Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one

sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is

subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard

report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not

protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the

debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

DEBATES OF THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE A BLUES

TUESDay, NOVEMBER 21, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CITIZENS' SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $551,062,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have a statement?

Hon. J. Sims: Good morning. I'm pleased to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens' Services. First, I would like to introduce my senior ministry staff who are here today. We're joined by Deputy Minister Jill Kot, Associate Deputy Minister Sarf Ahmed — who is absolutely heartbroken, as these could be and, I think, are his last estimates here with us, as he looks at retirement; ADM Sunny Dhaliwal; ADM Colin McEwan; Bobbi Sadler; Ian Donaldson; Beverly Dicks; David Curtis; and executive lead Susan Stanford.

My ministry's operating budget has increased by 12 percent compared to the 2016-17 restated budget. This represents an increase from $492.2 million to $551 million, an increase of $58.87 million. It includes funding in 2017-18 to support the expansion of high-speed Internet access in rural and remote areas of the province, funding for the maintenance and operating costs of government-owned facilities and funding to enhance records and freedom-of-information management. The ministry's capital budget for 2017-18 is $289.7 million, which is a net increase of over $85 million, compared to the restated budget of 2016-17.

I would like to also mention that there have been some changes to the ministry since the last estimates. This ministry is no longer responsible for technology and innovation or the B.C. Innovation Council, B.C. Stats and the Knowledge Network. However, we are now responsible for the corporate information and records management office, otherwise known as CIRMO.

This office is responsible for the oversight of three important pieces of legislation that protect British Columbians' privacy and provide important information. These are FOIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Information Management Act and PIPA, the Personal Information Protection Act, which is the information privacy act for non-government.

[1340]

My ministry is committed to making life better for British Columbians by delivering efficient and accessible service to residents across the province — families, workers and businesses small, medium and large. This ministry is both the face and backbone of this government. Sixty-two Service B.C. offices are the front line — the first point of contact for many British Columbians accessing important services and engaging with many British Columbians.

Our ministry is responsible for IT services and for managing the procurement of these services. Our IT services also work to protect the valuable personal information they entrust in us. We know how important protecting the privacy of British Columbians is. We want you to know we take very seriously this privilege and responsibility and will continue to protect your information with the highest security and asset protection tools available.

As well, Citizens' Services is the gateway to procurement for small, medium and large businesses that employ so many in communities throughout B.C. My ministry's role in government is to support businesses, citizens, government ministries and broader public sector organizations. We are focused on providing key services that B.C. citizens count on, and we continue to build opportunities for local communities and businesses that can benefit from the government's purchasing power.

My ministry is also committed to providing simple and easy access to the government services British Columbians need, where they need them, through a single point-of-sale approach.

Connectivity. Just as in the past, roads and railways are important to the economy and to accessing services. Today, high-speed Internet and cellular connectivity is essential to giving us all access to services such as health care, education, emergency services and economic opportunities as well as connecting us to those that matter in our lives, no matter where they live. We do that by being virtually connected through reliable Internet and cellular services.

Communities across this province need access to affordable and high-speed Internet for their businesses, health care and emergency services. They need it for their daily lives, and they need it to access the many services of this government. That is why we are focused on coordination and facilitation for the expansion of high-speed Internet and cellular connectivity throughout this province.

When Canada was first built, it was the railroad that was the big economic engine. As the railroad was built across this country, it moved people and goods and services. In a similar light today, I'd say the new railroad is our broadband, and that is going to be the economic engine for the future.

In procurement, in order to ensure more B.C.-based businesses benefit from our buying power, we are also moving forward with improving procurement to make it more open, transparent and make sure it works for all businesses in B.C. It's time to look at how we engage with business when it comes to providing services, and we are doing that now. A comprehensive review of procurement practices has begun. We want to make sure this process works for companies that employ British Columbians in communities around this province.

An important mandate objective for me, for my ministry, is to improve access to information rules and provide greater public accountability and to improve access to information responses.

Already, we have seen an increase in on-time FOIPPA responses to 91 percent. This is thanks to a change in culture that respects the FOI process and supports those working with British Columbians who want access to their information. We are now turning our attention to finding how we can do this even better and to find more ways to improve transparency and access to information.

We have begun a consultation process. I look forward to consultations with stakeholders to understand what they need and what would work better for them. We want to take the time to do this right. This work is important, and it is well underway.

[1345]

In the real estate assets, we manage many valuable government real estate assets. We want to ensure that the real estate the people of British Columbia own and we manage on their behalf provides the best value for them and works for them. My ministry is dedicated to ensuring they operate for and serve the people of this province.

These are some of the many areas the Ministry of Citizens' Services works to serve the people of British Columbia. This ministry and my work is informed by the following criteria. Institute a cap on the value and length of government IT contracts to save money, increase innovation, improve competition and help our technology sector grow.

Ensure government IT and software development procurement processes work better for companies that hire locally. Improve access to information rules to provide greater public accountability. Improve response and processing times for freedom-of-information requests.

Now I look forward to taking your questions.

S. Thomson: Thank you, Minister, for those opening comments. Also, we'd like to thank your staff and the staff who will be supporting you here, as well, both during this process and for the earlier briefing that we were able to receive on the budget for the ministry.

I'll just advise in advance that I have a couple of colleagues who will be popping in, too, to ask some more local-based questions. Rather than set a specific time, I said that I would just accommodate them as they come in. We may interrupt proceedings just a little bit to allow them to ask a question or two during the afternoon.

I appreciate the opening comments. As the minister mentioned, this is an important ministry as far as both interface with citizens of the province…. For many people, this is their first point of contact through the ministry, whether it's Service B.C. or other parts.

Then, this ministry also provides, as the minister mentioned, the structural foundation for much of government — how government operates and efficiency, all of those aspects of government operations. And then, the important area of freedom and information and protection of privacy and all those components that are in this ministry's responsibility.

As the minister noted, there has been some restructuring following Budget 2017 in terms of this ministry, some changes in responsibilities and some components of the ministry moving to the Ministries of Jobs and Technology and Tourism.

I'm going to ask a few questions to start around the budget, just to get an understanding of the structure and changes and the additions to the budget and then move to some questions and clarification and gathering of information, particularly, around the mandate direction that was provided to the minister in the mandate letter.

Maybe I'll just ask a general question to start discussions. In terms of the current budget, can the minister outline the major changes, if any, from Budget 2017, the original budget, to the one that was tabled here in the budget update, '17-18 — any of the significant changes, the major changes, that may be in place from that time? Or is it a fair statement to say that, essentially, with the restructuring of the ministry, this is basically the same budget that was tabled in Budget 2017, with the budget update for '17-18?

Hon. J. Sims: It's basically the same budget with some accommodations being made for some work having left, some other work coming in and some minor adjustments within that.

[1350]

S. Thomson: Maybe I will run through the core operating areas within the budget and just ask a little more specifically around that.

The first one I wanted to ask about was, under the operating

summary, operating expenses, core business, service to citizens and businesses. The current budget in the estimates is $17.642 million. In the Budget 2017 that was originally tabled — not the budget update — it was $18.381 million. So there is a decrease of $639,000 from the resource statement in the original 2017 budget to the budget that's been tabled here in the estimates. Can the minister explain what that difference is between the amount in Budget 2017, compared to the number that's in the current estimates?

Hon. J. Sims: Just to let you know that that transfer is a direct linkage to the moving out of Stats.

S. Thomson: Sorry. That's the moving out of the B.C. Stats requirement?

Interjection.

S. Thomson: Okay. So that would mean that previously was a component of services to citizens, and that would be a transfer of staff and some expenses related to that. Okay. Thanks.

The next line was the operating expenses — the office of the chief information officer. This is where the increase of $40 million into that component of operations…. So just to confirm, that's the funding that's being provided for, for Internet connectivity?

Hon. J. Sims: You are correct. That is for connectivity.

S. Thomson: Maybe I can ask a couple of questions on this component of the budget. What is the current status of that funding in terms of moving forward with it? Have the intakes been open for the applications program? How is it going to be managed? How is it connecting to the federal program? Where are things at with that particular initiative — as the minister pointed out earlier, a very important component of the work that the ministry is doing?

[1355]

Hon. J. Sims: I was really pleased to hear you saying how important this new infrastructure is, the broadband and everything. So $40 million, as you can see, is in our budget this year. Proposals have already been submitted to the federal Connect to Innovate program, and we're waiting for their approval. We are on a sort of tenterhooks. We think those announcements are going to be made very soon.

S. Thomson: I'm sure the minister will acknowledge that the $40 million that is provided in this program was also in the budget that we proposed, as well, because of the importance of this initiative and the recognition that more needs to be invested in this area.

Will this program be administered in the same way it was previously — through the Northern Development Initiative Trust? Or how is this funding going to be administered?

Hon. J. Sims: I absolutely do want to acknowledge the work done by the previous administration. I think a recognition on all sides of the House, just as…. Our predecessors recognized the importance of the railroad and how important that was to grow the economy and to connect people, right across this huge geography.

Here in B.C. and across Canada right now, our focus is on growing the optic fibre, the broadband. We realize that in order to grow the economy, whether we're dealing with our natural resources, tourism or the new technologies, we need that. This program will continue to be administered through the Northern Development Initiative.

S. Thomson: Thank you, minister. With respect to that, has the trust provided a set of priority areas to invest in? Has government provided any direction to the trust, in terms of critical areas for the expenditures to be utilized? Or is it going to be application-driven? What role, if any, does government play in the review of the application process, in order to meet priorities, meet government objectives, in terms of services to citizens and economic development — all the First Nations communities, in particular, where connectivity is a critical issue to helping First Nations move forward?

What's the plan? How is it scoped out? How do those objectives get met, ensuring that the Northern Development Trust administers this in a way that meets those objectives?

[1400]

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question as well. As you know, we provide funding, and the federal government provides funding as well. They set the criteria, because the federal government has made this a key initiative for them, to spread the digital footprint across the country.

These applications are taken on a merit base. So these are merit-based project applications that are done. I can assure the member that when I looked at some of the applications that have gone in, they have been absolutely stellar, so we're looking forward to seeing which ones are going to get picked, so to speak, for us.

Absolutely, our focus and our promotion has been rural and First Nations communities. Like you, I have been visiting rural communities and have met with First Nations. Really, if truth and reconciliation is going to have a meaning and be truly honoured, we have to look at economic growth.

In order to look at economic growth, at education and also access to health, broadband becomes absolutely critical. As you know very well across the way, as well, we have many parts of our province that have no connectivity at this stage. We don't even have to travel very far — just about 100 miles out of here, on the west coast of the Island. There are large parts of our province that are not connected. That is a focus for us, and we are working with the federal government to grow the digital footprint.

As I said earlier, the only support that we can offer in real terms, for the feds, is technical support and help to people as they're doing their applications. But we do spend a lot of time talking with communities and identifying their needs and encouraging regional applications, because we know that when the application goes beyond one community, it has a far better chance of being picked up by the federal government.

S. Thomson: Maybe I'll just probe it a little bit more — if the minister might give a little bit more, if she can, of a sense of timing. She mentioned that they're hoping, on tenterhooks, but whether she has had any indication of when that might occur, and has she had any recent discussions with her federal counterpart on this in terms of the importance of this?

Just as a second question on this, is the list of applications that have been submitted available, and could it be provided? I have many colleagues who come to talk to me about the importance of these investments in their areas. Some may know that they're part of an application. Is there a list of applications that have been put forward that would be available?

[1405]

Hon. J. Sims: Just to let you know that the federal government has already started to make these announcements. For example, I heard the one for the eastern part of Canada, and we're hoping that ours will be literally soon — like, before Christmas. We've got our fingers crossed. And just so you know, I do have a conference call with Minister Bains — that's Minister Bains at the federal level — scheduled for tomorrow. I'm hoping I'll get a better idea of.... I hope I will be able to share more information with you after that.

As far as the applications go, they are not shareable. They are not our applications. They belong to the service provider group. As you can imagine, there is also a business component to it as well, some people not knowing that they've made this proposal here and another group has made one there. Anyway, really simply, they are not our applications. Those applications belong to the service providers.

The Chair: If I could remind the members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. J. Sims: My apologies, Chair.

S. Thomson: Apologies as well. So through the Chair to the minister: thank you for that. I think, hopefully, that optimism about some announcements in the not too distant future would be helpful. It would certainly be good news before Christmas to many areas that are looking for those applications.

I'm going to move on. I may come back to this a little bit in terms of when we get into some of the mandate components and things, but I want to try to keep moving efficiently through the budget process here. Under the operating side of it, the real property component, there's a $15 million increase in the budget there. Can the minister provide information on what that budget lift provides for?

Hon. J. Sims: Just so you know, this is primarily due to amortization expenses associated with increased routine facility capital expenditures, around $3.746 million; increased leasebacks, moving and other operating costs associated with the sale of surplus government properties, $3.247 million; an incremental increase for the Okanagan Correctional Centre of $7.827 million; and salaries and benefit increases to support the economic stability dividend.

S. Thomson: So under the operating area, with corporate…. Under corporate information and the records management office, there's an increase here. Sorry, no. Wrong.

Under executive and support services, the increase there from before, from the resource — the numbers before.... It's an increase of about $586,000 under executive and support services. Can the minister just advise that difference between the resource

summary that was in Budget 2017 and the budget update? Can she confirm whether those increases relate to additional executive and support services across the ministry or whether this is as a result of the puts and takes in the changes that were made? Did bringing in more, bringing in the records management office from Finance, result in the increase, based against what was moved out of the ministry?

[1410]

Hon. J. Sims: The changes are due to the corporate information and records management office being transferred in, and the $586K is the net amount.

S. Thomson: Maybe I didn't ask this quite clearly enough, so I'll go back to this just to make sure that I've got this straight. The corporate information and records management office budget is, in the estimates, $18.951 million. The minister can correct me or confirm that that's the funding and line item that came across from the Ministry of Finance in the transfer of that responsibility into the ministry.

The area that I was referring to was under "Executive and Support Services," where the budget in the estimates note is $19.859 million. The estimates in the '17-18 budget, not the budget update but the estimates, under "Executive and Support Services" were $19.273 million, compared to $19.859 million here. So there's been an increase in the executive and support services of $586,000.

I guess what I'm looking at is: is that an overall increase across the ministry? Is that a result of the bringing in the division from the corporate information and records management office? I thought that was covered in the line that came across from Finance, and executive and support services has gone up to that amount. What I was seeking clarification on is: what was the basis for the $586,000 increase in executive and support services?

[1415]

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague, thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the $586,000 as well. Just as you said, the $1.8 million that you talked about earlier — well, close to $1.9 million — came from Finance for the corporate account — corporate information and records management. The $586,000 is the additional transfer that came in. That's the IT support. That was also transferred into the ministry, and that came from Finance as well.

S. Thomson: Just to confirm, then, if we were looking to see what came from Finance and if I went back into the Finance estimates, it's the $18.951 million, which is the corporate information and records management office, the number which I did find in the Finance resources. So there is an additional $586,000 in executive support services that was part of that. If I went back into the Ministry of Finance budget update, would I find that number in a transfer?

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, yes, that came to us from Finance, and you should be able to find it there.

S. Thomson: Thank you. I'll take a look and see if I can. If I can't, then I may do a follow-up question, just so we've got a clear understanding.

One of the other components under the executive support is the minister's office expenditures. They have gone from $564,000 to $689,000, an increase of $125,000. Can the minister advise what that additional $125,000 in the executive and support services covers?

One of the questions, I guess, that arises out of that, looking at that, is given that a number of components of the ministry have been moved over to a different ministry, all the technology side of it…. You've brought in some components with the records information office into the ministry. But I guess the question is: what thought might have been given to areas that have been moved out and that would have been able to be managed within the minister's office without an increase?

This looks like it is maybe some provisions around additional compensation areas related to the mandate or the economic numbers in terms of the mandate. But it looks like it's at least an additional FTE in the minister's office. Can the minister advise what the additional $125,000 is?

[1420]

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for the question. I just want to assure my colleague that the bottom line for the area remains the same for the ministry.

We have had a change in government, as you know. With that has come a focus on doing people-centred work and really delivering on my mandate for British Columbians. Just so you know — you mentioned that we'd lost some components and gained others — the complexity of the file of the ministry has not decreased. As a matter of fact, we were just saying we've got more people in the ministry now overall than we had previously, because of the additional parts that were added to us.

I think the point you're trying to get to is that I do have an extra executive assistant working with me. That executive assistant is working with me closely so that we are responsive to the needs of British Columbians and also to make sure that there are meetings. We're having many of them. The public is so pleased to see, whether I'm in Nelson, Castlegar or Williams Lake, that we are so open and available to having meetings with different interested groups and citizens around this province. The additional staff helps me with meetings and briefings, maintains contacts with key stakeholders and helps to ensure that the requests that come in for assistance are dealt with expeditiously.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that confirmation. Again, I will state I would have potentially thought that with the significant components related to the technology side of it moving out, that it might have been able to manage without the additional staffing in the minister's office.

Can the minister advise whether that executive assistant is located in the minister's office here or elsewhere?

Hon. J. Sims: Just so you know, I do want to reiterate that even though we lost some components, we did gain others. I don't want there to be left an impression that the work in the ministry decreased. As a matter of fact, when we're looking at the total employment in the ministry, there has been an increase. The significant work that has come in does not mean that the complexity has decreased.

My EA has been over here and has worked over here as well, but also works out of my constituency office, which is located in Surrey. The majority of my staff are right here in the Parliament Buildings. It's really important — and I think that's the direction that we as a government have taken — that ministers be responsive to the needs of British Columbians at all times. Whether I'm here in Victoria or in my constituency, having my EA — who will be here some of the time but is primarily in the constituency — ensures that I have the support to fulfil my duties wherever I am.

Really, for me, it's about getting the job done and making sure that we are responsive. We're a government that has said from day one that people are at the centre of the decisions we make. In order to do that, we also, then, need to make sure that we have the resources we need to connect with people, to facilitate the communications and to build those links with those who want to interface with government.

S. Thomson: The minister mentioned there are more complements, more staff, more people in the new ministry than there were previously. Can the minister advise on the FTEs before the restructuring and the current FTEs in the ministry?

[1425]

Hon. J. Sims: From my previous life, I just wanted to make sure they were FTEs and not just bodies.

Just so you know, previously we had 1,407 FTEs employed in the ministry, but as a result of the reorganization and the major work that came into our ministry — and I want to stress major — it is now 1,621.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that information.

I'll move now into the capital side of the budget, with some questions there as well, just to get clarification and understanding of what's happening on the capital side within the ministry.

With the office of the chief information officer, a significant increase in the capital provisions for that office, from approximately $55 million up to a number in the estimates of $93 million. Can the minister advise what the increased resources will be used for, on the capital side, within the office of the chief information officer?

Hon. J. Sims: As you know, this envelope of projects that this ministry manages are projects for all other ministries. There are 54 projects in total. We have money held for minor capital projects across government. They tend to be IT.

Specifically, if you're looking for some examples: launch of the civil resolution tribunal strata component, providing citizens with a cost-effective choice for dispute resolution; launch of B.C.'s Map Hub to improve performance and availability of location services; improved Drive B.C. event messaging, resulting in more accurate and timely information to the public; implementation of a customer-centric, on-line filing approach for all societies, now available 24-7; and, of course, the continual capital maintenance of over 1,600 applications used in the ministries to manage operations and deliver service to citizens.

This area, of course, also encompasses cyber security and all of those issues.

[1430]

S. Thomson: You don't need to provide it all now, but would there be a breakdown or a list available of all of those projects? You listed out a number of examples that are covered there in terms of all of those projects. Would a detailed list be available for all of those projects that are managed under the office of the chief information officer?

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, we can make that list available.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that. Appreciate that information.

Then, the increase in the budget under real property, under the capital side of it, again $133 million in 2016-17. A capital plan, or capital program, in '17-18 under the budget update, $184 million. Can the minister advise what constitutes the increase in the budget under the real property capital program?

Hon. J. Sims: This difference is mainly due to increase due to Capital Park capital lease in '17-18, increased routine capital spending to maintain government facilities, offset by a reduction due to the completion of the Okanagan Correctional Centre project. These are just offsets. I'm being told by experts who are sitting behind me and who know this file inside out that these are normal fluctuations in this file that happen year in, year out.

S. Thomson: Again, perhaps this is some follow-up information that could be provided. Would there be a breakdown of the capital projects and the capital expenditures under the real property division, the $184 million, that would break down all those components of it, the routine capital in the various projects?

Hon. J. Sims: Here it is, the full list. Capital Park, building 1, south block: $69.5 million; Valley View lands development, Maples: $37.833 million; Surrey justice precinct expansion: $15.802 million; Abbotsford courthouse: $4.702 million; office furniture corporate provision: $0.5 million; routine capital envelope: $55.819 million; life-cycle replacement of ministry vehicles: $0.466 million.

S. Thomson: Thank you for having that list available and providing it.

I've got one more question on the capital side, and then I'm going to turn the questions over to my colleague, who, I think, has a couple of questions. I'll just finish up on the capital piece before I do that.

The budget capital expenditures under technology solutions. The '16-17 was $15.558 million. The '17-18 in the budget estimates are $11.6 million, which is a decrease of just over $4 million.

[1435]

Can the minister explain what the decrease is in expenditures under "Technology solutions"? When I looked at this, given the focus on technology, improving systems, all of those components of the mandate, I would have thought that that was an area that would not necessarily have seen a reduction in expenditures. But maybe the minister could just explain that for me, because at first blush it seemed like that wasn't an area that would necessarily have reduced expenditures.

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, I'm really glad he asked this question and that he values the investment we make in technologies and growing our digital footprint. I want to draw his attention to the office of the CIO. There you will see a dollar amount of $37.791 million. That is the increase in funding for IM and IT. Where you're seeing the decrease, the $3.914 million — that is due to the vagaries of our system. We have some servers that are new, because through our ministry we service and replace servers in other ministries.

It just looks like this year is a good year, where we're not having to replace as many. So it's just the current replacement and maintenance kind of cycle that is giving us a little bit of a saving there.

S. Thomson: Just so I'm clear, the number that you just referenced, the $37 million — where do I find that? You mentioned the office of the chief information officer. Is that part of the…?

Hon. J. Sims: When you look at the capital expenditures document here….

The Chair: Pardon me, Members.

Minister.

Hon. J. Sims: My apologies, Chair. It's so easy to forget.

Anyway, the increase to the office of the chief information officer. For our funding in the IMIT corporate funding envelope to support modernization, transformation projects and the maintenance of government information systems, the increase is $37.791 million. And under the technology solutions, where you see a bracketed number, which means it's the amount that we're not spending this year because it's a reduction, it's because of where we are in the cycle of serving and replacing servers.

[1440]

This is a good problem to have. Let me assure you that we have looked at the servers, but because we have so many new ones, we don't need to be spending the same kind of money on them.

S. Thomson: Thank you to the minister. I think I might understand that. Maybe if I think about it and have a look at it, I'll just…. But I do appreciate the clarification. I do understand a cycle of investment, in terms of new equipment, and that it will fluctuate and go up and down potentially. Thank you for the clarification on that.

I'm just going to turn the floor over to my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour to ask a question. I did indicate earlier we would do that a little bit during the process.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the minister. I just have one question. It's a question that I've actually asked a few times previously to many of the ministries that are connected to mental health and addictions. This one is with regards to privacy laws.

One of the major barriers that always comes up with regards to communication between ministries, between jurisdictions, is the lack of communication and consistency of communication between, say, the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Children and Families, etc. — doctors trying to communicate with psychiatrists or psychologists or nurses or social workers and all these sort of things. What this lack of communication does is that it essentially re-victimizes children and youth and families because they have to keep telling the story over and over and over again.

One of the recommendations that was brought forward in the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth — that special project that we did, the two-year project, the bipartisan report that we published on mental health — was to develop a system that apparently has been successfully implemented in New Brunswick. It is a way of changing the privacy laws such that the communication can happen between ministries so that these children and family and youth are not constantly re-victimized.

My question has been directed from many of these other ministers that I've been involved with in estimates. My question has now been directed to you, the Minister of Citizens' Services, as to whether or not this government would be considering changing the privacy laws to allow for seamless communication to help with the seamless delivery of mental health and addiction services in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, thank you for that question.

[1445]

Having been a teacher all my life and a high school counsellor and done a lot of work in the area of mental health and vulnerable children, I think all of us realize that sometimes the barriers that get in the way are perceived — sometimes they're real — but that communication is really critical.

The current state of things, with the opioid crisis and everything we're experiencing right now, actually drives home the need for collaboration and to work together. I think there isn't anybody in this House — it doesn't matter where we sit — that doesn't realize it's of utmost importance that vulnerable children are protected and that any actual or perceived barriers to information-sharing are addressed to ensure that these children are receiving the care and resources they need.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contains provisions, actually, right now that allow for information-sharing when an individual's health or safety is affected. Sometimes there's the perceived; sometimes there's the real. But right in FOIPPA, there already are provisions that allow for information-sharing, where an individual's health or safety is protected. It also allows for integrated services and for the broad sharing of information across ministries and even with the broader public sector, federal, private or non-profit sector agencies, where it is necessary and appropriate.

Having said this, we will work with our colleagues across ministries to examine this matter closely to ensure that there are no perceived barriers to this type of information-sharing, because we know how critical it is for the well-being of our kids.

J. Thornthwaite: I'll give an example that was brought up in the committee. There was a psychiatrist that was seeing a child. They had an outside office and then also were seeing the child in the hospital. That psychiatrist in their office could not access his own files related to that child when he went to see that child in the hospital.

This is not just a perceived issue; it's an actual issue. It was one of the major issues that came up that prevented collaboration and cooperation between sectors. That was within the health care system. What I worry about are the education system, obviously MCFD, the health system and others. I know, if there is a provision in there, certainly nobody is using it.

I guess my question is: if in fact this barrier is actually real, will there be a concerted effort from this government to prevent those barriers and this cross-stoppage of communication that negatively affects the mental health and well-being of children and families in this province?

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you to my colleague. It's very difficult, sitting here now, to address a specific case that you talk about and that you have shared with us today.

Just so you know, right now we are in the process of consultations on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and we are looking at all of these issues. I think it has also made us aware that we already have provisions and that we need to do an education process around what is there already. Absolutely, we want to mitigate any barriers that would prevent help getting to those who are most vulnerable.

[1450]

S. Thomson: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate all the responses on the elements of the budget and some of the answers. I'd like to move to some other areas.

First, I had a question on the service plans. The performance measures that were in the 2017 service plan of the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services had a number of performance measures that related to the citizens' services component of the ministry.

There was a performance measure in the Ministry of Finance service plan related to on-time processing of freedom-of-information requests. A list of specific service performance measures: improvements on the processing of FOI, that was in Finance; the citizen satisfaction with Service B.C. centres; communities or locales with high-speed Internet; citizens with B.C. Services Card; vacant office space; public sectors using data centre and cloud services; and administration costs for shared services.

All of those performance measures laid out targets in the budget update. The service plan for the Ministry of Citizens' Services didn't have those performance measures in that service plan.

I would like to ask the minister if the ministry is continuing to reference itself against those performance measures that were set out in the service plan in the 2017 budget that relate specifically to the Ministry of Citizens' Services.

Hon. J. Sims: I think what happened was a change in government. With a change in government, came a way to articulate our vision of the work of the ministry differently. Let me assure you that every ADM and all the staff that works in all the corners of Citizens' Services is doing the work and carrying out the work that needs to be done.

The very, very detailed and specific format that was used by the previous government…. Quite honestly, for me, it was just too many words there and too much detail. It didn't really express the direction, the vision, the hope, that we want to see in government. As a result, it's a different format and moving away from the old format in that vision-setting.

S. Thomson: I know the minister has said there's a different approach with respect to the vision.

[1455]

I guess the question, though, would be, given these performances…. They are a way of measuring both how the ministry is doing and how the public sees their interface with the ministry — citizen satisfaction with Service B.C., numbers of people with B.C. Services Cards — and setting those targets.

If these performance measures aren't being used, can the minister advise whether there are performance measures that have been set, similar to or in relation to these performance measures in the transition or the interim? Is any reference being made to the performance measures that were there, in terms of the ministry operations? Or are we to simply take these performance measures that were here and put them to a side and find a different way of determining or measuring whether the ministry is meeting a degree of accountability or performance standards?

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague, let me assure him that, for example, in Service B.C., they're still doing their check-ins. Public satisfaction surveys are being done. A lot of measures are being used by different components of our ministry, and as you know, this time around, because of the timing and everything and having to get the paperwork in, there was not the kind of specificity that you might be looking for in the way of performance measures.

But as we look into the next budget, there will be more detail in that preface that proceeds the budget, and we will have that there. Our ministry and our ministry staff are definitely tracking the B.C. Services Cards and progress made on those, as we are the progress made on all the other priorities, as well as the ongoing work. But I don't want to get into identifying: "This one we're following. That one we're not."

Overall, the staff does their due diligence and does keep track.

S. Thomson: I'll just use an example and maybe take it back to the high-speed Internet access, or connecting British Columbia program — a target set for 2018 of an additional 150 communities that would have improved Internet access as a result of the investment in the program.

Is the ministry looking at that target in relation to…? I know she talked earlier about the program being delivered by service providers and through the development trust — but monitoring it to the degree to ensure that the expenditure of funds, the partnership with the federal government, meets those kind of targets that have been set out.

[1500]

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, just so you know, those targets are related to the $40 million you see there. We're awaiting the big announcement, which we hope to get momentarily.

Here is some tracking that we have done: 97 percent of British Columbians have access to basic high-speed Internet. According to the CRTC, B.C. is leading other Canadian jurisdictions, with 88 percent of British Columbians having access to very-high-speed Internet, at 50 megabytes or more.

By the way, that's very little comfort to those who have none, and we have vast areas of the province that have none. Our goal is to see every British Columbian and First Nation with access to affordable and high-speed Internet. The province is working with federal and local governments — cities, like Nelson — and First Nation organizations to identify and address connectivity needs.

In the February budget of 2017, the province committed $40 million in new funds as part of a continuing investment in high-speed Internet throughout the province. As you know, that money will be leveraging the money that the feds provide. High-speed Internet provides British Columbians in rural and remote communities with better opportunities to learn, to do business, access services and stay connected. We see it as the new railroad.

S. Thomson: Thanks. I just want to reiterate that in the work going forward with the ministry, as they assess their performance measures, if it's going to be in a different form than was in the original service plans for those elements of the ministry, I think it's important to keep an eye on those targets that were set there, in terms of the continual measurement of the performance and the work that the ministry is doing, until it may be determined that targets or accountability may be set in a little different way than is currently there.

There are good measurements there in terms of client satisfaction, citizen satisfaction — service cards and high-speed Internet connection — all important to ensure that the minister keeps an eye on the ball in terms of what is to be achieved.

I just want to move now to some discussion and questions around the provisions that are in the minister's mandate letter. The first one is around instituting a cap on the value and the length of government contracts to save money, increase innovation, improve competition and help our technology sector grow.

The minister talked in her opening comments about a process underway, a review being taken, a review of procurement practices, a consultation process. So I think my first question is: can the minister provide some details around how this review is taking place, what the consultation process is? Is the review being undertaken internally, or have there been outside resources or consulting resources engaged in order to undertake this work? I'll leave it there and then have some follow-up questions.

[1505]

Hon. J. Sims: You know, procurement is one of those things that I never thought I would get as excited about as I have done since I've come into this ministry. I see procurement as a way….

When we talk about buying services and goods, we're talking about spending taxpayers' money. It's how we use that money and get the best value for the taxpayer, but also what the community benefits are that can be gained. How do we, through procurement, then support small and medium-sized businesses to grow right around the province? Not just in one geographic area but right across, because we are the government for all of B.C.

It becomes imperative, then, that we look at how people — whether they're living in Cranbrook, Williams Lake, Quesnel or Port Hardy — can do business with government and can have that interface. As you know, I take this part, as all parts, of my mandate letter very, very seriously. This one we started work on straight away. We have done up to November 8. Those are the last figures we've had.

We've done quite a few consultations — in Vancouver, Victoria, some virtual ones — while I've been travelling around to different cities, both in the Kootenays and in the Interior. We have met with chambers of commerce as well as the local governments as well as First Nations and had those conversations. But 13 formal meetings have been held by the staff. That doesn't count the meetings that I have had. So far, 172 people have been consulted. This is not the end of the consultation. We're well into it right now.

I also want to say that as well as this external consultation with vendors and with those who provide us services, asking them to see what the barriers are for them, we are also consulting other ministries. As you know, ministries do their procurement, but they're guided by the overall policy. So we are very engaged with ministries, some more than others, up until now, but we definitely plan to do this across government.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

I'm really excited about this and excited to see how we can be using procurement to support small and medium-sized businesses and to grow decent-paying jobs in communities right across this beautiful province.

S. Thomson: I'm taking the answer to mean that as far as the review in this process is being done, it is being done within the ministry and internally, that there isn't a contract process or a consulting process that is providing input into how the procurement process might change.

Maybe I can ask: is there an intent that at some point there may be potential for outside advice on this? The mandate has some very specific direction in it: institute a cap, both on value and length of contracts.

Maybe I could ask about the minister's future intentions in relation to this. Is there a timeline for this process in terms of when there may be recommendations coming forward, will those recommendations be the basis of a further consultation process once some parameters are determined in terms of what those caps or limits on value and time might be?

[1510]

Hon. J. Sims: As I just said, we're very excited about this work. Staff is working diligently and across ministries and consulting our vendors and other groups. Yes, at some time in the future, we may need to consult or bring in someone from the outside. I'm not going to say yea or nay right now. That possibility is there.

The key thing here, as a government, is we take this very, very seriously, and we want to get this right. We spend billions of dollars as a government on buying services and goods. We want to ensure that we are getting the very best value for British Columbians, and that includes community benefits, supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, looking at some barriers and opportunities that might exist and seeing how we can help those who have businesses in British Columbia to do business with government. We're definitely sending the message that we're open for business.

They are also telling us that they found our systems — the current ones — kind of a bit of a morass and very, very difficult to steer through. So it's looking at the processes, but it's also how we communicate how to do business with government. So it is looking at those opportunities, looking at the barriers, mitigating those, and then working with small and medium-sized businesses to help make government more accessible for them.

It is taxpayers' money that we want used to get the best bang for their buck. That includes growing decent paying jobs and meeting small and medium-sized businesses in every corner of this province.

This also we see as a way, when we look at our First Nations communities and how…. When I've been out on the road talking to First Nations communities, they tell me that when they go to our website, it's almost impossible for them to find their way through as to what opportunities are available.

So there are many aspects of procurement that we have to look at, and they all come under my mandate letter. We're working on it, and we'll see where this road takes us. As for definitive timelines, this is not a ten-year project. We do have contracts that are coming up for renewal. So we do want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence, but we want to have a system that works for the long term.

S. Thomson: One of the questions is on this. Given the review is taking place, there are no definitive timelines. There isn't yet a determination of what caps might be on value or length.

Does this review and working on this mandate in any way create a risk to existing RFPs that may be in process? Is there going to be…? Could this potentially result in any delays to decisions being made around granting of contracts for processes that are already underway — that may have a

schedule or a timeline in terms of when they need to be addressed? Will some of the principles that the minister outlined here be applied to those RFP processes where bids may have already been submitted? So what's the potential impact on this review, on the existing work that is ongoing and needs to continue?

[1515]

Hon. J. Sims: We haven't actually stopped ministries or ourselves from new RFPs, but we are looking at those that are out there on a case-by-case basis — for example, the workstations one. That was one we did cancel in light of…. It wasn't just with the procurement policy. It was to do a better analysis of the needs and to come up with a better system on how we're going to be replacing those on an ongoing basis.

Also, there has been at least one contract that we have extended by two years to make sure that we have the time. But we do have new guidelines and policies, and we're encouraging other ministries to follow the direction there.

S. Thomson: There's been quite a bit of discussion around this in terms of when the announcement was made and the commitments were made around best bid principles, local community benefit principles applied not just here but across other projects and other work across other ministries.

Can the minister advise whether any specific direction has been provided in terms of how those principles are to be applied, what constitutes local community benefits, what constitutes a best bid principle? Has the minister been provided any specific direction or criteria to be utilized in terms of how they would assess those, given that the minister just said that a number of RFPs that are in process are having that lens applied to them?

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say that when this government talks about consultation, we really mean consultation, and that means not presupposing or predetermining what those results are going to be. So those consultations are going on with our vendors, hearing from our small and medium-sized businesses, as well as internally with the ministry.

[1520]

In the meantime, no government policy has been changed. We're working under the current ones. Where the one particular RFP around workstations was withdrawn, we did manage to get extensions, and the work will continue because we want to wait until the new policy is in place and then align with that.

So right now the lens that is used is the current government policies. However, as I said, we're looking at all of them on a case-by-case basis.

S. Thomson: Could the minister just provide some more additional clarification, then, on the status of the workplace device? You advised that the RFP that was in process was cancelled or pulled back. You indicated that there…. I'm not sure I heard it clearly or fully, correctly, in terms of an extension.

What is the current situation in terms of the extension? I know there was an initial extension provided. The current contract, I think, was to expire on March 31, 2018. Has that been further extended beyond that point? What's the status?

Hon. J. Sims: The ministry issued a request for workplace support service on March 16, 2017, to replace an expiring agreement. After careful consideration, the ministry has cancelled the workplace support service reprocurement for workplace technology support services and extended that by a year. The ministry will reissue the reprocurement addressing the lack of competition and reflecting the policy changes as a result of the mandate letter at a later date. Until that time, workplace support services will continue under the current agreement with IBM Canada, which was recently extended to March 2019.

S. Thomson: I appreciate that information. The minister mentioned in the consultation process that part of it is looking at the barriers that exist for small and medium-sized businesses to take on government IT projects. I wonder if the minister might just provide some….

I know the consultation process is continuing, and I know that work was underway, but would the minister have any preliminary comments on what she's hearing and what is being identified as barriers to those businesses? What kind of feedback is the minister receiving through that consultation? And, in that process, has advice or input come back around what scope or caps might be or should be — and what length of contracts might be or should be — included in setting some kind of limits that may come forward?

[1525]

Hon. J. Sims: I've read my mandate letter quite a few times. As you know, in the mandate letter, they do mention caps and time limits. But let me tell you we're taking a much, much broader view of procurement than just looking at those two elements, because we want to make sure that procurement, expenditure of taxpayers' money, is done to benefit British Columbians right around this province.

When you talked about what some of the kind of things I've been hearing are, let me tell you that when I was meeting with communities in the north, their key cry for help was that my bid B.C. should be searchable by region. Because it's not searchable by region, they didn't have the time and resources to spend days and weeks combing through the opportunities to see which were in their region. They said even if they could see the title, it was hard to work out. Something as simple as that is seen as a barrier.

I heard the same thing when I met with the First Nations community in the Williams Lake area — a range of communities, I should say, not one. They talked about the same thing — that they want to know more about procurement and doing business with the government of British Columbia. But when they look at our website, when they look at the opportunities where they are posted, my bid B.C. again, it was very, very difficult for them to find their way through that.

So the consultations are telling us that there are many barriers. As we get to hear more, I'll be glad to sit down with you and share what some of those are. But at the moment, we're at that early stage of consultation.

S. Thomson: Is the minister, in terms of the response there…? You mentioned that the mandate letter was very specific around instituting a cap, both on value and length. I don't know whether I want to put words in the minister's mouth or read between the lines.

But is the minister saying potentially, in terms of addressing this mandate and meeting some of the objectives — increasing innovation, competition, helping the tech sector grow — that putting specific caps and specific limits and specific lengths of times or values may not necessarily be the right answer or the right approach in order to achieve the objective, that it may be more value-based in terms of applying those kinds of criteria as opposed to having specific limits or length of terms?

I just want to probe a little bit as to whether I'm putting words in the minister's mouth or whether I heard that potential reference in her answer.

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague, what you read in the mandate letter — "institute a cap on the value and the length of government IT contracts to save money, increase innovation, improve competition and help our technology sector grow" — all of those things are part of the mix. They are on the table. But those are not the only things that are at the table. We're looking at procurement as a whole.

Absolutely, it would be a very, very foolish minister that wouldn't pay heed to their marching orders in the mandate letter. What I'm trying to say to you is whenever you start looking at something that is as complex and exciting as procurement, you're going to be opening up many doors. That's exactly what we're finding out.

[1530]

This is a very thorough look at procurement. It's got these three elements on the table as well as: how easy are we to access? How well do we communicate? How do we support regional and community-based procurement so that those vendors, those businesses, whether they're in Kitimat or Port Hardy or Castlegar, can look, and they say: "Oh, yeah, this project, this particular service or these goods — this is in my region. It's something that I could maybe, possibly, explore and take a look at." Those are the kinds of things that we are exploring.

Absolutely, a part of that is also taking a look at procurement, using public tax dollars for the value-added, as we often hear, to improve the job opportunities and economic growth opportunities in communities around the province.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that response. The reason I asked the question is I think that providing the broader approach to this consideration of it may be, and potentially would be, a more effective way to look at how you assess the contract, as opposed to just putting in sort of specific caps and specific terms. That tends to then put contracts or processes into certain boxes. "If you're under this level, here's how it gets treated. If you're in this level, here's how it gets treated. If you're $10 over this level, then it's a whole different set." That's why I was asking the question.

I was kind of interested in the reference that I heard in the minister's comments around maybe looking at it from a broader basis and maybe not being quite so wedded to the very specific direction that says in the mandate to institute a cap on both value and length.

Having been a minister, I know the risk, as well, of looking at things with a little different direction than what's specifically in your mandate letter. But I think, as the minister undertakes the review, that the broader approach might be more beneficial in the longer term, in terms of addressing those objectives and improving people's experience with the process.

I looked at mandate No. 2. I think I'm going to move to the next mandate, because mandate 2 is really an extension of what's in the first mandate, around IT and software development procurement. They fit into the same categories and the same kinds of considerations.

With respect to mandate No. 3, "improve access to information rules to provide greater public accountability," can the minister, with respect to this mandate, advise us of what steps have been taken, what the review process constitutes and what's underway? Again, a general question around where things are at in terms of this review and how it's being undertaken.

[1535]

Hon. J. Sims: You've got to my other favourite subject. As you know, it's very clear in my mandate letter that we are committed to improving government's access-to-information rules. This is a priority for government and is a key deliverable in my mandate letter from the Premier. We are exploring the rules that both restrict and enable the release of information. This work encompasses potential legislative, regulatory, policy and process changes that have the potential to drive greater transparency and accountability.

It is important to note, however, that the existing information access tools include important protections for implications for individuals and organizations. There are over 2,900 public entities that are impacted by this legislation, and it is for that reason that government will be moving quickly and responsibly to implement the reforms needed, based upon meaningful consultations with stakeholders and building upon the important contributions of key stakeholders, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FOIPPA, and a special committee.

Just to let you know the kinds of consultations that have already been done. We started off by meeting, at a bilateral consultation, with Drew McArthur, acting commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We've done round tables, and we've got more scheduled, with key stakeholders from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, B.C. Civil Liberties and other groups as well.

Also, as I've gone around the province, I have been talking specifically, for example, to mayors. I talked with them in Castlegar, in Trail and in Rossland about the challenges, if they see any, and what kinds of barriers or problems they're having. I'm doing it as part of that as well. But we do have more consultation tables planned. We really want to get this right.

This is one of those areas where everybody wants to have all the information immediately. But we have to remember that FOIPPA is a balance between timely and accountable information to those who request it and also protection of privacy. So it's that balancing act, and we have to get it right. We're really pleased that we have, over the last few months, had a lot of proactive releases in order to get a lot of information out quickly, and we are going to be continuing our consultations.

Once again, as I said previously, this is not to consult for the next two years, but it definitely can't be done before Christmas either. As I said, there are so many boards — the raspberry board, the egg marketing board, the milk board. Actually, I didn't know there were that many boards around British Columbia, as I learned once I started to look at who is impacted by this. As well as societies, the municipalities are impacted. School boards are impacted. So it is really important for us to hear from all of them.

We definitely heard, for example, when I was in one of the cities recently, from a college in the Kootenays. I heard that they were very, very concerned with the use of the new technologies and the privacy and their obligation for the protection of personal information. So there is a lot of interest in this, and we will continue to do this work diligently, thoroughly, so we end up with a system that works for all of us.

S. Thomson: Thanks for that information and update. I can certainly commiserate with you, I think, in terms of the number of agricultural organizations that you have to deal with in this process.

[1540]

My career before the political side of things was working for the agricultural industry, representing all of those organizations, and I can remember many discussions with those organizations. I think there were 165 different organizations. You had an organization for the raspberry growers, one for the strawberry growers, one for the blueberry growers, one for the cranberry growers and one for the….

Hon. J. Sims: Don't forget the loganberries.

S. Thomson: Yeah, exactly.

I can remember lots of discussions, saying: "You know, it might be just a little bit more efficient to have one berry association representing all of those. You could save time and resources and focus and everything like that." But sometimes those conversations didn't always work.

Maybe just in terms of the number of people that have an interest in it, does the minister have plans for a broader public consultation process with respect to that? I know you mentioned that you've been talking to associations, organizations, local governments and things.

In terms of full consultation, which the minister has referenced the importance of, is there a process anticipated or planned in terms of a broader public process for providing input into this? Because both the access to information…. But again, as the minister indicated, the concerns around ensuring the privacy side of it is paramount in all of the considerations for potential changes. So are there plans for a broader consultation process with respect to this?

Hon. J. Sims: Yes, there will be wider consultations. As I've said, we've just started. We've done quite a few already — of the ones through invites. Those public, wider consultations could be done in a variety of ways.

S. Thomson: At the start of this review process and considerations around possible changes, there have been some issues that have come forward or been flagged in terms of the work. One of those is around the process of posting the completed FOI requests 72 hours after, in the process. The minister indicated that she…. One of the things she said in an interview: "One of the things that I've also heard is that when you publish a name on a website of who has put in the request, it has a chilling factor for some people. We are looking at the whole issue around this, and we're planning to make changes."

Can the minister advise what changes are being planned, where that particular consideration fits into the overall review? Are there anticipated changes with respect to this proactive approach planned in advance of the broader review, or will this be part of the overall consideration in the broad consultation for potential changes that may or may not be made going forward?

Hon. J. Sims: Through you, Chair, to my colleague: thank you for that question. Consultations have started. This issue has come up already a number of times. As a matter of fact, it's been mentioned in quite a few of the consultations.

[1545]

We're looking at it closely, and we will be taking action. Whether it's part of the whole package or whether it's previously, really, a lot will depend on what else we hear during these consultations. We don't want to take action piecemeal. At the same time, if there is something egregious that we can address in a timely manner, we will.

It's a bit premature for me to say to you that this is what we're going to do by that date because, as I said, we are consulting with the key players.

S. Thomson: I get a sense, in terms of the minister's response, that this is a change that may be made sooner than the full process of changes that are being planned.

I wonder if the minister could outline…. She mentioned things that she's hearing that may be egregious. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether this is something that she would put in that category of being something egregious that she has heard and whether this is something that she thinks would potentially be dealt with in advance or before the full consultation process and review has been completed and undertaken.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me tell you that we haven't made a definitive decision as to when, but I'll let you know that we've heard from the acting commissioner — that the acting commissioner has concerns around this disclosure provision as well.

We are listening. We are consulting. We're going to act based on the consultations, if there is something we can take action on earlier that is discrete and on its own. But if it's part of the whole, then we will wait.

Right now we are at the consultation process. I can say that almost every consultation we've had, we've had expressed to us concerns with that particular provision.

S. Thomson: Okay, thank you. Unless the minister corrects me, I'm going to interpret that response as a fairly strong indication that a change may be coming with respect to that proactive approach of posting within the current policy and the current time frames.

I just wanted to further ask around the proactive disclosure provisions that are currently there. There are a number of directives that are in place around the proactive disclosure. Are there any plans to change those current proactive disclosure directives that are on the Open Information website — any plans with respect to any of them or to add to them in the process going forward? Or is that part of what will come through the consultation process?

[1550]

Hon. J. Sims: Our government is undertaking a broad-based review of access rules, and proactive releases of information will be part of that review.

We haven't really heard any concerns around the proactive reviews done by government on an ongoing basis. Where we have heard some concerns was the amount of material we released proactively around the fire situations. But the other proactive releases, we haven't heard any major concerns.

S. Thomson: Maybe just in terms of the proactive releases, I'll ask this question to get it on the record. The minister will recall the question in the House, in terms of the proactive releases on travel expenses — expense receipts for members of the executive council. At that point, the minister took the question under notice, in terms of the response. We noted that very shortly after that, the information was proactively disclosed.

I would ask the minister if she could comment on what took place there, why the information hadn't been put forward in the timelines that it should have been. I know it's been corrected, but maybe just a bit of explanation as to what took place there.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you so much for asking that. As you know, we have written a letter out back to the official opposition to put it on record, but I'm glad to have the opportunity to do it here.

The information was received from the minister's offices, and there was a technical glitch in the upload. As soon as the staff became aware of it, they started to work on it, and it was corrected. But it can't be done instantly. Apparently, we're dealing with old technologies, and it has happened previously, under the previous government as well, as early as March.

At that time, when the official opposition noticed that had happened, they just went quietly to the staff, to the minister's office, and said: "They're not up there." They realized that there had been a technical glitch, and immediately they set working on it. It was corrected, as it was this time.

If it happens again, you know what technology is like. If there is another glitch like that, please be assured that my doors are open. Staff worked diligently to correct the technical glitch and make sure that all the information was uploaded. But let me assure you that the information was in the right department and had been received. It just didn't get uploaded for some technical reason.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that information and responding. Just a bit of a comment. Maybe some of the dollars that we've got in the technology solutions operating side of it can address the technical issues that were achieved there.

A quick question, though: were the staff aware of the technical issues before the question was asked in the House? The response was immediate and the information was able to be provided, so did you have a workaround — the technical issue — to get the information up, or was it in progress? Had it been identified for a period of time? What was done in order to be able to provide that very, very quickly after the question was raised in the House?

[1555]

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, the staff who actually do this work — and I'm so glad we have staff that get excited about doing this work and have the skill sets to do it — did notice and started to work with other technical staff immediately to address it. I think by the time the question was asked, most of the technical difficulties had already been resolved.

S. Thomson: Thank you for that response. I'm now going to turn it over to my colleague the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin to ask a couple of questions.

D. Barnett: I have a few questions around connectivity — in particular, high-speed Internet and cell service. In the previous government, we allocated $40 million to the Northern Development Trust to actually provide connectivity to many of our rural communities. Of course, there is some funding from the federal government. Telus is working with the federal government to try and provide more services.

Can you tell me what your mandate is for rural British Columbia to receive more cell service and more high-speed Internet in the next few months?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague across the way for her question around connectivity. I didn't realize this, but I was absolutely amazed how much connectivity has become my passion since I got this file. I know that if we really want to grow our economies in the rural communities and amongst our First Nations, broadband is absolutely central. And cellular service — we know how important it is when you travel through some parts of our province.

I've travelled through some of those passes in the worst weather, and not having a little blip on your cell phone can be quite, quite scary. As you know, cellular services are provided through private providers. What we do is we work with those private service providers and look for value-added and work with them to get cellular service into areas that don't have it right now.

The $40 million that was budgeted for use with the Northern Trust. We're waiting for announcements from the federal government, and we're hoping to have those fairly soon. With those, we hope to be able to take action on carrying out the mandate that I have, which is to grow our connectivity right across.

As you know, the federal government has started to work on the next release of moneys, and staff has been working very closely with the CRTC to look at the kind of criteria and the possibilities for future moneys from the federal government and how we can leverage those to grow. But I want to assure that member that as I've travelled around this province…. I used to say that I've been to every city or little town or village in B.C. where they've got a school, and I have.

[1600]

Now I'm travelling into communities to hear from them about the challenges around not only cellular service but broadband, as well, for growing the new economies and the use of the new technologies. We're very, very focused, very excited by the projects that have gone forward to the federal government and waiting to see which ones get selected. But they are merit-based, and the only role we have there is to provide the matching funding in order to leverage those dollars and provide technical support.

D. Barnett: I guess I'm a little confused, and that's normal. The $40 million that we allocated to Northern Trust — will that still be there if the federal government does not come to the table?

Hon. J. Sims: Yes.

D. Barnett: Thank you. Another question I have is around the freedom-of-information costs. As you know, we've had quite a wildfire season, and there have been people trying to get freedom of information. There are some new people coming on board asking me why the costs are so high. Because the costs are so high, they don't feel they can afford to apply through the freedom of information. Yet, they need this information.

Is the minister willing to forgive some of these people that need some information — that have lost an awful lot of their life — to get the proper information they need for insurance companies, etc.?

Hon. J. Sims: This has been a very painful time. I don't have to tell you that. You live it. You've been advocating for your constituents. You're the one who has to go home at the weekend and relive their pain with them.

Let me assure you that no individual is going to be charged who's been impacted by the fires — any fees. The fees have been waived for them. This is individuals who've been impacted by the fires. I'm not talking about the general public.

Also, this file…. It was interesting for me to learn — sometimes you need a question to be asked for you to start digging — that overall in FOIPPA, less than 2 percent of the requests we have come in actually pay a fee of any kind. So 98 percent are usually just without a fee.

D. Barnett: I have one last question. It may have been explored with my colleague here, but unfortunately, I was somewhere else. In your mandate letter, it says: "Improve access to information rules to have greater accountability." Could you please explain how this will be done?

Hon. J. Sims: This is going to be done through a pretty comprehensive consultation process, which we have started. We started with the acting commissioner. We've had a round table. We've done quite a few consultations with different organizations.

This piece of legislation is not easy, because it covers so many people. There are over 2,900 entities outside of government that are covered by this legislation. So we will continue with our consultation with those specifically, and, as asked previously, there will also be an opportunity for the public to have that input.

S. Thomson: Just in terms of the proactive disclosure process and the technical glitches. This might be another bit of the technical glitch, so I'll just raise it here.

[1605]

I expect the minister will look into it, but just so that she's aware, all the ministers' calendars for September have been posted, except for one, which is the Minister of State for international Trade. When you click on that information to open the calendar, even though it's labelled as the Minister of State for international Trade's calendar, it actually pulls up the calendar for the Deputy Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister was aware of this — whether she'll take a quick look at it and whether they would post the Minister of State for international Trade's calendar and correct the technical glitch.

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague: the staff assure me that when they were posted, everything was checked, but thank you for raising this issue. We will look into it, and we will get back to you promptly.

S. Thomson: Thank you for looking into that. I'm watching the time here. There's a few more areas I'd like to cover quickly, if we can. I'd just like to ask about mandate No. 4, which is improving the response and processing times for requests. Can the minister outline the steps she's taken to fulfil this mandate commitment? What specific work has been done?

I know she mentioned earlier that there had been a significant increase in the percentage that were dealt with on time. She attributed that in an interview to a new direction for her staff — which, she said, had been unleashed to do their job. I just would like to ask the minister what steps she's taken, what "unleashing to do their job" means in this context and whether there is further review or steps being taken to meet the mandate direction in her mandate letter.

Hon. J. Sims: First of all, let me make a correction, if I may. We've improved the compliance rate to 90 percent, not 91 percent. I wanted to put that on the record. I think in my excitement, I changed the zero into one. I do apologize for that.

When I was assigned to this ministry, I actually went and toured through the different departments, and I went and visited with the staff. Then we had this huge staff meeting. It was amazing, because with technology, we were able to connect with the people who do not work out of Victoria, even though we had lots of people in the building in Victoria as well. When I went around, it was talking to people about what was important to us — that it is important to make sure that we provide the best service, that we're a government that is people-centred and that the decisions we make keep that at the centre all the time.

[1610]

I praised and thanked the people in that particular department for the awesome job that they were doing. They have awesome leadership in their ADM as well, who is really focused to address compliance, which is very important to us. We've done some work with staff, listening to them and having them implement systems internally that could speed things up. Right now that's how we're doing it.

But 90 percent is not perfect. We are still working to improve this, and this is going to be, all of it, part of our consultation process as well. The framework of the legislation and the requirements govern what staff do.

Also, what I've found, whether as a teacher or in other roles I've played in my life, is that sometimes just getting a little bit of encouragement to, "Let's get it done," goes a long way.

S. Thomson: Again, I recognize the steps that have been taken. Maybe just to ask the question again: is the minister contemplating further steps? Is it part of the review in terms of having that continuous improvement in the processing and the timelines?

I would note that despite all of the improvements and what was referenced, I think it was a very difficult process for all involved, including the ministry but, also, the people in the fire-impacted areas, with the timelines and the process that they had to go through and were put through to get the information they needed — the residents and the people of Pressy Lake, some of the people that were referenced in the House, out of Quesnel.

While improvements have been made, it appears that there are still circumstances where there are challenges, and the processes didn't seem to operate the way that they should have. I appreciate that with respect to those, I think — maybe the minister can confirm this — those requests that were referenced, that were the subject of that issue and those questions, have got the information that they require. I understand that fees have been waived, as was indicated.

Maybe the minister could just comment on further steps that are going to be taken and, if she could, a bit of an explanation as to what transpired, what went sideways, in a sense, with respect to those situations. Pressy Lake and the fire-related requests I know have been worked on and addressed. But I think it did point to…. It clearly showed that the process needed to be improved.

Hon. J. Sims: I am going to address the issue of freedom of information during the fires. As my colleague across the way knows, whenever we have fires of this magnitude that we've had, there are always investigations. People who have been impacted want the information yesterday, and I can understand that. I can empathize with them, because that's what I would want.

Unfortunately for us, until the RCMP releases the information, it is difficult to pass it on. That is why we started to release the information proactively as soon as it was released. Specific individuals who wanted specific information — the professional staff worked with them. If we had it, it was sent to them. If it still hadn't been released to us, they could not have it.

[1615]

I really want to take this opportunity to say that the professional staff in that area worked incredibly long hours, as they did in other ministries, because we know how painful all of this was.

To the second part of your question, absolutely, we're always looking for ways to make improvements. As I would say to my kids, you're never happy with where you are. You always want to look for improvements.

We are looking at key areas of focus that could include things like exploring new technologies to improve response time and examining legislation, policies, processes and regulations to increase public accountability. We've talked about that a fair bit today. Reducing the backlog of overdue files. One of the things that I inherited in this ministry was a huge backlog, but we're getting on top of it.

Improving staff training and retention among FOI professionals — that is an issue as well. Continuing to foster a corporate culture that reinforces our collective duty to assist those who applied for information. I can say that my visit to that particular department left me in awe of the commitment that that group of professionals has. Let me again say that our hearts go out to those impacted by the fires, but it is difficult for us to give them the information that has not been released to us. Once it's released, we pass it on.

C. Oakes: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity just to ask one further question on that and to congratulate the minister.

I am looking at file 292-30, dated November 9, a request for access to records, from Leilah and Wayne Kirsh. They are a part of this area, from the Plateau fire. The minister should know that we are still allowing "that we may charge a fee for certain limited costs of providing you with the requested information." Dated November 9.

Your office is still, when people have put in requests…. This family is one of many families from that area. This particular is regarding a trapline 17 miles south of Nazko. They had previously put this file in. But this particular file, No. 292-30, dated November 9, is suggesting that we are still charging people for information around this fire.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for raising that issue. I want to assure her that, as I've just said to my staff, we will get back to her on that particular file. I don't have that information here, but my understanding is that we are not charging fees to those who have been impacted by the fires. I want to give her that assurance.

C. Oakes: Then, so that we capture this in Hansard , "for the consolidated intake, information access operations, at that…." My request to the minister is that you will be contacting the office and informing them that correspondence going out…. I think this is a form letter, because I've seen this before. Obviously, the changes that you've requested to be implemented have not been captured. Can I get the assurance that the minister will be letting the various information officers know what the change in policy is?

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, yes. And as my colleague knows, we act as a conduit with freedom of information. We get the information from the other ministries, and then we pass it on.

[1620]

S. Thomson: I've just got a few more questions here of a more general nature and topics to address here before we run out of our time. I also want to just note that there may be a number of other questions. I hope that we can, as we've done in cases before, provide written questions for response in anything that we may not get to.

One question. I was wondering if an update could be provided on what the status is for the work with the CloudBC — the cloud services and that work there. I know we are at the forefront in securing that technology for public sector use. I know significant work has been done in that area. We'd appreciate, from the minister's perspective, an update on that ongoing work and the ongoing utilization of that technology.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you for asking the question about CloudBC. Just so you know, we are examining the next steps, but this initiative does support the responsible adoption of cloud-based computing services in our public sector. Participating entities so far include the six health authorities, ICBC, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Lottery Corporation, WorkSafe B.C., B.C. Pension Corporation and TransLink, and the B.C. government as an administrator.

CloudBC will establish a marketplace for prequalified, eligible cloud services providers that meet the province's best-practice privacy and security requirements. This initiative provides access to resources to support learning and collaboration within the public sector. The budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year for CloudBC is $1.8 million, with funding shared among the participating entities, and we are definitely examining the next steps.

S. Thomson: When the minister talks about next steps, could you confirm what you see as the next steps?

Hon. J. Sims: To my colleague across the way, this is new territory — for us, anyway, as you know. As with any new territory that we venture into, there is a lot of reflection time and examining of where we're going to go and how it's going to grow.

Let me tell you right now, talking with the staff, we've started to evaluate where we're at and look at the potential and also talk with and work with the entities that have already started to use it to see how it is working for them and where we go from here.

[1625]

S. Thomson: When we were going through the process of looking at the mandates and the various reviews that are underway — reviews, consultations and processes, in terms of meeting those mandates….

I just wanted to ask a question around whether the minister can advise if there are any other reviews currently being undertaken of the ministry, whether that's an Auditor General's review of certain aspects of the operations or any other reviews, consultation processes that you may be currently undertaking with respect to the ministry, beyond the specific ones we've been addressing as part of the mandate letters and direction.

Hon. J. Sims: The minister has no other reviews in process, but the Auditor General's office — and I've had my meeting with her — has, as part of the regular audits that are done, and we can get you a list of those.

S. Thomson: I appreciate receiving that information as a follow-up.

I just wanted to go back to the service card and the steps that have been taken for the implementation of that. I'm aware that there have been initiatives undertaken and work underway to expand the utilization of the service card beyond the initial basis on which it was implemented. I know there has been a project with the Land Title Survey Authority to access certain information, to use it while maintaining all of the protection principles and everything like that.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

Can the minister provide some comments on what other work may be underway, what other initiatives are being looked at as far as the utilization of the service card? I think the initiation of it was the intent to continue to broaden and expand the utilization of that as a foundation — and so just any additional steps being taken?

Hon. J. Sims: As you know, in 2016, the B.C. Services Card was successfully launched with two services — a pilot with land title and service authorities for electronic services, as well as Canadian Blood Services.

The following government services are in the process of on-boarding — I think that's the question you asked — to the B.C.

Services Card: on-line student loan applications and processing; on-line transcripts; an on-line natural resource sector portal for applications and processing for the natural resource sector; the first two were for the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Education; an on-line financial portal for financial inquiries and payment transactions across government, Ministry of Finance; on-line MSP biller direct invoices and payment options; and in-person biometric enrolment for corrections staff and contractors at Okanagan Correctional Centre. Those are the kinds of things we're looking at.

[1630]

S. Thomson: One other general area I'd like to ask about, if the minister could provide some information…. Maybe it can be one that has some further follow-up. I didn't want to let Sarf head off into potential retirement without asking about the release of assets for economic generation and whether an update could be provided on the program for what's taken place so far this year, what may be in the plans for release of the assets, upcoming surplus properties that may be in process for disposition, and what the general approach for the minister is around this particular initiative.

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague.

As for the specifics that you've asked for, we will make sure that you get that information. I don't want to start going through, line by line, all of our inventory.

Overall, we are evaluating the real estate portfolio to identify underutilized, unused and surplus government properties and assets. Our government will make sure that we undertake the sale of surplus properties in a thoughtful way. We're also taking a look at considering future needs of growing communities so we preserve our real estate. Provincial value assets that belong to British Columbians — we want that planned for benefit of all British Columbians when making decisions to sell land.

We're also taking a look to see what we do have that could be used to further the agenda of the current government — to address affordable housing, to address child care and issues like that.

Let me assure you we tend to be thoughtful stewards of the public's assets, because once gone, they're very hard to bring back.

S. Thomson: Noting the hour in terms of our time frame for this process, I would like to thank the minister for the responses, thank the minister for the further information that will be provided and thank the staff for providing the support and information that has been provided here.

There are certainly, as we pointed out at the beginning, critical areas of review underway within this ministry on some key initiatives and key services both to citizens and, internally, to government. It's going to be important, from our perspective, to continue to monitor how those review processes are going.

I hope we can continue to be involved in the consultation and the process as options or recommendations come forward, in terms of meeting those. There are critical services at stake here for both citizens and, internally, government.

With that, I'd like to again thank the minister for the responses. I look forward to continued dialogue on this as we move forward.

We will be providing, as I said, a few follow-up questions with some of the more specific requests, specific information, that I know the minister will be able to respond to.

Hon. J. Sims: I also want to thank my colleagues across the way, who came here, did their homework and asked thoughtful questions. We will get the information that we had committed to sending to them.

Vote 19: ministry operations, $551,062,000 — approved.

The Chair: We'll call a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:35 p.m. to 4:47 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TOURISM, ARTS AND CULTURE

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $133,832,000.

Hon. L. Beare: I'm joined today by staff from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. I'm pleased to introduce with me Deputy Minister Sandra Carroll, Assistant Deputy Minister Claire Avison and Assistant Deputy Minister Tracy Campbell, as well as my fantastic team surrounding me. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their professionalism and dedication to the B.C. Public Service. I would also like to recognize everyone at the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture for the outstanding job they do on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia every day.

Our ministry's mandate touches on everything from creativity to diversity to the economy, and I'm relying on our exceptional ministry staff as we roll up our sleeves and get to work to make British Columbia a better place for all our citizens.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate the introduction and certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here. It's really my first opportunity to congratulate the minister on her appointment. So that's great. I want to recognize the staff that are here today, because this rodeo doesn't happen without those spurs. Thank you for spending that time with us. Your portfolio is a large one. That's why I'm excited that we've got eight days scheduled for this. [Laughter.]

We will continue along with that. We're looking forward to it. We hope we can engage some thoughtful and productive discussion. It's an incredibly important file, as the minister is well aware of. It did generate about $14.6 billion into our economy last year, just in tourism alone and not all the other things that go along with what you have. We're going to be asking some very pointed questions over the next little while and, hopefully, having some great discussion.

[1650]

I also want to apologize to you, Minister. My co-critic could not be here today. She has some issues going on, so hopefully she'll be joining us tomorrow. But I do have some of my colleagues here with me today, and there'll be some others joining us as well. What we want to do is start with your mandate letter, looking at some of those things that are in that mandate letter, how that's going to be approached and what's going to happen there.

What I'd like to do is start with something that isn't in your mandate letter, and that is multiculturalism. There is no mention in that at all, and yet I do see on some of the budget lines that there is a significant amount of money budgeted for multiculturalism and corporate initiatives. So we want to talk a little bit about that.

With that said, I'm going to turn it over to my very learned colleague, here, who is an expert in this area.

T. Wat: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister for her appointment. It's such an important file, and you're surrounded by very capable staff, some of whom I worked with in my last ministerial portfolio. Congratulations.

When the government's cabinet was sworn in, in July, and also announced to the public, there was no announcement of which minister is responsible for multiculturalism. Being the minister who was responsible for multiculturalism in the last four years, I got a lot of inquiries, not only from my constituents but also from the multicultural community, asking me how come the new government doesn't have any minister responsible for multiculturalism.

The community was wondering if the NDP government doesn't really see multiculturalism as their priority. As my colleague said, in the minister's mandate letter, there wasn't even a single mention, any mention, of the word "multiculturalism" at all. So does this mean that multiculturalism is not a priority of this government?

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. When I received the call from the Premier on July 17, the day before we were sworn in for cabinet, he made it very clear to me that I was the minister responsible for Tourism, Arts and Culture and the minister responsible for sport and multiculturalism. Of course multiculturalism is a priority for our government, and I look forward to the fantastic work that we're going to be doing within the ministry.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. But still, unfortunately, there was no announcement on which minister was responsible for multiculturalism. Also, it's quite regrettable that we don't see any mention of multiculturalism in the mandate letter, which is in total contrast to the mandate letter when I was the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. There was very clear mention of multiculturalism in the mandate letter, and I was given the title of Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. So having said that, I guess that's the answer from the minister.

I will ask the minister if she can confirm the former multiculturalism and corporate initiatives under the former Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism being transferred in entirety to the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

[1655]

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, I can confirm that the corporate initiatives branch staff and budget in its entirety, as well as multiculturalism, have all been transferred over to our ministry.

T. Wat: Before I'm going to ask the question of how many staff, or if all the staff members, are being transferred or not, I'm going to follow up with this question.

The minister said that the Premier called her very clearly to say that she is also responsible for sports and multiculturalism. I'm just wondering, because I get this question from my constituents and also from the multicultural community all the time, even until now.

If, as the minister said, the Premier pays so much attention to multiculturalism and put it as a priority, how come there's no minister that is responsible for multiculturalism? What's most important of all: how come the minister's mandate letter does not even mention the word "multiculturalism?" I would like to be enlightened on that one.

Hon. L. Beare: My title is the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture and the minister responsible for sport and multiculturalism. This is a priority for us and our government. In addition, our government prioritized multiculturalism and sport by assigning a parliamentary secretary to focus specifically on this important file, who has his own mandate letter.

T. Wat: I still haven't heard an answer. How come, if it's so important…? She's responsible for multiculturalism. How come there's no mention of multiculturalism in the mandate letter, which, as I said earlier, is in total contrast to the mandate letter I was given by the former Premier in the last four years?

The Chair: Member, the question is more appropriately directed to the Premier. Premier's estimates probably begin tomorrow.

[1700]

T. Wat: To go back to the earlier answer the minister gave that the entirety of the multiculturalism and corporate initiatives branches transferred to the minister's ministry, I just want to know: are all the staff members from the former multiculturalism and corporate initiatives branches totally transferred and now working in this branch? I understand that, if I remember correctly, we used to have five members. If I'm not correct, correct me there.

Hon. L. Beare: The entire staff associated with multiculturalism and corporate initiatives transferred over to our ministry. A total of 11 FTEs transferred over.

T. Wat: Are they the same members now working, the same 11 FTEs still working in this multiculturalism and corporate initiatives?

[1705]

Hon. L. Beare: As I mentioned, 11 FTEs are dedicated to multiculturalism in the corporate initiatives file. As with any organization, we see some shifts in staffing. For instance, Sasha Hobbs, who's with me here today, recently joined our ministry and will be working with our team.

T. Wat: Will the minister tell us who the members of the team are that are being transferred out of multiculturalism and corporate initiatives? I would like to know the responsibility of each and every one of the 11 FTEs there.

Hon. L. Beare: We'd be happy to provide the member with an organizational chart with the members and their responsibilities.

T. Wat: I would like to understand whether a number of very experienced multiculturalism staff have been assigned to other responsibilities. Thank you.

[1710]

Hon. L. Beare: All multiculturalism staff are working on multi files. All corporate initiatives staff are working on corporate initiatives files. And as I mentioned, Sasha is the new addition to our team.

T. Wat: I guess I cannot get an answer from the minister, but let's move on.

The budget for the multiculturalism and corporate initiatives for this fiscal year and the following three fiscal years has increased to $2.265 million, $2.269 million and then to $2.276 million for the third and fourth fiscal years. This represents approximately an increase of over $600,000 for the annual budget, compared with the previous years under the previous government.

I just want to know what's the rationale for having increased the actual budget, since the mandate letter doesn't even reference multiculturalism. Even the service plan that I will talk about later on doesn't have any objective, doesn't have any strategy, doesn't have any performance measures about any program, which, by the way, were all included in the service plan in the last four years for the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism.

[1715]

Hon. L. Beare: The budget for multiculturalism remains unchanged, at $1.631 million this fiscal year. The $638,000 that the member opposite referenced is the budget associated with staff for the corporate initiatives. The budget for these staff is now included in the estimates.

T. Wat: I just want to confirm that I got it right that the budget for the multiculturalism file remains the same at $1.63 million and then the rest, $680,000, is for corporate initiative? Can the minister elaborate on what those corporate initiatives are?

Hon. L. Beare: The budget associated with this staff is unchanged from when the member opposite was the minister. The only difference is that it's specifically identified in estimates.

T. Wat: I think the minister hasn't answered my question on what those corporate initiatives are, since, if I heard it right, there are $680,000 that are allocated to corporate initiatives.

[1720]

Hon. L. Beare: The nature of corporate initiatives are one-time, specific initiatives throughout the ministry. As projects wrap up, I will be working with the parliamentary secretary to identify priorities within our ministry.

[1725]

T. Wat: I mentioned earlier that the multicultural community and my constituents conveyed to me that because of the lack of reference to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and the lack of mention in the mandate letter, they feel that this government does not see multiculturalism as their priority.

This is also reflected in the service plan. Just to refresh your memory, on page 5 of the service plan, with the heading "Purpose of the Ministry," it is stated — that's the only mention of multiculturalism:

"The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture brings together tourism, sport, arts, culture and multiculturalism programs and services to ensure that the people of British Columbia have the opportunity to reach their full potential. This new structure contributes to B.C.'s thriving tourism and creative sectors, prioritizes opportunities for participation in sport and the arts, and supports and promotes B.C.'s diverse culture." So there are two mentions of multiculturalism, related to multiculturalism.

On the same page, in the same section, it mentions that delivery of the ministry mandate is guided by key legislation, including a number of acts, and B.C.'s Multiculturalism Act was put towards the end. So that's the only reference to multiculturalism in the service plan.

Under the

section "Ministry Goals, Objectives and Performance Measures," there is no mention of multicultural programs at all, and the service plan does not give any goals on how to promote B.C.'s diverse cultures. Neither are there any strategies on promoting B.C.'s diverse culture.

In contrast, when I was the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism in the last four years, the goals and strategies were all clearly described in the service plan for the ministry.

Since I cannot get any indication from the service plan on the goals and strategies and also any performance measure for any multiculturalism file, I would appreciate if the minister could tell this House what are the goals, strategies and performance measures, and also what kind of multicultural program the minister is going to undertake to promote our diverse culture.

[1730]

Hon. L. Beare: I'd like to refer back to the service plan that the member was referencing. Right under "Purpose of the Ministry," it very clearly states: "The Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture brings together tourism, sports, arts, culture and multiculturalism programs and services to ensure that the people of British Columbia have the opportunity to reach their full potential. This new structure contributes to B.C.'s thriving tourism and creative sectors, prioritizes opportunities for participation in sports and the arts, and supports and promotes B.C.'s diverse cultures."

We're a new ministry with a new mandate, and we're supporting government's broader goals of making life more affordable, delivering the services that people count on and building a strong, sustainable economy.

T. Wat: In fact, right out of that paragraph I earlier mentioned — that there are only two mentions of multiculturalism. I guess the minister forgot about it.

Well, the minister hasn't answered my question. Maybe I should be more specific so that the minister can answer the question in a more specific way. In the service plan that I had as the minister responsible for multiculturalism, we clearly stated there were two objectives, and we had a strategy on how to achieve those objectives. One objective was to celebrate B.C.'s rich diversity as a source of innovation and global networking. The second objective was to collaborate with communities and partners to challenge racism and barriers to inclusivity. Then we laid out the strategies on how to reach each objective, and there were performance measures for the multiculturalism program as well.

Again, to the minister: do you have, laid out clearly, the objectives, the strategy and the performance measures for the multicultural and anti-racism program?

[1735]

Hon. L. Beare: As I've said, we're a new government with a new mandate. When we've had a chance to do some of the important work that we're currently doing, we'll table a service plan for multiculturalism in February that details our ministry's plan and targets in support of what matters most to British Columbians.

Of course, we will continue to monitor the performance measures that were previously published in the February 2017 service plan and the 2016-17 annual service plan report.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I look forward to the February service plan.

The Multicultural Advisory Council. Has the minister called a meeting of MAC, and has the minister appointed new members to MAC?

[1740]

Hon. L. Beare: As I'm sure the member knows, an order-in-council on November 12 appointed new members of the MAC. This was announced during Multiculturalism Week. We're working to convene a meeting before the end of the year.

T. Wat: For lack of time, I won't delve into this. I might submit more questions at the end of this session. I was told by my colleague that I don't have much time.

On another one, the LIAC, the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council. The minister is probably fully aware that it was established shortly after the apology to the Legislature in 2014 — May 15. LIAC was established to advise the minister to ensure meaningful community engagement and also the successful implementation of the legacy initiative project.

The minister was present at the Victoria Chinatown unveiling of the plaque. The Premier did the unveiling. The minister was quoted in the news release, but the minister did not speak at the event. I was there. I am pleased to see that the Premier pays so much attention to this legacy initiative project.

I just want to know, because there are still a couple of projects that have not been fully completed: has the minister called a meeting of the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council?

[1745]

Hon. L. Beare: As the member knows and mentioned, there are two legacy projects that are yet to be completed — the celebration book and the regional plaques. I am fully aware of these projects, and staff are engaged with LIAC as we work towards completion of these projects. I want to thank the member for her questions and for her willingness to submit further questions in writing. I look forward to seeing those questions. Thank you to the member for her time.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the response.

I still want to talk about these regional commemorative monuments. Under the previous government, we unveiled five. I personally unveiled five commemorative monuments in Kelowna, Cumberland, Ashcroft, Kamloops and Barkerville. I'm glad to see that the Premier unveiled the sixth one. All together there are 15 plaques that are to be unveiled, and there's an independent panel that chose these 15. Having six unveiled, it means we still have nine to be unveiled. I'd like the minister to tell us: what's the timeline to unveil the other nine plaques? Is it going to be done within the next six months, or when?

[1750]

Hon. L. Beare: Within the next year, we anticipate completing the regional plaque project. The next plaque to be unveiled is either Yale or Lytton. My team is still finalizing details. As the member well knows, weather and community requirements play a key role in the timing of unveiling.

D. Clovechok: Thank you to my colleague, who is very learned in this. You can see, on the other side of the House, that multiculturalism is incredibly important to us.

There is a question that I'd like to ask, though, really quickly, just to kind of sum that up, and then we're going to shift gears here. The Premier committed to a Chinese museum, and he actually told the Chinese media that he's committed to it.

We would appreciate it if the minister could tell us what that implementation plan looks like, number one, if there's a budget, what that budget looks like and if the minister is going to be overseeing that.

[1755]

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. As the member knows, this is early days in this conversation. I will be working with my parliamentary secretary, as well as Minister of State Chow, as we move forward on this. But it is early days in this conversation.

D. Clovechok: Thanks for that brief answer. There are a lot of new things going on.

We're going to shift gears a little bit here. As everyone knows, British Columbia has an incredibly successful and very robust creative sector, something that we're very proud of. It's very diverse. Part of that robust sector is the film industry. It's flourishing in British Columbia. It's become a major economic engine for this province and contributing, certainly, along with mining and other things. It's something that we've certainly come to recognize.

We've got some questions around that film industry for the minister. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much to my colleagues for letting me ask a few questions. I join my colleagues in congratulating the minister in her new posting.

Funnily enough, a couple of days ago Facebook gave me one of those memories. Everybody gets those Facebook memories popping up. Some of them they like; some of them they don't. But this one I did, because it was a picture of me at the Disney Studios in Los Angeles — going on a trade mission, so to speak, on behalf of the provincial government, way back then in the olden days, four years ago.

My question to the minister is…. I know that she did a trip recently to Los Angeles. I'm just wondering what she did.

[1800]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you to the member for the question. I know the member has worked very hard on this file, and I'd like to thank her for that.

As the news release mentioned, I had two full days of meetings, including Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros., Netflix. I met around 100 executives while I was down there, and I also had the opportunity to meet with the consul general of Canada and the deputy mayor of Los Angeles.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for that.

I have a question about an issue, actually, that is in the mandate letter. I canvassed some of these questions with the Minister of Finance, but some of it she diverted to the Arts Ministry. My question is about, in the mandate letter: "Ensure that B.C. film- and TV-makers get their fair share of federal investments from Telefilm and other federal government programs."

I do know that this is one of the serious concerns of the film industry. I do actually have a printout of the percentages of Telefilm Canada. In 2016-2017, British Columbia was only given 8.2 percent,

whereas Ontario was 34.8 and Quebec, 49.9 percent.

When we consider the valuable contribution that British Columbia does in the entire Canadian market, plus the fact that these are taxpayers that are paying for it, I'm just wondering what the strategy is for this ministry to ensure that British Columbia gets its fair share from Telefilm and the Canadian Media Fund and other federal programs.

[1805]

Hon. L. Beare: The member is absolutely right. Those numbers reflect exactly why it is in my mandate letter as a priority piece of work for our ministry. Our ministry will be working closely with Creative B.C. to improve the competitiveness and success of B.C.'s domestic film and television industry within Canada and help B.C. producers leverage those federal investments. I've also met with federal Minister Joly to advance