2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Poem by Dominique Melanson on cyberbullying awareness

D. Donaldson

Chronic disease management program

C. Hansen

Chilliwack town hall meeting on DriveABLE program

K. Corrigan

Timberline Ranch

M. Dalton

Elimination of racism

M. Elmore

Volunteerism

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Call for resolution on Aveos operations and workers

A. Dix

Hon. P. Bell

Costs for B.C. Place and Vancouver Convention Centre projects

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. P. Bell

Agreement on naming rights for B.C. Place

S. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

Call for inquiry into sale of B.C. Rail and payment of legal fees

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

M. Karagianis

Release of media correspondence with government to Eminata Group

M. Mungall

Hon. N. Yamamoto

C. James

M. Farnworth

B. Ralston

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Auditor General for Local Government Act (continued)

H. Lali

Hon. I. Chong

K. Corrigan

B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Bill 20 — Auditor General for Local Government Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Auditor General for Local Government Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued)

Hon. D. McRae

V. Huntington

G. Gentner

L. Popham

B. Simpson

M. Sather

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

[ Page 10413 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: There are a number of guests joining us in the House today that I would like to introduce. They are all workers that are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and have worked for Aveos Fleet Performance. Aveos has been the operational entity that maintains the aircraft that we all rely on, on a day-to-day basis, in getting back and forth from our constituencies. These are an incredible group of dedicated individuals who have literally decades of experience in their work. They are going through very challenging times right now.

Christopher Hiscock is the president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. They're joined by Jim Sinclair of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Other individuals that I had the opportunity to meet with just a half hour or so ago — Mike Sangara, who has 23 years of experience; Dan Cook, who has 33 years of experience; Steve Dueschele, who has 39 years of experience; Wes Sim, who has 26 years of experience; Larry Johnson, with 22 years of experience; David Steele, with 26 years of experience; Shelly Cermak, with 26 years; Leanne Seawirth, with 26 years; Gerald Gowans, also with 26 years; Sargit Singh, with 32 years; Richard Gilker, with 23 years; Deborah Cooper, with 37 years; and Philippe Enfente, with 22 years.

I'm sure that all members of the House are eager to work collaboratively with this organization as they face very, very challenging times. I'd ask that all members of this House please make them very welcome.

A. Dix: I wanted to join with the minister responsible for jobs and investment in welcoming the Aveos workers. They represent 350 workers — 55 of them here today. The workers here today, I think, have some 600 years of experience. The minister has talked about that.

I hope what we'll be able to show today together in this House and as we work together on this file is that British Columbia is behind them. That is, I think, what I take from the minister's remarks, and that's what we're going to attempt to do together today. Thank you very much, and welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us in the Legislature today are a number of members of the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia. Joining us are Doug Hinton from Hatch Mott MacDonald, who is the president of CEBC; as well as Steve Fleck from Stantec, who is the vice-president; and Glenn Martin, who is the executive director.

They are down and will be joined by a number of their colleagues tomorrow. As well, they are holding their annual gala dinner on Saturday, this weekend, to hand out the awards. There will be 45 projects that were nominated this year, and they will recognize the best of the best.

On behalf of all British Columbians, not only do I want to say welcome to the Legislature but thank you for the work you do on behalf of all of us.

M. Karagianis: As is the tradition in this House, I would like to announce the latest addition to my family, born yesterday, my grandson, whose name is Book Strummer Flesher. He is the latest, now my seventh grandchild. Although I know there's not a competition going on, I think I've caught up with the member for New Westminster. We are very proud of our little boy, as is his sister, Indiana, and his mom and dad, Devyn and Kurt Flesher. I'd like to make him welcome to the world.

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today is a voice and personality that will be very familiar to fans of the Western Hockey League. Bill Wilms has been part of WHL broadcasts for the last 15 years. An athlete in his own right and former hockey standout at the University of North Dakota, Bill has represented B.C. eight times at national and international golf championships and has won the B.C. seniors championships three times.

He is in Victoria today to cover the first-ever home playoff game for the Victoria Royals against the Kamloops Blazers, which will be broadcast across western Canada on Shaw TV. Will the House please make him very welcome.

[1340]

C. James: I have a school group visiting us today from a school that's just up the road from the Legislature, South Park Family School, which is the school my children attended and the school I attended as well. We have Ms. Angela Sullivan's grade 4 class here, with a number of adults accompanying them. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have three very distinguished guests visiting the Legislature today. The first one is retired Lt. Cdr. Richard Nakamura. Mr. Nakamura was born in Comox, B.C. and has served in all three of the Canadian Armed Forces. He has received many awards for his community contributions, including the Canada 125 Anniversary Medal.

We also have Dr. Henry Shimizu. Dr. Shimizu is a retired plastic surgeon and artist, and in 2004 he was

[ Page 10414 ]

awarded the Order of Canada, as well as the distinguished alumni award from the University of Alberta, and he's a recent recipient of the Queen's Jubilee Award.

Finally, Dr. Mas Yamamoto has also joined us in the House today. He's worked as a research scientist and has been a successful entrepreneur. But perhaps his most significant role has been as father to me, my sister Donna and my brother Brian. Those of you in the House who have listened to my responses to the throne or budget speech would know how proud I am of his achievements.

Would the House make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: Also today in the House we have a number of members from the building trades. We have Joe Barrett here, a researcher working with the union, and a special guest all the way from Chile. Her name is Marcela Reinoso, a Chilean. She will be here today joining the building trades attending their convention. She is an active member of the union of independent workers, small and medium businesses, known as ARPYME in Valparaiso in Chile. Please join me to welcome them.

L. Reid: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like to introduce two very distinguished guests who have joined us in the gallery this afternoon: Mayor Dan Ashton, the city of Penticton; and Bill Newell, the chief executive officer for the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I'd also like to welcome my good friend Doug Hinton, of Hatch Mott MacDonald. My friendship with Doug goes back way before his years at Hatch Mott, since university days. We've had many happy family camping trips with the Hintons, including the Minister of Education as well. I hope the House will make him feel welcome again.

M. Sather: Joining us in the precincts today are Brett Chapman and Frank Carr from the International Union of Operating Engineers. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today, and they're here to talk to members about jobs, about safety training and about improving the environment so that we don't have as many accidents as we tend to have. So I'm very glad. Will the House please help me in welcoming them now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Miguel Arias Rozo is a co-op student who is working within the Health Ministry. He has spent the morning in the Health Minister's office discovering how it works, and he's going to tell me about that later, I hope. I hope all members of the House will make Miguel feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

POEM BY DOMINIQUE MELANSON

ON CYBERBULLYING AWARENESS

D. Donaldson: I am happy to announce today that grade 12 Hazelton Secondary School student Dominique Melanson is the winner in the Don't Let Cyber Bullies Score poetry contest organized by the Stikine MLA offices.

There were many extremely heartfelt entries, and I would like to thank the judges in Smithers and Hazelton. Dominique has chosen to take her father to the Canucks-Flames game this Saturday night, thanks to Smithers product, Canucks defenceman Dan Hamhuis, and other sponsors including Hawkair and the Gitxsan government commission.

[1345]

Here is Dominique's poem, Love is Louder .

Dominique. Indian. Frenchie. Brace-face. Skinny.

Only I can identify myself.

Not others.

They can think and say whatever they want, but I will not be bullied.

Love is louder than words.

Everyone has a say.

Talk. Be heard. Use your voice.

Chat rooms, e-mails and text messages are where it begins.

Youth are being bullied, tormented, hurt and embarrassed every waking hour.

Bullying. It doesn't just end at three when the school bell rings. It never stops.

Endless pain, thoughts and frustration.

Rumours and gossip constantly being created, 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, round-the-clock attacks.

Bystanders, that's all we are.

Useless.

Looking, doing nothing.

Laughing, thinking of ourselves, not considering others.

Identity is what you make of yourself, not what others say you are.

Emo. Fat. Nerd. Ugly. We're all guilty of saying it. But have you ever been called it?

Stop, think, talk, save.

Social status is what we thrive on, but in the end, is it really worth it?

Cyberbullying affects 13 million teens.

On average, 8 percent of those teens commit suicide. Words really can kill.

Rethink what you're about to say before you do.

End cyberbullying; don't let them score. All it takes is one; speak up.

Congratulations, Dominique.

CHRONIC DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C. Hansen: There are thousands of British Columbians alive today and leading healthier lives because of an initiative of this government that started exactly ten years ago today. On March 27, 2002, the Ministry of Health,

[ Page 10415 ]

along with the health authorities, the B.C. Medical Association and the Registered Nurses Association, organized a strategic workshop in Vancouver that was the start of a provincewide chronic disease management program.

Over these past ten years, this program brought a prevention approach to individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, depression, kidney disease, congestive heart failure and others. It has meant that family doctors can spend more time with these patients, and teams of health professionals can bring their skills together to keep a chronic condition from getting worse.

Organizations such as the Canadian Diabetes Association, the B.C. Lung Association, the Healthy Heart Society, the Arthritis Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation have all been invaluable partners. The results have been outstanding. British Columbia now has the lowest hospitalization rates in all of Canada for seven of the most common chronic medical conditions. Hospitalization days for diabetes patients are one half of those not on the chronic disease management program.

For people with congestive heart failure the mortality rates have dropped by 29 percent, and 89 percent of doctors using the program feel that they are now better able to care for their patients. Just as importantly, the program has saved the health care system hundreds of millions of dollars.

A recent BCMA report said: "In these areas, B.C. is seen as both a national and an international leader in primary care renewal." I salute the many organizations that have partnered with government on this program, and in particular, the many health professionals who have made it such a success.

CHILLIWACK TOWN HALL MEETING

ON DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Well, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 150 or so people, mostly seniors, who attended a DriveABLE town hall meeting in Chilliwack on March 15. It was very clear that in Chilliwack, as in other communities around the province, there is a great deal of concern about the mandatory screening and subsequent DriveABLE computer and specialized road-testing program.

The attendees said that they felt the screening and DriveABLE testing program didn't treat them fairly. It didn't treat them with respect and dignity. They felt that the process is bureaucratic and impersonal, that there is no flexibility, and of course, there is no appeal process. They also expressed a variety of concerns about the fairness of the tests for a variety of reasons and also a real concern about the lack of access.

I think it is a testament to seniors — but also to others who have expressed concerns about the DriveABLE program, such as many members of the medical community and senior advocates — that the government, the day after the Chilliwack town hall meeting, essentially acknowledged that there are major flaws in this program implementation and processes by announcing changes to the program.

I would like to thank seniors in Chilliwack and around the province, I believe, whose voices were instrumental…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: …in government making amendments to the program. However, there are, of course, many questions and concerns and flaws identified by the seniors that have not yet been addressed, and we will continue to press government on this issue.

[1350]

But we do all want to remember that we all agree with the ultimate goal — that we want to keep our roads safe for seniors and for the other people who use the road. We just want to ensure that the process for identifying those drivers is fair, accessible and effective.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the House the departure from the well-established policy of having two-minute statements as non-partisan in nature. I find it rather difficult to accept a statement from the member opposite which is not only…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

R. Sultan: …erroneous but also in the middle of a by-election.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

If the member wanted to rise on a point of privilege, he could have done so.

TIMBERLINE RANCH

M. Dalton: Tucked away in Maple Ridge in the foothills of the Golden Ears is a popular 73-acre spread called Timberline Ranch. Tens of thousands of young campers and day users have enjoyed the ranch and its Wild West townsite.

What can you do at Timberline? Well, for a lot of people, horses are enough, what with trail riding and horsemanship. But for those with other interests, there is also a swimming pool, an archery range, a skateboard park, challenge courses, a riflery range, a climbing wall, a petting zoo and so on.

Timberline celebrated its 50th anniversary last year

[ Page 10416 ]

and was originally a vision of Cec Leng, or Chuck, and Don Lawrie, or Lefty. They wanted the young people of Vancouver to have an opportunity to enjoy nature at a ranch-style camp and be influenced by the message of God's love for them.

Timberline's goal is to bring hope and to build lives in a safe and fun camping environment. The ranch has deep roots in the community, and many schools use it. Dozens of young volunteers are trained annually to help with the youth camps and the 6,000 people who come there each year.

Tim Adams is the chairman of a dedicated board of directors. Craig Douglas is executive director and, like all staff members, has a handle. His is Strider. There are also Scribbles, Prop, Sparrow, Stringy, Hobbes, Jade and Otto — all of them full-timers who keep Timberline humming.

Timberline Ranch is a big boon for a great many young people in the Lower Mainland, giving them experiences and memories that will last their lifetimes. Timberline is currently expanding its facilities. It's a sign that this ranch will be there for many years to come, and that's a good thing.

ELIMINATION OF RACISM

M. Elmore: Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago, around one in the afternoon in the township of Sharpeville, South Africa, 69 people, including ten children, were shot and killed by police during a peaceful demonstration against racial apartheid. To commemorate this massacre, the UN marked March 21 in 1966 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Racism is defined as a form of interpersonal and structural discrimination, and it causes suffering for millions of people around the world. Racism can be very blatant, like the many physical assaults the B.C. Hate Crimes unit is investigating throughout B.C. In one shocking local case, a Filipino man sleeping on an abandoned sofa was set on fire by members of a white supremacist group. But more often racism is subtle and can be seen more easily in the statistics.

Visible minorities in Metro Vancouver make up 42 percent of the population, but only 12 percent are in senior leadership positions. A colour-coded labour market has also resulted in racialized Canadians earning 81.4 cents for every dollar paid to non-racialized Canadians. Additional systemic barriers are the lack of accreditation for degrees and qualifications earned by racialized Canadians overseas, and racial profiling.

Racialized people in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty than non-racialized people. All of these challenges work to impoverish racialized Canadians, and as such, poverty is the most pervasive effect of racism.

In commemorating this day, there remains an urgent need for all of us to take comprehensive steps to eradicate racism. We need to constantly value diversity in our society and institutions and recognize the business case for it.

[1355]

To conclude, let us work together, like the hundreds that gathered to protest rising hate crimes against First Nations and people of colour in the Community March Against Racism in Vancouver last week. Let us reaffirm our commitment to stop and bring an end to racism.

VOLUNTEERISM

R. Lee: If you have a friend who is recovering from a car accident and could not get around every day, how can you help? If you know someone who is coming out of a relationship after suffering domestic violence, what kind of advice can you offer? If you need help buying special equipment for a child with a disability, who can you go to?

Burnaby non-profit organizations can come to the rescue. The Burnaby Meals on Wheels Society, the Dixon Transition Society and the Variety Club are Burnaby-based organizations that could offer solutions in these areas. NGOs are an important part of our social fabric. Their work and their volunteers are sometimes not recognized by the public. Wouldn't it be nice to get these NGOs together to showcase their services in the community?

The tenth annual Burnaby Festival of Volunteers is coming to the Brentwood Town Centre on April 14. Limited space is still available for NGOs to provide information about their organizations and to recruit volunteers. The key organizer, Volunteer Burnaby, has done an outstanding job in promoting volunteerism as a right and as a responsibility of the citizens of Burnaby and New Westminster to facilitate community development through volunteering. Organizations include Burnaby Optimist Club, the South Burnaby Neighbourhood House and the United Way. Special thanks go to Amy Sundberg, the event program coordinator.

April 15 to 21 is also the 17th National Volunteer Week. It's the time of year when we pay tribute to the 13.3 million Canadian volunteers who graciously donate their time and energy. Would the House please join me in recognizing the contributions of volunteers in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that two-minute statements are meant to be non-partisan in nature.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR RESOLUTION ON

AVEOS OPERATIONS AND WORKERS

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, 350 workers from Aveos Fleet Performance Incorporated's Richmond operations are unemployed after Aveos filed for bankruptcy protection last week. Today I met with 55 Aveos workers here, as

[ Page 10417 ]

have other members of the opposition. I know the minister responsible for jobs and investment did the same, and that they were both very good meetings.

I think the matter is too important for partisanship, so I wanted to suggest to the Premier or the minister responsible for jobs that we get together as a House and pass a joint resolution in support of those workers, calling on the Prime Minister to intervene — consistent with federal law and consistent with the importance of these jobs to British Columbia — to protect these jobs. So will the Premier or the minister join with me today in proposing a joint resolution?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for the question and for the offer to make sure this is a non-partisan issue. Those 356 workers here in British Columbia are dependent on this industry, and I would suggest that all of us are dependent on this industry for safe travel across this province and across the country.

This is a rapidly evolving situation. I can tell the member opposite that the minister, Denis Lebel, has recently asked that the transportation committee of the House of Commons convene and review this issue to see whether or not any laws have been broken.

There was a law passed in 1988 as a result of the privatization of Air Canada that required maintenance to be performed in three cities in Canada. Certainly, we want to work collaboratively with the members that were introduced earlier on today, the 256 workers and the leadership of the union. We think it's appropriate for the members opposite to make this offer to work in a collaborative fashion, because this clearly is not a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[1400]

A. Dix: In that spirit, I'd say to the minister that we're prepared today to pass just such a resolution or at least to have the House Leaders meet and the critics meet, perhaps with the minister, to discuss what would be in that resolution. I think that's an important statement.

The minister will know that the Quebec National Assembly has passed just such a resolution, and the importance of it here is partly what the minister just said. The Air Canada Public Participation Act, which dates to 1988 during a period when Canadian Airlines was the primary provider in British Columbia…. Those jobs have been in British Columbia for a long time, and they're important jobs here. So I think that says we have to speak with an even stronger voice here in British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister whether he'd be prepared to support just such a resolution — because I think it's an idea that sends a strong message and will work; I'd be happy if the minister himself or the Premier would introduce such a resolution — and whether we'd be prepared to come together as a delegation from British Columbia to go to Ottawa together with these workers to support just that.

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, we're interested in pursuing the concept of a resolution. We're prepared to have those discussions. Because of how quickly this is evolving, that may or may not be the best option. We're not sure at this point when the hearings may start by the transportation committee.

But what I will commit to the members opposite is that as soon as I have had the conversation with Denis Lebel I have requested, I will communicate with the members opposite and let them know the outcome of that conversation. We can chart a path which is most appropriate to see the 256 workers go back to work and the opportunity to make sure that we have aircraft that are well maintained, maintained here in Canada by British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: I thank the minister for his comments and his commitment. We are sitting until Thursday, so what we don't want to see is the opportunity to send a strong, unanimous message — and that would include, obviously, the independent members of the House as well — from British Columbia that we can take back to Ottawa…. That opportunity is in the next three days.

I appreciate the minister's offer to work together on these questions and ask him whether he would be prepared to join with us and to go to Ottawa together, either with our critic or with a delegation with the workers here — I think he has suggested that he would be so prepared — so we can really have an impact on a debate that could exclude British Columbia if we don't speak with a powerful voice.

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I don't want to rule out any and all options that are in front of us in terms of going to Ottawa in a joint delegation. Perhaps a resolution of the House, other sorts of options…. I do think that it's prudent to first speak with Minister Lebel to find out exactly what his intent and plans are. There's a rapidly evolving situation. We're getting updates literally on a minute-by-minute basis at this point.

I will keep the members opposite posted. I know the two House Leaders, who typically enjoy each other's company, will get together and have the opportunity to discuss this further as well.

COSTS FOR B.C. PLACE AND VANCOUVER

CONVENTION CENTRE PROJECTS

S. Chandra Herbert: Last week the member for Abbotsford-Mission wrongly claimed that there was a

[ Page 10418 ]

$30 million surplus on the massively over-budget B.C. Place. How you could ever believe that you could get a surplus on a project that went hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget — going from $365 million to $563 million in the span of a little over a year — is beyond me. But that was his line.

But he's not the only one using Liberal math. The minister for PavCo claims that there's a $42 million surplus on the mismanaged and way over-budget convention centre, a convention centre that went over $400 million over budget. He claims that surplus will be used to pay for the over-budget B.C. Place.

Can the minister please explain to this House how you get a surplus from a project that is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt?

Hon. P. Bell: It appears that seven minutes of collaboration has quickly disintegrated for the remainder of question period. But it was good to see an initial effort anyway on the part of the members opposite. It's progress, Mr. Speaker. We're moving forward. Maybe we'll shoot for eight minutes tomorrow.

[1405]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission did retract those statements. It was clear they were made in error. The books have not yet been closed off on B.C. Place, but I am confident that it will be delivered at or under $563 million. When the final bills are paid, we'll be happy to share that with the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Just a quick reminder to members that you're not supposed to use your BlackBerrys during question period.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: I love to collaborate, but I will not collaborate on a process to claim that there are fake surpluses.

So $400 million over budget on the convention centre, $200 million over budget on B.C. Place — a total of about $600 million on those projects over budget. Of course, there was the B.C. Place–TELUS naming fiasco as well, adding more costs to British Columbians. All this…. The minister still claims that there was a surplus at the convention centre.

So the member for Abbotsford-Mission has done the right thing and retracted his comments about a fake surplus at B.C. Place. Will the minister rise in the House today and retract his comments that there was a $42 million surplus at the massively over-budget convention centre?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, it appears the members opposite don't like to look at the value that has been created for British Columbians as a result of these two significant investments.

Just about two weeks ago there was an economic study released as a result of the positive impact from the Grey Cup — $17.7 million in taxation created as a result of one event. These are great facilities. They are attracting people globally. We have the attention of the world, and we intend to capitalize on that and make sure that B.C. is the home for investment for the Asia-Pacific.

AGREEMENT ON NAMING RIGHTS

FOR B.C. PLACE

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, maybe if we had the Grey Cup here every week, the minister would have something to crow about, but once every few years doesn't cut it.

Yesterday the new Conservative member for Abbotsford South, while laying out his litany of reasons for quitting the B.C. Liberals, spoke of reports and evidence that supported the $40 million TELUS Park naming deal. Unlike the chaotic and unsubstantiated rhetoric of the Premier and the minister on this issue, these reports might provide some credible information on this deal the B.C. Liberals killed.

Will the minister release any reports, further briefing notes or other information related to the TELUS Park naming deal so British Columbians can make an informed decision about why the government killed this deal?

Hon. P. Bell: B.C. Place is a facility that has served this province incredibly well for about 25 or 26 years, and it will serve this province for another 40 years as a result of this investment. The investment that was made represents half or less of what it would have cost to build a new stadium.

There are important elements to this stadium that will serve people forevermore. We're now being able to generate up to $100 million in economic benefit each and every year as a result of this, instead of the $40 to $60 million previously.

We hosted the Olympic women's qualifying tournament just in January of this year — 25,000 fans for the final. It's those sorts of investments that will deliver long-term economic support for our communities and deliver the social services that we're all looking for.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I'm glad the minister tells us we actually have some events in this stadium, or it would be a real problem.

The problem is this. We have with PavCo, because of the actions of this government between a convention centre and B.C. Place, over $600 million of cost overruns on those two facilities with no explanation about how they get paid for and, certainly, no explanation on B.C. Place and the roof. We hear about an offer to bring at least $40 million to the table in the TELUS Park renaming to

[ Page 10419 ]

help pay that bill, but there's still now no meaningful explanation about why that deal was killed.

[1410]

Will this minister stand up and tell us: why did you kill that deal when you have no credible answer for how the bills get paid on this facility?

Hon. P. Bell: I've gone through the numbers over and over again for the members opposite. They don't appear to want to listen. But just as a result of the investment that has been made here, there's a $350,000 annual savings on energy alone just because of the upgrades that were performed in the stadium.

We now have a second major tenant at the facility in the Whitecaps. They're playing in the major soccer league, instead of playing in the lesser leagues, attracting 20,000-plus people per event in that stadium, as opposed to 5,000 or 6,000 at Swangard.

We can host events on a year-round basis. In fact, we have an additional 50 days of use out of the stadium as a result of this investment. It's a good investment. It will serve British Columbians for 40 years.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO SALE OF

B.C. RAIL AND PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

L. Krog: Yesterday the member for Abbotsford South rose in the chamber and made the following statement: "To this day there are still serious unanswered questions regarding the writing off of $6 million in legal fees in the B.C. Rail case, contrary to government policy — questions I have been asking for a year and a half, and questions the Auditor General is seeking answers to through the courts."

In light of the member's serious questions, will the Attorney General commit to a full public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail and the write-off of $6 million in legal fees?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that the member opposite knows the answer to this question already because we canvassed this extensively in November. The Auditor General is currently doing a review, and we have been proactive in assisting him in fulfilling that mandate. In addition to that, the member opposite also knows that a statement was provided by the Deputy Attorney General, which is clearly on the record.

I have read from it on numerous occasions, pointing out, in the words of the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy of Finance — and I would quote from that again: "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or any involvement." Those are the remarks of the Deputy Attorney General on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The member for Abbotsford South, who's asking those questions in caucus, is no ordinary member. He is a senior member of this assembly. He sat at the B.C. Liberal cabinet table as the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety. Questions he couldn't get answered drove him out of the Liberal caucus.

Surely, this raises serious doubts about the B.C. Liberals' conduct that demand answers. If the province's former top cop does not trust his own government, why should British Columbians? Again, will the Minister of Justice and Attorney General commit today to a full public inquiry into all aspects of the B.C. Rail scandal?

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite stands in the House to impugn the reputation of the Deputy Attorney General…. The statement is clear. It's a matter of fact. The Deputy Attorney General and the deputy of Finance put on the record the way the matter was dealt with by the government, by the deputies that are involved. Again, I quote from the statement made by the Deputy Attorney General on October 20, 2010: "Legal services branch referred the matter to me and to the Deputy Minister of Finance…." I quote again for the member opposite. "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge or any involvement."

[1415]

M. Karagianis: The new Conservative member for Abbotsford South and the former Solicitor General of this province, when referring to the Premier and the B.C. Rail deal, said: "Well, I had certainly raised some of these issues early on when I met with her, and there are times when I raised them in caucus. I raised them with MLAs, but you know, I was basically stonewalled on this." Then he said: "So it's incumbent on all of us to have an independent look at that, and it didn't happen."

Once again, I would like to ask the Premier or members of the government if they would please hold a full public inquiry into the B.C. Rail deal so that taxpayers can get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we continue, Member, I just want to remind members that there is not a new Conservative member; there's a new independent member in the House.

Hon. S. Bond: As I said in the earlier answer, the Auditor General is currently conducting a review related to the situation with Basi-Virk. We have made every effort to cooperate and, in fact, have responded to all of the requests of the Auditor General. As recently as Friday the Auditor actually sent another letter for requests relating to indemnities in British Columbia, and we are cooperating fully. In fact, I had my staff clarify today with the Auditor General the type of documents.

[ Page 10420 ]

We are working, as we speak, to deal with the latest request for information from the Auditor General. So we continue to cooperate, to work constructively, with the Auditor General as he continues his very thorough review.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: British Columbians were stunned and shocked to see a raid on the Legislature — this very place. We have seen seven years of a corruption trial ending and culminating in a $6 million payoff for those who admitted guilt in this.

Now we have the member for Abbotsford South who has given us a peek into the inside of cabinet — someone who sat as the top cop in this province — calling for an independent public inquiry. It is due. Will the government do the right thing and hold a complete public inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure which part of the last answer the member opposite didn't hear. The Auditor General is in the process of doing a thorough review. We continue to provide the required documents that the Auditor requests. In fact, we have clearly outlined through a statement by the Deputy Attorney General that two public servants — very professional, I might add — made reference to the fact that "no one outside of legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge or any involvement."

I would urge the member opposite, after her comments today, that if she has further allegations to make, she should step outside into the hallway and make them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE

WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

M. Mungall: Yesterday the minister quoted herself, saying: "…I was advised that a printout of the e-mail was passed along to the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. That was done by my ministerial assistant on February 20, and I was not aware of that, nor did I direct that."

Mr. Speaker, questions remain. When did the minister know her staff gave the e-mail to a minister with absolutely no regulatory responsibility on the file? Is she fine with staff passing e-mails along behind her back? And if she didn't give the direction to do so, who did?

[1420]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We did canvass this thoroughly yesterday in the House. In fact, I read for the record my statement that I made a couple of weeks ago in the House, so I won't do that again. But because the member opposite obviously has failed to hear or read the Hansard transcript or my comments, the part that I will read out again for the member opposite is…. I did say: "I did take steps to find out what exactly had happened. So later that day I was advised that a printout of an e-mail was passed along to the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The truth of the matter is that we've read the minister's statement over and over again in this House, and she's still not coming clean on these issues. She has the regulatory responsibility for post-secondary education. She is supposed to be responsible for her ministry, yet she continues to ignore these questions.

I will ask again, on this very serious matter that I hope the minister takes as seriously as we do on this side of the House and as the public does in British Columbia. I hope that she's going to step up to the plate today. If the Minister of Advanced Education was unaware that her staff shared a printed copy of the Province 's e-mail with the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, why does she continue to say it was appropriate?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Ministers share information with other ministers, with political staff, with our officials and ministry staff and, of course, our communications department. It's necessary, and it's necessary to do our jobs well. Ministers and ministers' offices do not operate in isolation. We're a team. We share information, but it's our expectation that the information is to remain confidential.

C. James: The minister in her explanation of this e-mail leak has said she feels "like I've been let down by a colleague." Well, the people of this province feel let down by a minister who doesn't understand her regulatory responsibility in this issue. That's who has been let down. Again, a very straightforward question to the minister: why was the e-mail given to the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member for Burnaby-Lougheed admitted an error in judgment. He has apologized, and he has resigned from his position in cabinet. But again, ministers' offices and ministers share information with other ministers — not only with other ministers, with other ministry staff, with their officials and people in our communications department. We do it because we're a team. We do it because it makes us do our job better, and we can serve our public more efficiently.

But we do share that information with the expectation that that information is to remain confidential. That was not done. The member for Burnaby-Lougheed did the honourable thing and stepped down.

[ Page 10421 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: The former Minister of State for Multiculturalism took his accountability seriously and resigned his post. This minister would like to forget the incident ever happened. But I'd like to remind this minister that she is also accountable in this issue, accountable to the universities she regulates, accountable to the students who attend those universities and, most importantly, accountable to the public for answers for this e-mail leak.

So again, the public has a right to know. I would ask the minister: why did her staff share an e-mail that was sent to her office with the former minister, and what was the former minister expected to do with that e-mail?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'll say it again. I guess the members opposite didn't hear. But ministers share information with other ministers. We share it with other ministry staff, and we share it with our communications departments. We do it to do our job well. We do it to serve our constituents and our stakeholders. As I said, we're a team. This is what we do. Our expectation is that that information, though, is to remain confidential.

[1425]

M. Farnworth: Well, the minister says that she's part of a team. One thing that's pretty clear is she's clearly not directing her team. The plays are being called by her ministerial assistant.

The minister says: "We share information. We share information amongst our colleagues." She says on the Monday, the Tuesday and the Wednesday that she had no knowledge, that it certainly wasn't shared by her or any member of her staff. Yet on Thursday the former minister resigns, and the minister has to admit that it was shared by somebody in her own ministry, her ministerial assistant.

Can the minister tell this House: when did she find out that it was her ministerial assistant who shared the information?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've answered the question, and I invite the member opposite to sit down and read Hansard . It's in there.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I think the minister needs to stand up and answer the questions in this House. The fundamental question is this, hon. Minister — through the Chair — which you have failed to answer. That is: why was the e-mail shared with the former minister in the first place? What explanation can she possibly give for the ministerial assistant to share that e-mail? She has failed to answer. Stand up and answer.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've answered the question. If the member opposite would like to read Hansard , I've explained. It is clearly stated in Hansard .

B. Ralston: Did the minister ask her ministerial assistant for an explanation of why the e-mail was shared, and if so, what was the answer?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have canvassed this issue thoroughly. I would ask the members opposite to read Hansard . I've stated clearly in the last couple of days exactly what happened. Members opposite — all they have to do is read the Hansard transcript.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will continue with committee stage of Bill 20, intituled the Auditor General for Local Government Act. We left off at

section 19. If we complete that, we would then move to Bill 15, the Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. Should we complete that, we would then be able to move to Bill 18, intituled Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

In

Section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, and should those complete, we would then move to the Minister of Environment.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

section 19 (continued).

H. Lali: We're not in such a hurry to pass this

section yet.

Section 19 is on the role of the audit council, and it sets out the responsibilities of the audit council. I'm going to ask the question to the minister again, because she didn't answer the question. This is very far-reaching, hon. Chair, and setting up another level of bureaucracy. The minister's answers basically said: "Well, the Select Standing Committee on Finance deals with matters related to the…."

[ Page 10422 ]

The Chair: Member, I will caution you on repeating questions you asked this morning.

H. Lali: I'm going to use a different angle on this. It will be a different question. I take the caution. I'm just repeating what the minister had said — that the Select Standing Committee on Finance deals with matters related to this House, that this is a municipal regional district–UBCM matter and that's why there's an audit council and the responsibilities are not given to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Finance.

I understand that. That's what has been set up. My question to the minister is — she didn't answer it, so I'll rephrase it: prior to this being the case, why did the minister not recommend to her colleagues in cabinet that it ought to be? These responsibilities that are set up for the audit council ought to be under the Select Standing Committee on Finance for the Legislature.

Hon. I. Chong: I respectfully accept that the member does not like the answer or is not prepared to hear the answer, but the answer I gave earlier today is, in fact, that the structure of this audit council was designed to ensure that we did consider the independence with respect to the role that the auditor general will play with this council.

We also indicated that this reporting structure — that is, the audit council…. The reporting structure for any auditor general aims to satisfy both the independence and accountability, and that's what this audit council is designed to do.

The accountability of the auditor general is ultimately through to citizens as opposed to this Legislature, which is what the select standing committee is utilized for. It reports through to this Legislature and to the members.

I also indicated, and I will again say for the record, that in speaking with UBCM and with respect to the policy paper they provided to me last September, they did indicate that a reporting relationship to a stand-alone board or committee could be the most compatible with local government autonomy.

The paper further identified that reporting through the Legislature, which is what the select standing committee is designed to do, as "most detrimental to local autonomy." For that reason we have set up a structure that I believe meets the test of independence.

The Chair: Shall

section 19 pass?

Member for Fraser-Nicola. Member, I will caution you again. I listened very carefully to the question you posed, and it was a replica of this morning's question.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister talked about independence in her answer, and the minister talked about accountability — both of those concepts — in her answer to my question.

[1435]

Now, the way this is set up, the audit council and the position of the auditor general for local government are not independent, and I would argue that the minister is wrong when she asserts that the independence is there.

The minister also has argued that the accountability is to the people of the province. Again, I would say that that's not true. It's not independent, and the accountability to the people of this province is not there.

We've got 85 members in this Legislature, and we are responsible for all the electors that live in every corner of this province — this Legislature is. That's why we have select standing committees of the Legislature. That's why we have officers who report directly to the Legislature.

We have the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the provincial Auditor General as examples. The accountability is there. The openness is there. The independence is there. There's no interference in both of those offices that are set up.

The minister has brought this into the equation by talking about independence and accountability under this. I would say to the minister that when the reporting structure of the AGLG is to both the audit council and to the minister, it is not independent and it is not accountability open to the people of British Columbia, as there would be had this gone through the Select Standing Committee on Finance.

Maybe the minister might want to rethink the answer she had given to her and again answer the question: why is this not truly set up as an independent body — the audit council? And why is it that the AGLG is reporting to the minister, where any reports could be vetted, sent back and redone, rewritten? All sorts of things could happen. The true independence is if the AGLG is reporting to this body, the Legislature of British Columbia.

The Chair: Shall

section 19 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I was asking the minister a question, and the minister hasn't answered the question. I'll redirect that question to the minister again to provide an answer. Why was that not done? She talks about independence. She's talked about accountability. Both those items are not there. It's because the minister controls the audit council. Cabinet controls it through political appointees that are going to be made.

All of the audit council here are political appointees that they're going to appoint. The AGLG is either answerable to the audit council, which is a board of political appointees, or to the minister, in terms of all of the reporting that is going to be done.

Where is the independence? Would the minister please

[ Page 10423 ]

inform this House where the independence of the office of the AGLG actually comes into play, with the way the structure is set up? And could the minister also tell this House how the AGLG is actually responsible for reporting and accountable to the people of British Columbia when all reports have to come through the minister as a gateway?

The Chair: Again, I will caution the member that the question has been asked and answered this morning and this afternoon.

[1440-1445]

Section 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Rustad

McIntyre

Thomson

Lekstrom

Bloy

Yamamoto

McNeil

Chong

Lake

MacDiarmid

McRae

Yap

Letnick

Lee

Sultan

Dalton

Hawes

Coell

Krueger

Heed

Cadieux

Polak

Bell

Coleman

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Abbott

Hansen

Les

Stilwell

Cantelon

Pimm

Hogg

Howard

Thornthwaite

Stewart

Foster

Horne

Slater

NAYS — 34

James

S. Simpson

Corrigan

Horgan

Dix

Farnworth

Ralston

Kwan

Fleming

Lali

Austin

Conroy

Brar

Donaldson

D. Routley

Huntington

Trevena

Elmore

Bains

Mungall

Karagianis

Chandra Herbert

Krog

Simons

Chouhan

Popham

Fraser

B. Routley

Macdonald

Coons

B. Simpson

Black

Gentner

Sather

section 20.

H. Lali:

Section 20 is about staff resources for the audit council. I understand it's providing resources for the audit council, but the way the subsection is worded, I was wondering if this provides that the minister may actually provide staff resources to assist the audit council. Now, this doesn't refer to her own staff providing resources to assist the audit council, does it?

Hon. I. Chong: There is no subsection — I should just make clarification — in

section 20. What this

section does provide is the opportunity, if the minister is asked, to provide ministry staff to assist the audit council.

H. Lali: So this is in addition to whatever staff resources are provided to the audit council, set up separately. These would be additional ministry resources from the Ministry of Community Development. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council, as I say, will be comprised of the five or perhaps more members. They are a council, a board, a committee that meets. They don't have staff designated for them. However, if they require assistance to help carry out their responsibilities, the ministry may provide ministry staff.

H. Lali: The ministry staff, then, who will be assisting the audit council in its deliberations — obviously, there will be a cost attached to that in terms of the time and the resources they use assisting the audit council. Could the minister tell me: does she have any idea how much, in terms of dollars, it is estimated to be on a year-to-year basis?

[1450]

Hon. I. Chong: Given that the audit council is expected to meet perhaps three or four times a year, it's not expected that the resources would be a full-time position. So ministry staff can be made available to assist them when they are actually meeting.

H. Lali: But the minister does agree that there is a cost attached to any help that ministry staff gives to the audit council in its deliberations.

Hon. I. Chong: The cost of that staff person is with the ministry, so the ministry budget does cover off the staff resource.

H. Lali: In an earlier

section under the budget I asked the minister about the $2.6 million cost for setting up the office of the AGLG. At that time I asked whether some of the costs would be incurred if there were multiple meetings of the audit council — whether that would add to the bottom line of the $2.6 million. The answer was no, it would not. They'd have to just find some efficiencies inside and prudence to take care of that.

Now the minister tells me there's a cost attached. You know, it could be $5,000 or it could be $50,000. We don't know. We'll know depending on how many meetings the audit council has and what kind of work they need done and how much support the ministry staff are going to give the audit council.

[ Page 10424 ]

My question to the minister is…. Any cost, whether it's a low cost or a high cost to the ministry, is obviously in addition to the $2.6 million that the minister has allotted for the budget of the AGLG. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: Referring back to

section 9, which was passed some time earlier when we discussed the budget, it does include the amount in our budget estimates of $2.6 million that will provide for the office of the auditor general for local government. It will also provide for the remuneration and reimbursement of members of the audit council.

The staff support that can be provided to the audit council is, in fact, through the ministry. It is administrative in nature and is entirely within the minister's budget.

H. Lali: I get that, I understand that, but my question is specific. The minister's staff or the ministry staff…. Whatever work they're doing, they will be taken away from that in order to do work for and in support of the audit council. There's a certain amount of time and an amount of resources that will be taken, and there's a cost attached to that. Obviously, that is in addition to the $2.6 million. Is that not correct?

That $2.6 million cost for the AGLG, its office and the audit council contained within — I understand that. But the ministry staff that is going to give the support to the audit council is actually in addition to the $2.6 million. Is that not correct?

Hon. I. Chong: The $2.6 million is what has been allocated for the upcoming year, and that amount will not be changed. The budget that I have through my ministry has also been established, and that amount is not being changed.

H. Lali: In essence, the cost attached to whatever support the ministry staff gives is in addition to the $2.6 million, and it is established separately from the $2.6 million. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, there are no additional costs to the $2.6 million. That is the budget that is established for this vote.

H. Lali: I understand the $2.6 million cost of the office. I know the minister said there's no additional cost onto that budget. But this support that the ministry staff is going to give the audit council is not included in the $2.6 million. Is that correct?

[1455]

Hon. I. Chong: I've indicated, as well, that the staff resources which may be provided to the audit council will be primarily administrative in nature to allow the council to carry on its responsibilities. There will not be an additional cost to the $2.6 million that has been budgeted.

As I've indicated, the cost of that staff comes from the ministry budget, and it is entirely absorbed within the ministry. If the member wants to suggest that there are additional costs associated with the audit council, then he's free to state so. But we are not adding additional costs to our budget in order to assist with the duties of the audit council.

H. Lali: I'll ask a different question of the minister. I understand the $2.6 million for the AGLG's office. It's not a question about that. I've asked several times, and the minister has answered that it's $2.6 million, and that's that. So we'll put that aside. It's not about the $2.6 million.

Let's just look at the support that the ministry staff is going to give to the audit council as a separate entity. There are some costs attached to that. Whatever support the ministry staff are giving to the audit council is within the ministry's budget. There is a certain portion of time and resources that will be used towards that. There is a cost attached to that.

Would the minister then agree that whatever the cost is — it could be $5,000, or it could be $50,000 — that it is actually separate from the $2.6 million for the AGLG?

Hon. I. Chong: Any amount that is calculated with respect to the administrative support is a separate amount from the $2.6 million and is absorbed within the ministry's budget.

H. Lali: If that answer would have been provided, we could have saved 15 minutes. It was a simple question, but the minister chose not to answer it until it was phrased that way.

Anyway, we'll let

section 20 pass, and then we'll go on to

section

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

H. Lali:

Section 21 is regarding the business and the meetings of the audit council. It provides that the audit council may make rules governing the conduct of its own business. My question to the minister is: isn't this like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

Hon. I. Chong: I would expect that the hon. member has himself served on committees and boards and understands the nature of how they are governed. To enable this particular audit council to function, they may need to establish rules governing the conduct of its meetings and other business, even ensuring that they adopt Robert's Rules of Order . It is about ensuring that the conduct of the meetings is done in an orderly fashion.

It also is to ensure that conflict-of-interest guidelines

[ Page 10425 ]

are developed consistent with guidelines developed by the board resourcing and development office and to establish some procedural requirements — for example, the minimum number of meetings they may wish to have. This is about allowing the audit council to at least establish that order, to ensure that they can conduct those meetings as they are convened.

H. Lali: We have determined, as a result of questions back and forth, that the audit council, when it's set up, is going to be made up of a whole bunch of partisan Liberals, because that's the way it's been set up. It's not going to be independent, because the reporting structure is not to the Legislature. It is through the minister and these handpicked people. The minister's own handpicked people will be responsible for reporting to the minister, and somehow we're going to get a vetted report that is going to actually be made public after that.

[1500]

Would it not make sense, then…? In terms of making the rules governing conduct of its own business, would it not be more appropriate and would the minister not agree that this ought to be farmed off? We have a standing committee of the Legislature called the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct.

Would the minister not agree that perhaps it's this committee that would set up those rules governing the conduct of the audit council? And that would be truly independent.

Hon. I. Chong: I will not let the comments that the member made go unchallenged. The audit council will not be made up of a group of, as he indicates, partisan members. The audit council will comprise qualified individuals who meet core competency requirements, as has been indicated in the posting that I mentioned earlier.

I know that the member refuses to accept that. I understand that he wishes to disagree. But the member is completely wrong to suggest that the audit council will not be independent. He is also wrong to suggest that the audit council will not have people who have qualifications that allow them to serve in this fashion. He also continues to perpetuate the idea that the audit council should be a part of another structure. There is another point that we will disagree on.

If he wishes to ask questions with respect to the nature of these sections, I will endeavour to answer them, but if he continues to pursue his questioning in that he wishes it to be different than what the act has laid out, than I will just submit that I've answered all his questions on that regard.

H. Lali: Well, these questions are very relevant in terms of the conduct, and I asked a specific question, which the minister didn't even bother to touch upon. I mean, this audit council is being set up in a similar way. When the democratic TransLink board was put aside by the former Minister of Transportation and he brought in a new board of appointees, political appointees, very highly partisan, we know what the result is in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It's chaos. They can't make any decisions on anything regarding the fares of TransLink.

So the dangers are already there in an audit council which, again, is going to be appointed in a similar fashion that the TransLink board was appointed. The minister chooses not to believe it's going to be political or partisan, and the minister might say that the opposition chooses to believe the opposite — that it will be.

But the minister still hasn't answered a question. Why would the minister…? Why would this Liberal government not farm this making of the rules governing the conduct of the audit council's business off to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct?

There's a reason why that committee is set up and those key words, "ethical conduct," are in there. I would imagine the audit council and the minister would also want to make sure that the proceedings of the audit council are done with conduct that is very ethical and of a high standard and that the meetings there go on without any kind of hitches. So it's in everybody's best interests to actually send this off, in terms of setting up these rules, to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct.

That's a specific question. Would the minister agree that that's what ought to be done? And if the minister disagrees, can she give some rationale why she disagrees, please?

The Chair: Does the hon. member have a new question? Shall

section 21 pass?

If the member has a new question, he can continue.

H. Lali: Well, after myself, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake will. Hon. Chair, I'm not making a comment, and I know the minister doesn't want to hear that, in terms of the makeup of the audit council. So put that aside. I'm not asking a question about that. I'm asking a specific….

The Chair: Member, I have listened carefully to your submission on numerous occasions. Do you have a new question?

H. Lali: Yes, I do. The specific question is — and the minister hasn't answered: would she be willing to send this off to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct to actually make the rules governing the conduct of the audit council's business?

[ Page 10426 ]

The Chair: The question has been asked and answered.

Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

[1505]

K. Corrigan: To the minister: I was out of the chamber for a few minutes, so I apologize if this question has been asked already. I wanted to ask whether or not under

section 21(2), where it says the audit council must meet at least three times each fiscal year, there is any limitation on the number of times that the audit council can meet in a year.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not actually sure where the member is going with the question. Subsection (2) is quite clear: the audit council must meet at least three times each fiscal year. That is legislated.

K. Corrigan: Well, what I'm concerned about is oversight and accountability, financial accountability. I know, for example, that recently there has been a great deal of concern expressed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities about the increasing costs of policing. That was a primary concern in renegotiating the contract with the RCMP: somehow having some kind of control over the costs of the RCMP.

Similarly, when the audit council is making a determination about how many times a year it's going to meet, with no oversight and no limits…. And, presumably, the audit council members are going to be paid a fairly hefty meeting rate. I think the rate for…. Some of the other boards that are within the provincial jurisdiction are being paid, you know, $1,000 or $1,500 a meeting. Assuming that we're talking about, say, a stipend of $1,000 a meeting, I think it's important to have some kind of financial oversight and some kind of limit when the board seems to be deciding itself how many times a year it needs to meet.

There doesn't seem to be anything, certainly within this

section or within the Auditor General for Local Government Act generally, that could put the reins on the audit council meeting. I'm not saying that the audit council would do anything but meet when it's necessary, but you know, $1,000 a meeting, and there's no control over it. I'm wondering if there is any control on the number of times that the audit council would meet per year.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm hoping that the member is not comparing this structure to the others that she has mentioned. The audit council, in this particular case, is — what I say — going to be quite unique and independent. They must operate within the $2.6 million budget set up for the auditor general for local government. Their remuneration and their expenses are covered within that, so they cannot go beyond that.

I did indicate earlier that the amount of the remuneration or the per diem that is anticipated for the chair will be $350 per meeting and for the members at $250. So if all four members and the chair make the meeting, it would be a $1,350 cost. If they met the minimum of three times a year, you could see that would be roughly $4,000 a year to operate the audit council.

K. Corrigan: I'm actually quite pleased to hear that that's the range, because a lot of the boards and so on that are operating in this province…. I believe the TransLink board…. I may be wrong, but I think they make two or three times that amount per meeting, so I'm actually quite pleased to hear that. I could be wrong, but I think they make considerably more than $250 a meeting, and this is actually more in line with what some of the councillors that they will be auditing for city councils make for meetings — maybe a bit more, but not that far off. So I'm pleased to hear that.

[1510]

Nevertheless, the question still remains. It's not $1,000 a meeting. It may be $250 to $350 a meeting. But if there is no oversight….

I'll ask the minister, then. The minister talked about having to work within that $2.6 million budget. What accountability is there within the audit council itself to say that you are going to stay within this fiscal framework? I don't see it. I may have missed it in the act, but it's not in this section.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to correct for the record…. The member earlier commented that the amount was reasonable, which I appreciate. She said it was in line with what the members who are being audited…. I just want to make it clear that the audit council members are not auditing. It's just the auditor general who is auditing. I just didn't want any confusion on that part, so I want to correct that for the record.

The audit council meets to…. Through a number of functions, you know, they make recommendations. They meet the auditor general if it's required to deal with their performance audit reports. They also consider matters requested by the auditor general. So again, that will dictate how many times a year they need to meet. If the auditor general requires more meetings of the audit council he may request those. At this point I don't know if there will be additional meetings required, but at least a minimum of three times a year, which we feel is an adequate amount if everything runs, I would say, quite smoothly.

The area that we canvassed earlier with respect to the budget is in

section 9. At that time I indicated that the budget for the office of the auditor general for local government as provided in the votes is $2.6 million. Of that $2.6 million, the amounts that are paid to the audit council…. That is where the amounts will be paid from. So the audit council has to be mindful of the fact that they are included within the budget of the auditor general for lo-

[ Page 10427 ]

cal government. The total amount is $2.6 million.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said more than once that essentially, we need to trust the process. We need to assume that things are going to be done appropriately, that the appropriate qualifications are going to be there, that there's not going to be political imprint on the makeup of the board and so on.

Personally, I don't want to have to rely on the goodwill of everybody involved in order to make sure that this operates effectively and efficiently. So I want to just ask one more time whether or not…. We've had a general answer, but specific answer: is there anything in the act, this

section or any other

section of the act, that limits the number of meetings that the audit council can convene? Apart from any good sense about what the budget is or anything else, is there anything that limits how many times the audit council makes a decision that they want to sit in a particular year?

I'll give an example at the very beginning, perhaps, of their first term. The audit council is going to be adopting a code of conduct and ethics, as mentioned in

section 21(6). My assumption is that in adopting a code of conduct and ethics that that is going to be done. The discussion about what that code of conduct is going to look like will be done at meetings of the audit council.

I could see there being eight or ten meetings to take care of that business and the other initial business in terms of setting up how the audit council is going to be run and managed. So in the first year alone I could see, you know, a dozen meetings, and it adds up. So I'm just wondering whether there is anything in the act, other than the goodwill and the good sense of the audit council, that is going to restrict the number of times that the audit council could meet in any given fiscal year.

[1515]

Hon. I. Chong: It's not inconceivable that in the first year there would be more than three meetings, obviously, to get the audit council members together to discuss the code of conduct. If the member suggests there could be as many as 12 meetings, that could be likely if they wanted to meet each month to ensure that was taking place.

But the expectation is that once the audit council is underway and the auditor general has been established and they have established a forum in which they can meet and discuss issues of concern, the number of meetings will be minimized. We would want the audit council to have an opportunity to meet at least three times a year so that they can ensure that the role they're playing with assisting the auditor general for local government can be done effectively.

Regardless, however, the amount that they can spend will be subject to the maximum of the budget that has been established for the office of the auditor general for local government, and that is the $2.6 million. The majority of those dollars are obviously for the purposes of the auditor general, so it is not designed to provide additional dollars simply for the audit council to meet at will.

So again, I would say that the $2.6 million is being provided to run the office of the auditor general and to remunerate and pay for expenses related to the audit council, and they will have to ensure that they fall within those parameters.

B. Ralston: I understand from news reports that the audit council and the auditor general's office will be somewhere in Surrey. So will these meetings take place in Surrey?

Hon. I. Chong: I guess the short answer would be not necessarily, because it is possible for the audit council to conduct meetings electronically, which means that they may not have to meet in a certain place. It is also conceivable that because of the makeup of the audit council, because they don't know geographically where they will be located, they may choose a place where it's convenient so that if they do want to meet in person, they come to a place where the majority of the members, perhaps, are located geographically. So there isn't a requirement that they meet in Surrey.

B. Ralston: Well, given what I understand, again from news reports — the minister could confirm this — the intention is to lease premises in Surrey. Obviously, there's a cost to that. Yet we hear that that space may not be even used for the meetings of the audit council, incurring additional expense elsewhere. Can the minister confirm that, one, there is a signed lease for the premises in Surrey? Secondly, what's the annual cost for that lease?

Hon. I. Chong: The location in Surrey that has been chosen is one that will be for the office of the auditor general for local government, not for the audit council as such. The audit council, as I say, can meet electronically or by other means.

[1520]

There is currently no signed lease for any office space in Surrey. We are still looking into space and, obviously, looking at space that is similar to what government's needs have been in the past to ensure that we are able to find a space that is suitable for an office of that nature.

B. Ralston: Just further, then, on this particular section, can the minister advise what dollar amount in the $2.6 million budget is pencilled in for the annual cost of the lease?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated earlier, we have not signed a lease, and we are still looking for space, so we would not have a figure that I can provide to the member

[ Page 10428 ]

as to what the amount would be until such time as the space actually is acquired.

Again, the $2.6 million was the amount that was determined that would allow an office of the auditor general to be established, allow for the hiring of staff, allow for even some contracting out for services if in fact the auditor general is not able to hire up staff. It does provide room for that. Because the office will need to conform to the parameters of that budget, they will have to ensure that the costs associated with the office can fit within that budget of $2.6 million.

B. Ralston: But surely there must be some rough estimate of the likely lease cost. The $2.6 million, I take it, didn't come from nowhere, so there must have been a rough costing. Again, the minister wasn't able to confirm what the salary of the proposed auditor general would be, doesn't seem to be able to give any kind of an answer as to what the lease cost would be, yet there is a figure of $2.6 million.

Is the minister saying that it's not necessarily $2.6 million, that it might be $5.8 million or $10.9 million or $15 million? There must be some basis to the figure that's been chosen.

I appreciate that it's a rough figure, that it's an estimate. But surely, for planning purposes, there is an estimate for this cost. I can't imagine that a responsible public servant would present a draft budget without an estimate of the annual lease cost. So can the minister dig a little deeper there and provide an answer?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, with debating the legislation…. At the moment we don't have the figures that comprise the calculation of the $2.6 million because I am debating legislation. I know that when we get back to the budget estimates of the vote, I may be able to provide the member with more detail at that time. But I just don't have that information at this point.

K. Corrigan: The minister has confirmed that a site in Surrey is being considered for the headquarters, the office, of the auditor. Can I ask the minister: is the E division headquarters being considered as the office site for the auditor general? Is there a specific site, and if so, is the E division headquarters under consideration?

[1525]

Hon. I. Chong: I cannot advise the member what site is being considered. We are utilizing the services of Shared Services B.C., who are looking into possible sites that are available in Surrey. So I, unfortunately, don't have any information that I can provide to the member at this time.

K. Corrigan: Considering that we're looking at the cost related to business and meetings of the audit council and the auditor general generally, I'm wondering if it's possible for the minister to find out that information and share it — if it's possible to be shared — with us?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, with Shared Services B.C. looking into possible sites, I'm sure that once they make it known to us, then we will all be made aware of what site has been chosen.

K. Corrigan: But just to confirm, the decision has been made, and I assume by the ministry. Or perhaps the minister can clarify that. How was the decision made that it was going to be centred in Surrey? Was that a decision of the ministry? And why Surrey, if that's the case?

H. Lali: Subsection (3) — the meeting of the audit council can be convened "by the chair or by 2 members of the council with prior notice to the chair." Is there a limit as to how far ahead the notice has to be given?

Hon. I. Chong: This goes back to about the audit council and making rules governing the conduct of its business. So that would be something that they would set as part of their procedures as to what notice is required.

H. Lali: Under the same section, it says that the meeting of the audit council "must be convened as soon as is practicable." And

section (ii) under that — it's section (3)(b)(ii): "if there is no auditor general or there will be no auditor general within 12 months…." I'm just sort of a little confused. If there is no auditor general, why wait up to 12 months to have a meeting? I wonder if the minister can explain what is really meant here by that section.

Hon. I. Chong: In a case like this, it's really designed to deal with the auditor general who may be coming to the end of his or her term. It's to ensure that the audit council, because of the important work that they do, is convened as soon as is practical to ensure they are able to meet in the event that there is no auditor general because that auditor general has concluded their term. So that is the purpose of subsection (3)(b)(ii).

H. Lali: I mean, on the one side there is, from the

[ Page 10429 ]

government's perspective, this real big need to put in an auditor general. Say the auditor general finishes their term. You want to wait up to 12 months if there's no auditor general?

[1530]

I mean, why is the limit 12 months there? It says "within 12 months," but it could be 11 months and 29 days. If there's no auditor general, would it not actually be more practicable to try to get an auditor general in place as quickly as possible?

The audit council ought to meet and not have to wait 11 months and 29 days — you know, within 12 months. Would the minister not agree?

Hon. I. Chong: With respect, I think the member is not reading this correctly. It's not that there is no auditor general. It's basically trying to convey that there will not be an auditor general within 12 months.

So if we are coming to the last year of the term of the auditor general, you know that at the end of that year, within 12 months, there will not be an auditor general. Therefore, the audit council needs to convene meetings as soon as practical in order to be able to start the recruitment process to have an auditor general in place.

If it is, say, January, you know that by the end of the year, within 12 months, there will not be an auditor general because that term, or the end of that year, is coming up.

H. Lali: Actually, the

section is badly worded. Anybody can read that and make two meanings out of it. But thanks for the clarification.

Again, under the same subsection (3), meetings of the audit council actually must be convened "at the request of the minister to consider suspension or removal of the auditor general." What if the request comes from the UBCM? Is it only the minister or, as it's outlined, the audit council that would convene?

Why couldn't requests come from the UBCM? After all, the AGLG is put in place to look after the affairs in terms of auditing of member organizations of the UBCM. Why would a request from the UBCM not trigger a meeting of the audit council in the same way that it would with the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: To clarify subsection 21(3)(b), these points — (i), (ii) and (iii) — are there to provide for, I would say, circumstances which are not frequent but are more unique in nature — for example, at the request for consideration by the audit council of a matter specified by the auditor general; or in cases where, within 12 months, we know that the auditor general's term will come to an end; and thirdly, "at the request of the minister to consider suspension or removal of the auditor general."

Those would be specific circumstances. The audit council will not be required or is not called to meet at the request of the minister for any general purpose; nor are any other representative bodies. So it is to deal with very specific circumstances.

H. Lali: Okay. In this case I'll be more specific, then. What if the UBCM wanted the consideration of suspension or removal of the auditor general? Could they not trigger a meeting under this section?

[1535]

Hon. I. Chong: Earlier in our debate I indicated there could be circumstances where an auditor general is removed for cause or for incapacity. If circumstances like that have arisen, then the audit council must be convened as soon as practical to deal with that circumstance, to consider that suspension or removal so that they can continue on with taking a look at what the next steps are.

Again, it is meant to deal with a specific circumstance in order that when those circumstances occur, the meeting of an audit council is convened as soon as practical, that they do not allow the circumstances to exist without coming together and dealing with the matter.

K. Corrigan: Again, I apologize if this has been canvassed earlier, because I wasn't in the House at all times. My question for the minister: will the meetings of the audit council be held in public?

Hon. I. Chong: I indicated earlier that the audit council is on the supervisory role. It is an advisory body. Therefore, they are not a decision-making body, so they would not be compelled to meet in public, nor likely will they.

The objective of the audit council is to allow the auditor general for local government to meet with the audit council with respect to, as I say, reviewing some of their draft performance report, considering recommendations of that nature. So it is advisory. For that reason, they would be meeting primarily with the auditor general, or if they have to meet themselves to discuss their conduct of their running of their meetings, they can do so on that basis.

K. Corrigan: I'm thinking of, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, which receives reports from the Auditor General for the province of British Columbia. The Public Accounts Committee consists of members from this House. Certainly, those meetings are absolutely public.

I don't quite understand given that — we'll deal with this later — under

section 23 the audit council "may provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report submitted under subsection (3)." So there is going to be discussion in these meetings about the content, I presume, of these audits of municipal governments. Surely there would be interest

[ Page 10430 ]

from either the public or the municipal councils that are going to be affected by these audits.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain — given 23(4), there will be discussion on the content of the reports and questions, I presume — why these meetings are not being held in public.

Hon. I. Chong: The member has already skipped forward to

section 23 where it talks about performance audit reports. That is perhaps a correct lead-in as to why the audit council does not meet in public.

[1540]

The objective, of course, is for the auditor general for local government to be able to present draft audit reports and speak with the audit council. To have those meetings made public while the draft audit reports are being considered could compromise the independence of the auditor general and the report.

When his or her report is made public, that is when that information should be made available to the public. So obviously, you do not want an auditor general who is considering and dealing with the draft report to have undue influence as a result of public and open meetings, because that would in fact compromise that report.

The member makes reference to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I believe that when reports are brought forward to Public Accounts — I have served on Public Accounts myself — those are when the reports have been finalized and brought to the attention of the members of Public Accounts. So it is after the reports are finalized, when they are made public, that the members have access to those.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering: will there be any mechanism by which the local governments will have any knowledge whatsoever of what kind of input the audit council had into the final report of the auditor general?

Hon. I. Chong: I think this is where sometimes it does get confusing, because members are trying to equate this to a select standing committee, which is not what this audit council will be performing. The audit council is not designed, through its responsibilities and mandates, to go into the substance of the report of the auditor general. Rather, the audit council is there to review and consider the performance and monitor the performance of the auditor general.

The substance of the report is that of the auditor general. The auditor general, therefore, has the ability to issue that report, make it public, once he or she has determined that all of the information that he or she wants to make public can be published.

K. Corrigan: I should probably ask this in

section 23, but just to finish off this piece about the business and meetings of the audit council. But

section 23 does clearly say that the….

The Chair: Member.

Section 21 approved on division.

section 22.

H. Lali: This

section with the annual service plan provides that the "auditor general must prepare a proposed annual service plan and submit it to the audit council" for their review and sets out what must be included in the annual service plan.

That's a lot of power being afforded to the audit council, and all of these sections we've seen are putting a lot of power into the hands of the audit council, an appointed body. It's not even elected. Even if it was appointed from elected officials within the municipalities and the regional district, it would be one thing. But these are political appointees who have a lot of power to do a lot of things that often select standing committees of the Legislature don't even have.

So I'm just wondering: if you've got the audit council doing all of this, what's the role of cabinet in all of this?

[1545]

Hon. I. Chong: I know the member likes to be partisan and continues to suggest that the audit council are political appointees. While they certainly are going to be appointed through order-in-council, I want to assure those who are watching and listening to the debates that those who are selected will in fact have core competency requirements and will have to act in a most professional regard. I do not want to impugn the audit council members prior to them being selected.

The objective of

section 22 here, with regards to the annual service plan, is to remind the member that the service plan is in fact a high-level document that provides overall direction for the auditor general for local government's operations in the upcoming year. The audit council may make comments or recommend changes consistent with their role in reviewing and monitoring performance of the auditor general for local government.

As well, the audit council, being made up of knowledgable experts, may have useful input for the auditor general for local government in preparing his or her service plan. The legislation provides sole discretion to the auditor general for local government to select the performance audits that will be conducted, and the audit council's comments to the auditor general for local government on the service plan are non-binding.

So contrary to what the member has suggested, the audit council is able to review and make recommendations, but they are non-binding. The auditor general for local government will in fact be able to make the determination, ultimately, of what his service plan should

[ Page 10431 ]

look like.

H. Lali: Subsection (4) under

section 22 states that the "audit council must review the proposed annual service plan and, subject to subsection (5), may provide comments and recommend changes to the plan as the audit council considers appropriate."

Again, that's handing over more powers to the audit council in terms of the annual service plans. It's frightening to see how an unelected body of political appointees handpicked by government, by the minister, is having so much power to be able to do this. We've gone through some of the other sections, where we know the way the criteria are set up for the selection of these appointees. It's very heavily favoured towards one sector, and that is the business sector.

It's putting a lot of control into the hands of the business sector, the genesis of which — the municipal auditor general — was when the Premier made a promise to a group of business people when they lobbied her during the leadership. So it scares me when I see a

section such as this handing over so much power.

How can the minister assure this House and, through this House, the people of British Columbia that the audit council is not going to be the tool by which business tries to get its way with locally elected municipal councils and regional districts?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I acknowledge that the member has his message box. I feel that he is trying to impugn the professional conduct of audit council members even prior to them being selected. That's unfortunate, because I am looking forward to this audit council, who are experts with skills and experience that will provide, I believe, valuable work for the benefit of the auditor general for local government who eventually will provide good value-for-money audits that assist local governments in the best way possible.

However, we will continue to disagree on how this position will come to exist and the kinds of benefits it provides. I accept that that disagreement will continue. I have said on a number of occasions that the audit council may make recommendations but that those recommendations are non-binding. So on more than one occasion, the member has alluded to the fact that they are these sweeping powers when I've again indicated that they are non-binding.

[1550]

If he were to look further in this

section 22 and drop down to subsection (6), again, it states: "The auditor general must consider the comments and recommendations provided by the audit council…." "Must consider" does not say that they must accept the recommendations. Again, I state for the record that the recommendations that the audit council makes are non-binding. If the member persists to suggest otherwise, then he is fabricating that in his own mind.

H. Lali: The hon. minister said that I was casting aspersions on a body of people who aren't even appointed yet. I'm just going to draw a corollary here to give the minister an example that it's not just the members of the opposition. There are people out there who are very concerned.

Here's a release from the UBCM dated February 10 of this year. It's from Heath Slee, who's the president of UBCM, and it's regarding the province…. It says: "Province to Review Municipal Taxation and Local Government Revenue." Here's where I'm going to make the analogy. The first one is the expert panel review of business taxation, and this states here:"The guidelines for the expert panel state that 'the review will include an examination of municipal property taxation of business and its impact on business competitiveness and investment. Recommendations must address issues of affordability and sustainability for local governments within the framework of the Community Charter.'"

Then the panel members are…. You know, you'll see them. There's the chancellor from UBC, the chief financial officer from Goldcorp, the senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. There's a Canadian managing partner with KPMG; a managing partner with Ernst and Young; the vice-president, academic, from University of B.C.; a former deputy minister, province of B.C., adjunct member. That's Dale Wall in there.

Then the second group is the local government revenue sources review. Both of those were both announced earlier. In the UBCM's own newsletter, this is what it says about that:

"Both reviews were topics of discussion during the meeting of UBCM's executive of February 3, 2012. During a portion of the meeting where we were joined by" — he names the minister — "the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, the executive noted that local governments would be concerned that a panel investigating municipal taxation lacks local government representation. The executive also commented that the composition of the expert panel might lead to questioning of its recommendations."

Hon. Chair, people out there are going to be audited and investigated by the AGLG in the municipalities and regional districts. You have so many people that work there. You have elected officials. You have senior staff that they hire. You have workers, who do all the groundwork, and support staff. There are so many people that are out there thinking the same thing here.

The UBCM put that in the letter that I just read regarding the two other panels that were set up. Now you have an audit council which is not going to have any representation from local government. Yet the UBCM's letter that Mr. Heath Slee, the president, sent out on February 10 talks about the expert panel review of business taxation and the local government revenue sources review, complaining of the very same thing that members on this side of the House have been complaining about for

[ Page 10432 ]

months and months to this minister and to this Liberal government.

You have a problem on your hands — it's what we have been saying to the government, hon. Chair — and the problem is one of trust. It's an issue of credibility for this government. And the government's credibility, its very credibility, is being questioned time and time again.

We've seen it happen with the TransLink board when elected officials were thrown off that board — fired — by a previous Transportation Minister and political appointees were appointed to the new board of TransLink. You would think that this minister and this government would have learned something from that debacle. We've seen what's happening at TransLink — its chaos, indecision and everything that's taking place there — and they're complaining.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I'm glad my friend from Peace River, the Minister of Transportation, is listening attentively to this debate. I'm glad he is listening, and I hope that better judgment prevails. I've known this member for 20 years now. I hope that in this case, better judgment prevails.

With TransLink, one of the biggest complaints, they're saying, is that there's no democracy there. There are no locally elected officials on that board. They're political appointees that the government chose to make so they could have control over it. It's the same thing with the audit council.

[1555]

The Chair: Member, I'm bringing you back to

section 22.

H. Lali: The context of this

section is that we've seen this happen elsewhere. I'm asking the minister whether the minister has learned anything here in terms of the outcomes that they expect and why those outcomes would be questioned even before the audit council is put in place. The minister said that I'm casting aspersions as the critic in questioning before the audit council is even hired and put in place.

There's a rationale for it. Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time not to put political appointees on the audit council and rather have some democracy in this to make sure it's done in a fashion that is not going to have people questioning? UBCM is questioning the previous two panels.

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I understand we're on

section 22 dealing with the annual service plan. The question that the member poses is a question that he has posed with other sections we've previously debated. Again, I respectfully accept that we will agree to disagree and that he does not accept the facts that members who will be selected to the audit council will be chosen based on their experience and based on some core competencies, that it is an open process and that anyone who wished to be on the council could have applied based on the postings that were made available.

I am waiting for a question with respect to the annual service plan.

H. Lali: In the previous answer the minister said….

The Chair: Member for Fraser-Nicola with a new question.

H. Lali: On subsection 22(6), when the minister responded — not to this last question but two questions back — she quoted subsection (6) and said: "The auditor general must consider the comments and recommendations…." It doesn't say that this is written in stone, that they have to do it. It says "consider." Why would the word "must" be in here, not the word "may," in subsection (6)?

Hon. I. Chong: Allowing the audit council to review and comment on but not to approve the annual service plan does in fact balance the audit council's status as a separate body through which the auditor general reports with the auditor general's need for independence in carrying out the duties and exercising the powers of their office — which, as I say, does allow for the auditor general to consider but not accept those recommendations if he or she chooses not to.

K. Corrigan: On the working of subsection 22(4) and subsection 22(6), where we talk about comments and recommendations for changes to the annual service plan by the audit council…. The minister said earlier that oversight by the audit council was intended, I believe, to be considering the performance of the auditor general. But I just want to confirm that the minister is not suggesting that the audit council could not make comments and recommend changes to the plan that were substantive.

Certainly, I want to make sure the minister agrees that the audit council could, for example, when considering the annual service plan, say: "I think you should do a performance audit that looks at the advisability of doing public-private partnerships as opposed to, for example, providing water services in-house." That would be within the jurisdiction, and appropriately within the jurisdiction, of

section 22(4) of the audit council, would it not?

[1600]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't recall that I used the word "oversight." Perhaps the word "monitoring" is what I used. There is a difference, because the objective of the audit council is to monitor the performance of the auditor general for local government. I just want to make sure that

[ Page 10433 ]

we don't substitute, I guess, a more direct action that is not there.

I want to make it clear here, though, that the purpose of the audit council, in making recommendations, is such that they may make recommendations to the auditor general for local government's service plan, but they cannot do so….

That is contrary to a number of items, which are listed in subsection (5). "The audit council may not recommend changes to the proposed…service plan that would (

a) affect the estimate as approved by Treasury Board under

section 9." Nor can the audit council make certain recommendations that would "result in the omission of a matter referred to in subsection (2) (

a) or (b)…." Nor can the audit council make recommendations that would "contravene subsection (3)."

As you see in subsection (3): "The proposed…service plan must not specify the local governments whose operations will be the subject of a performance audit."

Once again, the audit council is not there to dictate to the auditor general what audits will take place, nor which local governments will be selected for audits. That is the sole discretion of the auditor general for local government. I wanted to ensure that the member is aware that it's not about the substance of the audit. That is up to the auditor general for local government to make those determinations.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm reading the same sections that the minister is reading, and I don't see that particular limitation in subsection 22(4). I don't see any limitation that would prevent the audit council from making the recommendation that I mentioned in my last question.

[D. Black in the chair.]

To make it more concrete, could the audit council make a recommendation that the auditor general should, in the coming year, look at whether or not it would be better for local municipalities to contract out or go into a P3 type of agreement as opposed to doing it in-house? That's particularly if the audit council were to say: "You are going to be concentrating on this project. It's probably going to cost you half a million dollars to do it. We can't increase the budget, the approval that we already have. We think that a priority should be in this area instead."

Could the audit council make that recommendation?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the audit council may make recommendations. They may make any variety of recommendations, but the auditor general for local government is not bound by those recommendations. As I've stated on several occasions now, they are non-binding.

Take a look at

section 22(2)(b)(ii) and (iii). You will see, very specifically, where it states: "(ii) the general criteria that the auditor general will consider to determine the need for and priority of performance audits, (iii) themes on which some or all performance audits may be based…."

Certainly, there could be discussion on the themes that performance audits may be based on. There could also be discussion with respect to the need for and priority of performance audits, but again, all that in the context of the audit council making those recommendations, providing input. But the auditor general for local government, because of this independence, has the sole discretion to either accept or reject, because they are non-binding recommendations.

B. Ralston: Further on

section 22, and this arises out of a comment that the minister made. The minister said that members of the audit council have not yet been appointed.

[1605]

I understand that on Friday, February 3, the government announced that it was seeking nominees for the audit council, so that's been almost two months. Can the minister advise how many applications she's received, and is there a plan to approve those recommended five or so people soon?

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, I don't have the figure for the member. That process is being handled through the board resourcing and development office.

B. Ralston: Well, as the minister responsible for the file and as the minister directing the legislation through the Legislature, is the minister saying that she's not aware of where that's at and whether selections are ready to be forwarded to the minister for her consideration?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, there is a process that has been underway. The posting did take place. It is closed. Those applicants who are interested are now being handled through the board resourcing and development office. Their due diligence is occurring. Once they have completed that, I expect to be notified.

H. Lali: I know yesterday…. It was during questions and answers. The deadline for the AGLG position closes tomorrow, I understand. Could the minister tell us how many applications have come in for the AGLG position?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, that posting is being handled through the Public Service Agency. Because it is not yet closed — it's still an active posting — I don't have that information.

H. Lali:

Section 22(7) — I want to read it. "After finalizing the annual service plan, the auditor general must, (

a) as soon as is practicable, provide the annual service plan to the audit council and the minister, and (

b) after

[ Page 10434 ]

having provided the annual service plan in accordance with paragraph (a), publish the plan."

Almost all of this reporting is to the audit council. Almost everything that the AGLG is going to do or publish is going to go to the audit council. Everything is going to the audit council. Again, a general theme that is forming, not just in every

section but in the subsections, is the amount of power that this government is actually giving to the audit council.

Here we have another

section where it just keeps talking about more and more power that is given to the audit council — to be able to review everything, to give recommendations and that the minister must consider recommendations. Here we talk about the annual service plans, and then the audit council can recommend changes to this service plan.

I mean, isn't this just a little bit too much power given to the audit council? Perhaps some of that should have been with the cabinet itself.

Hon. I. Chong: No.

H. Lali: Well, that was a pretty succinct answer from the minister. I don't agree with the minister's answer, but we'll move on from there.

Subsection (8) says: "Sections 13 and 16 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act do not apply in relation to the auditor general." Could the minister explain what is meant by that?

[1610]

Hon. I. Chong: The member probably is aware that all ministries and agencies through government are required…. There are provincial requirements for service plans for all ministries and other government organizations.

Given that we have set up the service plan's requirements here in the legislation very distinctly…. That is the reason why it does not fall within the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Otherwise, we would have the auditor general for local government having to provide two public service plans, one as required through legislation and then one required through the BTAA.

That is the reason why it does not need to comply — because it is legislated on how its service plan is to be prepared, with respect to the legislation in

section

Section 22 approved on division.

section 23.

H. Lali:

Section 23 is about performance audit reports. Subsection (2) says: "The local government may provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report within the time given by the auditor general, which time may be no less than 45 days." I commend the minister for actually putting that in there.

My question is: for instance, if, after an audit, there are some comments regarding whatever was being investigated for that municipality or the regional district or was being audited — that is, there's a chance to fix something — then is the municipality or the regional district allowed to take the remedial action that may be recommended by the auditor general?

After having done the remediation, would that then form a part of the final report of the auditor general — that whatever the problem was has been fixed and that the municipality or the regional district was able to cooperate in a good-natured and friendly way to fix whatever problem was there?

Hon. I. Chong: In regular business audits, I guess what does occur is that the auditor has an opportunity to meet with the management of the entity that's being audited and to provide an opportunity for a response.

What we are trying to provide in

section 23 is in fact that same opportunity by allowing the audited local government to review and comment on the draft performance audit of their operations. That ensures that those most affected by an audit are aware of the matters that will be raised in the report and provides an opportunity to bring inaccuracies or other issues to the auditor general's attention.

As the member has indicated, providing a minimum time period for comments ensures that local governments will have adequate opportunity to discuss a proposed draft audit report. Also, as the member will see in subsection (3), requiring that a

summary of those comments be included in the final performance audit report ensures that the public are aware of the local government's perspective.

So it does provide for that interaction, and I think that is what local governments would want to have.

H. Lali: That actually leads me to subsection (3), which the minister alluded to just now.

[1615]

When the local government does reply…. It says here: "The auditor general must include in the proposed final performance audit report a

summary of the comments given by the local government…." Is this an unedited

summary by the local government, or is the auditor general going to provide a

summary of whatever main comments the local government has made? Basically, the

summary — is it edited, or is it going to be unedited?

Hon. I. Chong: The

summary would be one that is prepared by the auditor general, which is normally the circumstance when an audit is provided to an entity and there is a report back. Then the auditor general takes that information, provides a

summary and produces that. So

[ Page 10435 ]

that is normal in the circumstances of an audit.

H. Lali: On this

section here's my last question, and then we're going on to the member for Surrey-Whalley. So the

summary. Will the local government have a chance to actually view the

summary and say, "That's fine," or is it that the auditor general is not going to even show that

summary? Because there might be some error in the

summary.

Hon. I. Chong: That would, again, be up to the auditor general. The objective, of course, is to provide an opportunity for the local government to correct or have adequate opportunity to discuss the report and an opportunity to bring inaccuracies or other issues to the auditor general's attention. You would expect that if the auditor general has matters or issues brought to his or her attention, especially those that are inaccurate, the auditor general would, in fact, include those and incorporate those to ensure that the perspective of the local government is included in the

summary.

It will be up to the auditor general to do that, and I would expect that their professional conduct would require them to ensure that an accurate depiction of the audit is there.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the purpose of subsection (4), which gives the audit council the opportunity to provide comments? I understand — and that's certainly normal practice — that the body or organization that's being audited has the opportunity to examine the report and provide comment that would be appended to the report. Can the minister explain the purpose of this subsection?

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of subsection (4) is, in fact, to ensure that the audit council can fulfil its role in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general.

What the audit council may be able to provide comments on…. If they feel that the auditor general, for example, has gone outside the scope of their authority…. If the auditor general began to investigate financial matters when clearly its objective is to do value-for-money performance audits, then the audit council would need to provide comment to the auditor general and advise the auditor general that, in fact, they have gone beyond their scope.

Therefore, the audit council, who is responsible for reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, needs to make that known to the auditor general.

B. Ralston: Well, I think I can understand the obligation of the audit council to supervise, in a general way, the performance of the auditor general. But this is a provision that gives the audit council the power to comment on a specific report prior to its publication, prior to it becoming public. I mean, despite the minister talking about the so-called hallmarks of independence, this seems to me to be a substantial infringement upon that independence. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by it.

[1620]

Would the minister agree that this compromises the independence of the auditor general? The minister has assured us that this person will be someone of the highest calibre and professional integrity, yet this gives the opportunity to the audit council to interfere.

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council…. As I said, one of their primary functions and roles is to review and monitor the performance of the auditor general. So the audit council can or may provide comment to the auditor general. Again, the auditor general may not take into consideration those comments.

If the audit council felt obliged to make comment as to the recommendations that an auditor general may be publishing in the report that were outside the scope of the work that he or she is doing, I think it's fair to say that the audit council would want to bring that to the attention of the auditor general.

For example, if the auditor general were about to publish a report that had recommendations that clearly questioned the policy decisions of a local government, which we canvassed earlier and said that it is not what the auditor general is permitted to do, or if the auditor general has gone outside the scope of their responsibility and began an investigation into financial matters — which is, again, beyond what they are able to do — the audit council would at least be able to provide that comment to the auditor general and suggest that they have gone beyond their scope.

That allows them to perform their duty in terms of reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general. The auditor general, then, would know that his or her performance is, in fact, being reviewed, that he or she is, in fact, going beyond the scope of the role that has been created for the auditor general for local government.

Again, the audit council may provide comments. The auditor general may choose to ignore those. This at least will provide the audit council with the ability to perform its functions of review and monitoring.

B. Ralston: I don't find the example that the minister has chosen very compelling. I mean, surely the minister speaks of a highly skilled professional, likely going to be paid over $200,000 a year, a leader in the field — although not from the B.C. audit office, which is the national leader — and her example suggests that that person would make an elementary mistake about the scope of their inquiry.

Really, isn't the purpose of this provision to provide a political screen by the audit council to a report before it gets published in a way that might embarrass some of the

[ Page 10436 ]

government's political friends in municipal government?

Hon. I. Chong: The answer is no.

B. Ralston: Well, I can see that the minister didn't want to answer that question, particularly.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Usually the answers are a little more fulsome.

Anyway, looking again at subsection (4), because the ambit of debate in these matters is fairly narrow, as the minister knows, it says that the audit council may provide comments. Would those comments — and it's not clear from the way this

section is drafted — be published along with the report?

It looks like there's a provision that says a

summary of the comments given by the local government. Would these comments by the audit council be published along with the report so that the public could know what the concerns of the audit council were with the report, if that's the case?

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council may provide comments. Those are not comments that are included or published with respect to the final audit report.

B. Ralston: Would those comments be subject to freedom-of-information requests?

[1625]

Hon. I. Chong: The appropriate place for comments that the audit council makes would be in the annual report. If there are comments that the audit council deems are important with respect to its role in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, they would make that information a part of the annual report.

B. Ralston: Well, this

section is a bit more specific than giving the audit council the power to make comments in t