e-mail, it was striking. It captures your interest.

What did Mr. Dyble do?

Hon. R. Coleman: They confirmed through records that nothing had been acted upon

and no inducement had been offered.

A. Dix: So it was Mr. Dyble's decision not to reinterview Mr. Bloy, not to

reinterview Mr. Bonney, not to reinterview the Premier, not to

reinterview Ms. Welch. That was Mr. Dyble's decision?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, given the description I gave the member at the beginning of

this debate, now about 3½ hours ago, these three professional public

servants were given an independent job to do without any direction or

influence from government. So the team made the decisions relative to

how they would conduct the investigation. Solely the team made those

decisions.

A. Dix: I wanted to move to one of — and this is really quite a heavy

competition — the least edifying aspects of all of this. It's touched on

in Mr. Dyble's report and referred to…. I think the term is critical of

the language used. But it's the statements in the draft document about

the use of historical wrongs for partisan gain.

As the Deputy Premier will know, the document came in place in

December of 2011 and January of 2012. That issue in this political

meeting held in the Premier's office was also an issue in August —

August 13, 2012. So on both of those points, it was mentioned. And it

was mentioned, actually, and dealt with repeatedly between those

times.

The minister, the Deputy Premier, will know that the opposition

was contacted in May of 2012, and a proposal was made, a motion was

sent. I know because I was preparing to speak on that motion. The

government was going to proceed to just such an apology. We had just, in

fact, done an apology with respect to the internment of Japanese

Canadians in World War II that the then Minister of Advanced Education

spoke to and I spoke to, which the minister will know.

The government then decided to withdraw that motion that they had

sent to us and that they were going to proceed with. Clearly, we now

understand, given how they were engaging in this discussion, including

in the Premier's office — seeing these motions not as what they ought to

be, which is a collective experience, but as a partisan expression of

the Liberal Party — that they withdrew those motions for, presumably, a

better time. That better time was going to be in the session leading

into the election.

[1535]

Then subsequently, of course, the government ran into this event

and then blamed…. No less a voice, a clarion voice, than the Premier

claimed that the plan for the apology was cancelled because of the NDP —

said that in the Chinese media, said that all over the place, and one of

the issues they raised.

Now, since we were going to actually debate that in this House —

this question that is dealt with in the Dyble report — and we were going

to support that motion in May of 2012 that the government withdrew,

obviously what the Premier was saying was false, and she knew it was

false.

Then we go through this period. We go through the election period.

Remember, we're talking about the implementation of the government

strategy that they were

[ Page 736 ]

doing on these issues. What their actions

subsequently confirmed is that what the document said is what they were

doing, although they're not dealt with in Mr. Dyble's report.

Then the Premier confirmed that in the session following the

election the apology would be dealt with. She repeatedly promised

this.

So just to begin with…. I mean, it's an extraordinary thing what

the document produces and that the Premier herself continued to use it

for partisan purposes right through the election, then committed that we

would be dealing with it in this session right now.

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

from this report?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can't sit back and let the member opposite make a number of

falsehoods and statements with regards to that particular apology in the

spring session of 2012.

There were issues in and around the time frame within the House at

that time. I happened to be the House Leader, so I know. I also know

that an offer had been made to the NDP to do exactly what we're doing

right now, and that was to sit into three Houses so we could get more

business done, including the apology, during that session and handle the

legislation.

The NDP at the time refused to go to a third House. They actually

said no, and it would be a precedent they would never set. That was made

very clear by your House Leader in the discussions in and around

this.

I at no time as the House Leader was trying to do any timing of

that particular apology relative to any election or any political

agenda. So to make the statement the member just made is wrong. I will

stand on that on my reputation, and I will not accept that portion of

what you said.

We also said very clearly that the quick-win comment in some of

these e-mails was totally unacceptable to us and totally wrong, and we

apologized to the ethnic community immediately when that came out, and

you know that.

Relative to the legislative calendar, I don't have that job

anymore, so I can't tell you, Member, what would come before the House,

legislation or otherwise. Even if I did, it would be an inappropriate

step for me to make. Whatever work gets done on something like that is

obviously a situation whereby the two House Leaders would be discussing

it, and I don't know whether they are or not.

This is an unusual session. It wouldn't be characterized as a

normal session immediately after an election, because it really is about

the budget. So for me to get into that discussion would be

inappropriate.

I can tell the member opposite there was also other work being

done with regards to the language in that apology within another level

of government, specifically through one of the other ministries that had

the responsibility for legal advice to government. Those pieces there —

quite frankly, that work was being done. I can't remember the exact

details about how long that was taking or what the time frame

was.

To say that I would pull that back for any reason or we would

during that session would be incorrect.

A. Dix: Well, a motion for Japanese internment came forward, and we dealt

with it expeditiously, as the minister knows. In fact, the Deputy

Premier knows it was quite a moving event, and we certainly didn't take

any time. We were given approximately 48 hours' notice on it, and we

responded to it with the grace the minister will know.

[1540]

It wasn't me who was asserting that the government blocked it in

the election campaign. It was the Premier, of course, who was saying

just that — saying that it was the NDP that was stopping an apology,

something that was completely false. We know it was.

What I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier, given all those events,

given that they had an event planned…. They had a motion ready. They

withdrew the motion. Then they didn't present it in the next session. We

didn't have a fall session, of course, and we continued on into the

spring session. They again didn't present the motion.

But on August 13 this group, led by the member for

Richmond-Steveston, proposed and discussed the issue of the apology.

They discussed it in the context of…. For all the apologies about

December, we're now in August, and they're back talking about it in the

context of their multi-political strategy.

Are there any explanations as to what the government was doing

that came out of the Dyble report? Any questions asked as to what that

discussion was?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two responses to that. I'll refer him to page 19 of the

report, the paragraph at the bottom, where it says:

"During the period of time covered by the review, regular government

business continued, and some of these activities were captured in the

strategy. For example, work had been done on the potential development

of an apology on the Chinese head tax. This work started years before

the draft plan and carried on afterwards. In fact, the planning for an

apology had been underway for a number of years prior to the meeting,

and a review of the records shows that discussion had taken place

between government and the opposition with the objective of providing an

apology from the entire Legislature rather than any particular political

party. There is no reason to examine this work further, as it is an

appropriate use of government resources."

The Leader of the Opposition wrote the Premier on June 28, 2013,

with regards to this issue. The Premier has written back on July 3,

thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his letter of June 28 on the

Chinese Exclusion Act and the Chinese head tax. "This is, indeed, an

important issue for us, and I have asked" — the minister, our Minister

of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific

Strategy and

[ Page 737 ]

Multiculturalism — "to work with the opposition members on

an apology for historical wrongs. I appreciate this opportunity to

respond to your letter."

[1545]

So she has responded to the member that we're going to work with

you on this particular one. Like I said earlier, the reason it didn't go

ahead, just to be clear, was no political motivation by the House Leader

to withdraw it for any reason other than probably scheduling and maybe

something around language that had to be worked out with the Attorney

General's office, or whatever the case may be, at the time.

I see the Opposition House Leader is listening intently. At the

time, I think there was also a concern that it was moving too quickly.

It was short notice, and there was a challenge with that as well because

of the legislative agenda. I remember him being particularly strident at

one point in time, telling me: "Well, you dropped this, and then we've

got this. We've got all this legislation, and now you're going to

do…."

Of course, it's one of those conversations we would have as House

Leaders that wasn't particularly affecting that particular issue in the

House, but there was concern about how we would get there and get it

done. At the same time, it was a session with a lot of other stuff going

on in it. We did try and get it done in the spring of 2012. Subsequent

to that, I was not in the position to deal with any of that, so I have

no historical information from there as to how it went after the session

in the spring of 2012.

A. Dix: It is obvious, based on our response to the motion with respect to

the apology for Japanese internment, that it's not the fault of the

opposition. It was the government that failed. And it was the government

at the August 13 meeting — where a multiculturalism staff, the

professional staff, the longtime staff were excluded — where they were

actually discussing this question. They were discussing political issues

and the multiculturalism political strategy of the government. So they

were following through on the report from December in August on that

very question.

I have to say that to describe that as not edifying is to be

generous. But I'm inspired by the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena.

The fact of the matter is, given what the minister just said, that

the Premier asserted that the plan for the apology was cancelled because

of the NDP. Given what the minister just said, that of course was

completely false. The Premier continued to campaign on this question,

consistent with the quick-win strategy document, right through the

election, right? Started in December, continued on, part of their

political meetings — continued to do it right through to the election,

where she continued to assert that it's the NDP to blame.

Is it the NDP to blame now? She specifically promised it would be

dealt with in this session of the Legislature, but I guess the election

is over and her great interest in the matter has declined. The letter I

sent her said: "You committed to it in the election, and it was not in

the throne speech." It was not in the letter of expectation written to

the minister, and of course it hasn't been presented in the House

either.

Let's just call that a broken promise by the Premier, after a

broken promise after a broken promise, but also the Premier executing

the quick-win strategy by using that issue of an apology in the election

campaign and throughout the period leading into the election

campaign.

What they proposed in November of 2011 they continued to do till

May 2013, and the person doing it was the Premier. I think it's

outrageous for them to do it on this question. For all of the

disgraceful activity engaged in here, that one is particularly

outrageous.

Someone who has been working on that issue for a long time and

writing about that issue and concerned with that issue…. I just find it

unbelievable that the government would do that in December and August

and the Premier herself would continue with that after and through the

election campaign, including misleading comments that we know. Now one

more broken promise on the same question, if you can believe

it.

I'd like to go on to ask the Deputy Premier about the

recommendations of the Dyble report. Can he tell us what follow-through

there has been on recommendation 1?

[1550]

Hon. R. Coleman: Recommendation No. 1 is: "The chief of staff should consider the

involvement and credibility of each of the political staff engaged in

the events discussed in this report and take appropriate disciplinary

and corrective action. These actions must consider other appropriate

factors, including the level of their participation, authority in the

organization and their employment record."

The status: recommendation No. 1 is complete. The chief of staff

has taken the appropriate disciplinary and corrective action where

appropriate. In most cases, the individuals who were identified as

having acted inappropriately had already resigned prior to the outcome

of the investigation. It would be inappropriate to comment further on

personnel issues, and the member knows we don't do that in

government.

Apart from "the employees specifically named in the analysis and

conclusion sections of the report, the review team found that other

employees identified acted with integrity and in an exemplary manner in

all aspects of their work and their involvement with the issues

discussed in the report."

A. Dix: As the Deputy Premier will know, there was a specific finding in

the report of downloading of e-mails

[ Page 738 ]

by one of the staff, Fiera Lo, and

another of the staff, Brian Bonney. Mr. Bonney, of course, has not

returned. Ms. Lo, I believe, continues to serve and, arguably, has been

promoted.

Can the Deputy Premier, if he's not going to refer to specific

disciplinary action, at least tell the House how many individuals

violated standards?

Hon. R. Coleman: Those individuals are actually listed in the report under

"Analysis and conclusions," under "Code of conduct," on page 26 and

partly on page 27 of the report. That was obviously given to the chief

of staff, who took the appropriate disciplinary and corrective action as

a result of that information in the report.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I can certainly do that. Recommendation No. 2 is: "The chief of

staff should set expectations for all political staff to ensure that all

financial and administrative policies of government pertaining to

procurement, records management and the supervision of government

contractors are followed without exception."

The status of recommendation 2 is that it is in progress. The

Premier's chief of staff has established his expectations with each

ministerial chief of staff with respect to how each will conduct

themselves, both in and outside the workplace. He has also made it clear

to ministerial chiefs of staff that each of their respective reports

will be judged against the same standard. An interim code of conduct has

been developed and, once final, will also be made public.

[1555]

A. Dix: Was the creation of ministerial chiefs of staff and the subsequent

pay increases, which of course was the first action of the government

after the election, viewed as part of the response to the recommendation

of the Dyble report?

Hon. R. Coleman: It wasn't in direct correlation to the report. I know that when

this was discussed, I supported the change in title.

I think that one of the things that's confusing in government —

and has been, as a minister for the last 12 years — is that I would deal

with a person doing a similar role in another minister's office, both

provincially and federally across the country, and the title of the

individual who's doing that same role in my office would be an MA and

theirs would be a chief of staff.

I think that it actually does, though, create a single point of

accountability for the responsibility of the people in the office. I

think it does clarify for the people's understanding, from the outside,

what the role is of the individual who's holding that job in a

minister's office.

A. Dix: I'll just follow through on this and then return to the report.

The decision was made to increase staff pay. Was there a business case

presented for that? Was this a decision made by the Premier? The

minister refers to his support for the idea of the chief of staff. Did

he support the pay increases? Did the Premier support the pay increases,

and did she implement those, and why did she do so?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the people that work in government particularly, as

the member opposite will be well aware, and the people that work in the

role in a minister's office — particularly at the chief-of-staff level,

as we call it, which formerly would have been called an MA's position —

put in a lot of hours and a lot of work.

I think what was trying to be accomplished here within the budget,

because there was no increase in the cost of the budget, was to

recognize that — with some adjustment for people's experience and time

by trying to do that in a different grid, I guess you would call it,

relative to pay.

At the same time, I think we heard loud and clear that British

Columbians didn't like it. That was heard loud and clear, and frankly,

sometimes leadership is in listening and fixing things. So the pay

scales for the chiefs of staff, including in the Premier's office, went

back to where they were before, which means that the budget is lower

than it was.

The Premier's deputy chief of staff received a 10 percent pay cut

and will still maintain her additional responsibilities that she has.

The chief of staff, as the member knows, is also a pretty respected,

longstanding public servant who has an understanding of the workings of

government. The change of the grid, along with the titles, didn't mesh

with, basically, what we heard from other folks. So the Premier made the

decision that it would go back to the way it was before.

[1600]

A. Dix: To follow on that, though, the position of deputy chief of staff,

which went to the Premier's deputy campaign manager, received a

significant boost.

You know, one never wants to conflate things unfairly — so just to

ask the Deputy Premier whether there was a business case presented of

any kind supporting the idea of paying the Premier's deputy chief of

staff more than the chief of staff to the President of the United

States.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: The deputy chief of staff, as the member knows, was rolled back in

this process to a different salary level. The decision to put her where

she was would have been the chief of staff's decision, relative to

[ Page 739 ]

looking at the change in the job. The deputy chief of staff saw an

increase because her role encompasses not only the work of the former

deputy position but also an additional role as the director of

policy.

So there is more job work added to this — formerly in the position

of deputy chief of staff with a different administrative and oversight

role with regards to staff in the Legislative Assembly, which has also

changed. There's more work and more responsibility in this role than

there was in the past. However, it has been put back at a level that I

think is…. Well, it's reasonable for the work and the responsibility

we're asking the individual to take.

A. Dix: It was only put back from where they lifted it to, so the extent

of the increase was reduced to $30,000. That's what happened. And, you

know, I don't need to tell the Deputy Premier that many people in

British Columbia do two jobs. This is incorporating policy functions

into the job of the deputy chief of staff, which is hardly, I think,

shocking or requiring a $30,000 pay boost.

Just to finish up on this — we'll return to the recommendations of

the Dyble report — can the Deputy Premier tell me the distinction

between the job performed by the director of outreach and the job

performed by the director of community and stakeholder

relations?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the best way to answer the question…. I'll give the

member…. If you can provide me a couple of minutes, I will read in the

job descriptions of both positions. That might be helpful to the

member.

Interjection.

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: Oh, they know.

The director of outreach is a reporting relationship. It reports

to the chief of staff. It is responsible for developing the Premier's

"vision of creating open government by reaching out to British

Columbians." The director of outreach will listen, gather input, ideas

and feedback from stakeholders, the public and other parties.

Key responsibilities will include.... Dedicated to removing

communications barriers and relaying messages to government from the

province's diverse communities. Creating and executing the Premier's

office external stakeholder strategy, which would include things like

folks that would be wanting to invest in B.C. or trying to do

opportunities within British Columbia. Improve public awareness and

engagement. Ensure that communications is a two-way conversation between

government and the public. Help public concerns be translated into

action by sharing with the Premier the challenges British Columbians are

faced navigating government.

Coordinate events that make members of the government accessible

to British Columbians — i.e., telephone town halls, Premier's town hall

meetings and those sorts of things — so people have direct input and

conversation with government. Review and update the inventory of

stakeholder groups that interact with government. And review invitations

to public events to ensure that government is properly being represented

— and, by the way, people, I would assume.

The director of community and stakeholder relations. Reporting

relationship — the director of community and stakeholder relations

reports to the deputy chief of staff, policy and operations. The role

is.... They're responsible for the development, coordination,

implementation of governmentwide community and stakeholder relations

strategies. They will work with ministers' offices on their stakeholder

relations strategy, including plans to better communicate, interface

with and consult stakeholders.

Develop effective framework for stakeholder relations. Develop

targeted communication strategies and work with GCPE to better

communicate with stakeholders, including but not limited to e-mail,

third-language communications. Develop and coordinate with GCPE and

caucus media strategy to communicate more effectively in third-language

communication media. Establish continuous information of in-language

spokesperson and third-party validators. Develop and advise on Premier

media availabilities and events with third-language media. Update

third-language media lists. Assess structural deficiencies in

third-language communications — i.e., translations services, web

services and things like that.

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

right?

Hon. R. Coleman: That would be correct.

A. Dix: Can the Deputy Premier confirm that Ms. Martin has been contacting

or in contact with Ms. Sarrafpour since the election?

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

A. Dix: Just to move on to recommendation 4 of the Dyble report. The

recommendation reads: "The legal services branch of the Ministry of

Justice should take appropriate action to secure any government records

in the possession of former public servants and caucus employees named

in this report and seek an undertaking that these records have not been

used for inappropriate purposes."

Can the minister, the Deputy Premier, provide some update as to

progress on this recommendation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Recommendation 4: "The legal services branch of the Ministry of

Justice should take

[ Page 740 ]

appropriate action to secure any government records

in the possession of former public servants and caucus employees named

in this report and seek an undertaking that these records have not been

used for inappropriate purposes."

The status is it is in progress. The Deputy Attorney General

immediately instructed legal services branch to secure any government

documents as expeditiously as possible. Most of the work is now

complete, although discussions with one individual are ongoing. Two

individuals named in the report have provided statutory declarations

indicating they do not have any government records in their

possession.

[1610]

A. Dix: Can the minister then, Deputy Premier, confirm that records have

been repatriated into the government? Presumably, if those records were

not in the release of information by the government, can the government

seek to provide those records to the Information and Privacy

Commissioner so they could be released to the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know the volume of information that would have come back.

My understanding is that some has, and others have signed statutory

declarations indicating that they do not have any government records in

their possession. I would assume that a statutory declaration would have

some legal standing with regard to people not being truthful about that.

I'm sure the legal services branch would have a pretty solid statutory

declaration they would be using.

A. Dix: So on recommendation 5, which is the review of policies and

standards of conduct, what progress has been made here? What

recommendations have been made for potential legislative changes as per

the recommendation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Recommendation No. 5 is: "The head of the Public Service Agency

should conduct a review of the various policies in place to govern the

standards of conduct for both political and public service staff across

other Canadian and international jurisdictions and make recommendations

to the cabinet on potential legislative and policy changes in

B.C."

The status of this is that it's substantially complete. We've

reviewed the policies in place in other provinces and found that they

are facing many of the same circumstances as British Columbia. Interim

standards of conduct have been developed and have been provided to

political staff. Further training and performance management will ensure

that they are thoroughly understood.

The Chair: Member.

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

there.

I'd just ask on the issue of data in government, the transferring

of so much data, presumably on to the Liberal Party, that took place

here. There are no recommendations about those issues in the Dyble

report, and I'm wondering why not. There was on the use of private

e-mail, which seemed to be a practice in this group, which were

essentially a group of the Premier's supporters. The practice of using

private e-mail — that issue was addressed somewhat.

But there were no recommendations about the creation of e-mail,

which the report speaks of, and, of course, we see now the government

was actively doing in August. I'm wondering: why no recommendations with

respect to that? Has the government taken any steps on the issue of

private e-mail? Have they taken steps, including possible

recommendations by the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

[1615]

Hon. R. Coleman: Certainly, there has been work done on this. On page 15 of the

report there's a paragraph. I'll read it into the record:

"While B.C.'s FOIPP Act does not specifically include or exclude

records created or transmitted using non-government e-mail accounts, its

broad coverage essentially includes any record that is created on behalf

of a public body. As such, a record related to government business

created by a government employee or service provider would be presumed

to be covered by the act, regardless of where that record was located or

the medium used to create or transmit that record."

Subsequent to that, on March 18, 2013, the Privacy Commissioner

announced that she was going to conduct a review relative to this. I

think she recognizes that this is somewhat of a challenge because people

do have personal privacy with regard to their own personal communication

and they do have personal e-mail addresses, both at home and sometimes

on another device, because they're trying to actually accomplish the

opposite, which is not to blend personal e-mails on government e-mail

addresses but try and keep them separate, which is what I try to

do.

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

"First, I have directed my staff to conduct a preliminary

investigation into the activities described in the multicultural

strategic outreach plan, including alleged information-sharing between

public servants and the B.C. Liberal Party. We will review all relevant

records and meet with parties involved in order to determine whether a

formal investigation is required under the Freedom of Information and

Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act, which apply to

political parties.

"Second, my office is doing additional fact-checking in relation to

my recent investigation report on 'no responsive records' replies by the

B.C. government to general access-to-information requests. Staff will

also do follow-up work regarding the use of personal e-mail accounts in

relation to freedom-of-information requests canvassed in that

report.

"Third, my office has today released detailed guidance that

describes the applicability of B.C.'s freedom-of-information law to

personal e-mail accounts and the risks presented by the use of such

[ Page 741 ]

accounts for government business. I encourage all public bodies to read

this guidance and implement policies for the use of personal e-mail

accounts by employees as soon as possible."

I know that as a minister I have been personally briefed on the

third point, as to the use of personal e-mails, and I know that my staff

have as well, because that guidance was part of what the commissioner

felt should be looked at here and dealt with. We welcome her work, and

we wait for the results.

A. Dix: Just on that point of personal e-mail, it was shown before the

Dyble report was commissioned by the Premier that the then Minister for

Multiculturalism was using his personal e-mail account. Was that

personal e-mail account searched for documents and

information?

[1620]

Hon. R. Coleman: As part of the review, all ministry offices were asked for

information, including anything of record that would have dealt with

government business on personal e-mail.

A. Dix: But the e-mail address — the personal e-mail of the minister —

wasn't searched?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we made the request with regards to any government business

on personal e-mail, they would have had to provide the information

related to that request.

A. Dix: Yet the personal e-mail that we released to the House today wasn't

— that we can determine, having read all 10,000 pages and looked through

them over and over again — on that list. So is the Deputy Premier saying

that the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

didn't forward that e-mail?

Hon. R. Coleman: When the request is made, the minister or staff have to provide

the information they have available relative to any communication on

government business on their private e-mail. That's the best answer I

can give you to your question.

A. Dix: So the government can't confirm. Presumably the minister, now the

parliamentary secretary, wrote the e-mail. He provided it to Mr. Bonney.

It wasn't addressed in the report. Presumably, either it was missed, or

he didn't forward it. Those are the only two possible answers. Or a

third, I guess, is it could have been completely redacted. But it's hard

to imagine, reading the e-mail, why that would be.

[1625]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we can't confirm because we don't have the e-mail and we

don't know how the individual was managing his private e-mail prior to

the request in March, relative to e-mails going back whatever period of

time. I would imagine that everybody manages their personal e-mail a bit

differently, which is obviously a reason why the Information and Privacy

Commissioner was taking a look at this and why we're developing policy

around it so that we can have some clear guidelines for people to follow

in the future.

A. Dix: Of course, the e-mail was sent, fortunately, to Mr. Bonney on his

government e-mail but appears not to have made it, in spite of its

significance to the issue at hand.

I'm going to very much disappoint the Deputy Premier and his team

right now by asking some questions on some other issues that have

captured my interest. I know that, presumably, the Deputy Minister to

the Premier would like to hear his own name more in the House, but I'm

going to have to disappoint him for the next hour and 15 minutes or

so.

I'm going to have to disappoint him, because there are, of course,

many, many other questions to be asked. One feels like we should extend

hours tonight to midnight or 2 a.m. so that they can all be

asked.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I presume we can do that with unanimous consent. That was the

suggestion of my friend from Port Coquitlam.

As the Deputy Premier will know, in the fall the Premier did a

series of infomercials on skills training. In the subsequent budget,

there was no indication that there was any impact of those infomercials

or that they learned anything.

Those infomercials were a response to focus groups conducted by

Ipsos-Reid for the government and paid for by taxpayers in the fall of

2012. Those focus groups, significantly, involved questions — and a

significant amount of time with questions — regarding the Premier's own

personal and political image.

So I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier if the government would

forward records around those focus groups to us so that we could see

them. Secondly, how much time in those focus groups was spent on the

Premier's image? Thirdly, how much money was spent on those focus

groups?

[1630]

Hon. R. Coleman: I do not have that information here for the member opposite,

because the Premier's office did not do the focus groups. The work was

done by GCPE, which falls under the Ministry of Technology, Innovation

and Citizens' Services, whose estimates have not been brought before the

House. I would suggest that to follow that through, he might want to ask

the minister responsible at that time. But the Premier's office was not

[ Page 742 ]

involved in the focus groups, and they weren't done by the Premier's

office. They were done by GCPE.

A. Dix: How is it possible that focus groups paid for by taxpayers would

be dealing with the Premier's image at all? That's the question. One of

the follow-throughs to those focus groups was TV infomercials. The

Premier was on Global television and, I think, other networks addressing

the issue of skills training, which subsequently saw no changes in the

following budget in terms of its budget.

If the minister doesn't want to address the focus groups, can he

address the Premier's participation, which is within the Premier's vote,

in those infomercials? What did the government achieve, other than

getting the Premier on TV, paid for by taxpayers? What changes occurred

in policy around skills training in the months following those

infomercials that justified that government expenditure?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think it's important that we communicate with

British Columbians. The February 2012 budget was clear that it would

communicate with B.C. during these uncertain economic times. The

advertising was a continuation of those efforts. It was also about

letting people know of programs that were going to be coming or

investments we made in programs with regards to skills

training.

Over the next decade there will be more than one million job

openings in B.C., of which 430,000 — about 43 percent — are expected for

trades and technical occupations. That's why we're committed to building

and expanding a skilled workforce.

At the same time we need to let people know, through the

advertising and information, where they can get skills advice, find work

and learn how B.C.'s economic assets support business investment, and

combine that into a focused relationship to attract investment, create

jobs and manage the future relative to training right across the broad

spectrum.

Obviously, the member would know that we have facing us, first of

all, an aging workforce that will come through a number of industries

like mining and forestry, which will require people with technical

skills. At the same time we have opportunities in front of us like

liquefied natural gas that will also require some innovation on training

and information for the public.

I think it's important that that is all combined into information

that we provide to the public through use of advertising in that

way.

A. Dix: Why did those ads, which were supposed to feature programs,

feature the Premier instead? Why was there no change…? In fact, the

continuation, if you look at the ITA budget cut in 2014-15…. Of course,

that's related to the labour market agreement. There are cuts in the

Advanced Education budget.

We had the government willing to spend — perhaps out of

contingencies; I don't know — to put the Premier on television to talk

about skills training but actually cut skills training. That seems

unusual. Why was the Premier personally featured in those

ads?

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the leader of the province should also be someone that

tells British Columbians…. They can be a person that can provide very

effective communication on the information to people of the

province.

At the same time, just in the first half of 2013 there were

150,000 visits to bcjobsplan.ca, about 800 people per day, to learn

about B.C.'s economic advantage and skills-training resources. That's

nearly three times more visitors than the same time period in 2012.

People are really interested in the future of B.C., and the number of

bcjobsplan.ca page views for the first six months of 2013 was 340,000 —

an increase of more than 126 percent from the same period in

Relative to the member's comments with regards to skills training

and budgets, we have to not just think about the dollar that's put into

something but the effectiveness of the dollar. Are we training people

the right way today? Can we streamline how that process takes place? If

somebody can get distance education and get a degree from a

university….

Can somebody actually be on a jobsite and take it in the evenings

— skills towards a particular qualification relative to the industry

that they're in? I can tell the member opposite that in the automotive

industry, that is commonly done for training for people who want to

qualify for air-conditioning and mechanics — whatever. They want to get

additional training, and they can actually go into the boardroom of the

dealership they're in, go on line, take a tutorial and add to their

skills.

We need to wake up to how we deliver that. That doesn't

necessarily mean more money; it means more effective training. I know

that we've challenged ourselves to make sure that we do that — to make

sure that we are streamlining the process to how we do that and how

we're going to coordinate across the education system, the

post-secondary education and the skills-training system, to get the

results we're going to need for the next generation.

A. Dix: The Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Federation of Labour — people

were talking about the skills shortage ten years ago, and the government

missed the boat. They've been missing the boat in recent years. But they

found the cash not to actually train people but to have the Premier

personally go on TV — week after week, on Global Television — with

expensive ads and talking about it.

The questions we have are: why, when you are engaging

[ Page 743 ]

those kinds

of practices, would you waste money that way? Why, when there are scarce

public resources, are you using focus groups to promote the Premier

rather than address issues of public policy?

I had a question for the Deputy Premier on another topic. As I

understand it, the Premier and the Prime Minister haven't met since

January 2012. I think that might have been a summit with respect to a

hockey game. The Prime Minister was in town for the Seaspan contract,

etc.

I want to ask him on the issue of treaties, and it seemed to not

be mentioned in the charge to the new Minister of Aboriginal Relations.

We have a number of treaties deep into the treaty process, but as the

Deputy