2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th 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)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Day of Remembrance and Action to

Stop Violence Against Women

Thorne

Abreast in a Boat teams for

breast cancer survivors

Mayencourt

Iron Horse Youth Safe House

Sather

Scrabble champion Dean Saldana

J. Yap

Hope Haven Transition House in

Prince Rupert

G. Coons

B.C. Special Olympics

Krueger

Oral Questions

Annual reporting by B.C. Coroners

Service

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

Impact of government funding on

B.C. Coroners Service

A. Dix

Hon. J.

Les

Austin

Handling of child death review of

Cody Fontaine

L. Krog

Hon. J.

Les

Call for reinstatement of

independent children's commissioner

L. Krog

Hon. J.

Les

Impact of B.C. Rail–CN Rail

agreement on ranchers

C. Wyse

Hon. K.

Falcon

CN Rail response to public

concerns on proposed Lac la Hache log sort

Chudnovsky

Hon. K.

Falcon

Simpson

CN Rail response to concerns of

Cariboo regional district

Macdonald

Hon. K.

Falcon

Simpson

Handling of child death review of

Cody Fontaine

Hon. J.

Les

Tabling Documents

Child and youth officer for British Columbia,

annual report, 2004-2005

Motions without Notice

Powers and role of Crown

Corporations Committee

Hon. M.

de Jong

Tabling Documents

Fact sheet

summary of statement of expenditures for Air India trial

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour and

Citizens' Services (continued)

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

de Jong

H. Lali

Estimates: Officers of the

Legislature

Estimates: Legislation

Estimates: Ministry of Finance

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Taylor

J. Brar

Macdonald

Estimates: Management of public

funds and debt

Estimates: Other appropriations

Proceedings

in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued)

Gentner

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Conroy

A. Dix

[ Page 2139 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: Today in the gallery I'm very pleased to introduce my niece Victoria Salt, a student at Maple Ridge Secondary School, who is here today watching the Legislature and looking at how we work. I would like the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my great pleasure today to introduce the Hon. Benoît Pelletier, a minister for the province of Quebec. He is the Minister Responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs and Francophones within Canada. Minister Pelletier has travelled to British Columbia to sign the agreement for cooperation and exchange on francophone affairs, the memorandum of understanding between the government of Quebec and the government of British Columbia. Accompanying Minister Pelletier from Quebec is Claude Longpré, attaché politique. I would also like to welcome Paul Deroy from the Federation of Francophones of British Columbia. To them all I would say:

[The member spoke French.]

Would the House please make them all welcome.

[1405]

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Kat Hartwig. She's with Wildsight, and she is here from Brisco in my riding. I would like you to join me in making her feel welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House today two political junkies, both friends of mine, both happily retired teachers: Gerry Galey and David Hobson. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me real pleasure today to introduce two constituents of mine: Brett and Marylynn Rakuson. Brett is the president of my constituency association, and Marylynn is well known throughout the Interior Health Authority for her passionate advocacy on behalf of health care. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Gentner: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House two constituents of mine: Jill Paisley and Andrew Quick. To Jill and Andrew, I want to make it sure. It's the electoral commission that got it wrong. I am from North Delta, but I sit here as Delta North.

R. Fleming: I rise in the House today to introduce some guests who are with us in the gallery from the Four Corners Language Institute based here in Victoria. With us is Carlos Serra, teacher, owner and director of the school. He's also a prominent volunteer soccer coach in our community, I might add, and not a bad player. He is joined by head teacher Adina Appenhiemer, teacher Paul Cox and ten students from Mexico, Japan and Korea. Could the House please make them all feel welcome.

J. Horgan: Another day and another fundraising auction. Today I had the pleasure of dining with some friends from the Port Alberni area and the vast alternative education program. Joining us today in the gallery are Nathalie Ladouceur-Thomas, educator; Marcus Payne, student; Ben Konning, student — two fine young men who are doing great work in the alternative program. Also joining them from la belle province is a member of the Katimavik program, Jessica Gauthier. Could you make the four of them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: I would like to introduce 23 students in grades eight to 12 from the Traditional Learning Academy home school. Their teachers are Mr. Linder, Mr. Hewlett and Ms. Gladhill. Six parents are also joining them today. The school was established in 1989 and is located in Surrey right on 136th Street. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome today.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to rise in the House to introduce three very special people in my life. First, I would like to introduce, from the riding of Comox, two significant people: my brother-in-law Kevin McAreavy and his wife Jeannie.

Also, to my colleagues I would like to introduce a very extraordinary person of significance in my life, from Cariboo North. It is with great pleasure I introduce to the House the love of my life for 40 years, my wife Sheila. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: In the gallery today I have a constituent and friend — and a neighbour, because New Westminster is so small — and a great activist in our community. We're certainly valued to have her as a resident of New Westminster. Please welcome Sharon Bard.

L. Mayencourt: Today in the gallery we have Valdine Zevediuk, Elaine Fisher, Etienent Souldre, Pat Smart, Mary Vaive and Beth Wilhelm. These women have come today to talk to members of caucus about something they're involved in, called Island BreastStrokers. They are all survivors of breast cancer, and they are inspiring the world. I ask that all of us make them feel very, very welcome today.

[1410]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

TO STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

D. Thorne: On December 6, 1989, at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, 14 young female engineering students were murdered by a lone gunman because of

[ Page 2140 ]

their gender. In 1991 the Canadian Parliament passed a private member's bill which was brought forward by a B.C. NDP MP called Dawn Black, which enshrined December 6 as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

Beyond commemorating the loss of these 14 young lives, this day represents a time for all of us to pause and reflect on the phenomenon of violence against women in our society and to think about the women and girls who live daily with the threat of violence or who have died as a result of gender-based violence.

Last but not least, it's a day for all of us to reflect on concrete actions that we can take to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls — our daughters, our partners, mothers and sisters.

We have made some significant changes. There are fewer firearm-related deaths. Our police forces now receive training on domestic violence, and we have raised public awareness through such political activities as white ribbon campaigns across Canada. However, we have also seen many setbacks, including reduced funding for women's shelters and decreased social assistance. Every year our own memories of this horrible event fade.

This December 6 we must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that violence against women is eliminated and that all women and girls can live in dignity with respect and full equality in our society. On December 6 many communities across B.C. have special events. I ask all the members of this House today to please take the time to attend one of these events this year.

ABREAST IN A BOAT TEAMS

FOR BREAST CANCER SURVIVORS

L. Mayencourt: In 1994 while I was building a wellness centre in the West End, I met a woman by the name of Judy Riemer. Judy wanted to create a quilt to tell the story of breast cancer survivors. Judy was a survivor herself. I was very impressed with her story, her courage and her stamina. So I, along with two of her girlfriends, started the life quilt for breast cancer.

In the ensuing years, the life quilt travelled across Canada, and thousands of people — men and women — stitched their stories into the life quilt. Judy died a couple of years ago, but the quilt lives on and continues to speak to women and families across this country.

About the same time as the life quilt was created, Dr. Don Mckenzie at UBC did something unthinkable. He took 20 women and stuck them in a dragon boat, gave them some paddles and said: "You go, girl." This was unthinkable because in the old days, women with breast cancer were supposed to stay at home and rest. But these women were proof that exercise could be undertaken by these women.

Today there are over 100 dragon boat teams in British Columbia. Last year I was able to host or be part of the Dragon Boat Festival Abreast in a Boat in my riding where 5,000 women from across the world paddled in False Creek, and it was a wonderful experience. These women are an inspiration to all of us. They are survivors. They work together. They provide each other with emotional, spiritual and psychological support.

Next year Abreast in a Boat will take place in Singapore. The women that I introduced a little earlier from the Island BreastStrokers will be one of the teams that will be there. I take my hat off to the women of the dragon boats, and I thank you very much for this opportunity to acknowledge them.

[1415]

IRON HORSE YOUTH SAFE HOUSE

M. Sather: The Alouette Home Start Society is a coalition of dedicated community service providers and individuals that are working together to find community-wide solutions to address issues of homelessness in the communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The society formed the Iron Horse Youth Safe House in June of this year to address youth homelessness in our area and beyond. The Iron Horse Youth Safe House supports the universal rights of youth to safe housing, adequate food, proper legal representation, accessible education and health care. Their staff advocate for and assist youth in accessing community resources, other professionals, employers and local merchants.

The safe house is geared for youth between the ages of 13 to 18. The maximum stay is 30 days. As soon as a youth arrives at the Iron Horse they're given the opportunity to sleep, eat, shower and get to know the staff and other residents. Once they're settled into the house, staff assist them to start achieving the goals that have been established. Thirty-seven percent of youth gain employment during their stay, and 42 percent enrol or are attending school.

The Iron Horse has already had many successes. One of those is the case of Jane Doe. Jane grew up in foster care and was rapidly reaching the age of independence. She arrived at the safe house with a youth agreement but still needed to secure employment and housing within 30 days. Jane had few contacts in Maple Ridge but had found excellent supports through a local church. During her stay at the safe house, she obtained full-time employment with the help of Bowman Employment Services. She was also referred to a youth worker to help in apartment hunting.

Jane is currently living in Maple Ridge on her own in her own apartment and is holding down a full-time job. She's been independent for almost two months.

Mr. Speaker, Alouette Home Start Society is doing some wonderful work.

SCRABBLE CHAMPION DEAN SALDANA

J. Yap: I rise today to talk about Richmond's best Scrabble player. Dean Saldana is a 23-year-old business student at Kwantlen University College in Richmond. While he is young, he has a great talent and passion for the game of Scrabble. Dean competed in the world championship of Scrabble held this month in London,

[ Page 2141 ]

England. This meant he had to play eight games a day for three days against the best players in the world — certainly not an easy task.

In 2003 he placed 73rd in Malaysia as the youngest member of the Canadian team to compete at the World Scrabble Championship that year, which is certainly an impressive result. But this year he did much better. I'm proud to report that after 24 gruelling rounds of shuffling letters and looking for anagrams to make the best scores possible with the letters dealt to him, Dean did much better this time round. In London he finished in 13th place, proving that a lot of smart people come from Richmond.

I'd also like to congratulate Montreal's Adam Logan, who won the event, and Dorval's David Boys, who placed seventh. Both were also members of Canada's Scrabble team in this event.

I'm sure that this young man continues to play Scrabble, and he'll improve further. I hope to report to the House in two years at the next world championships that Richmond has a new world champion.

HOPE HAVEN TRANSITION HOUSE

IN PRINCE RUPERT

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize a vital service that has operated in my community of Prince Rupert for close to 25 years. The Hope Haven Transition House opened in Prince Rupert in March 1981, following three years of hard work by a group of local dedicated feminists. Prince Rupert Options for Women became concerned about the issues of battering when they were approached in 1978 to act as advocates for a local woman who was assaulted by her husband. An application was made to the Secretary of State for a grant to study the incidence of wife assault in our community.

This study was carried out, and as a result, Options for Women began canvassing for local support. These women also began taking victims of family violence into their own homes on referral from the RCMP and local hospital.

After one year of operating this emergency shelter system, it was found to be inadequate for several reasons and was discontinued. In March of 1980 the Prince Rupert Transition House Society was founded. On March 8, 1981, Maud Bevan House, as it was then named, opened its doors.

The Hope Haven Transition House Society is a feminist organization committed to addressing family violence with and on behalf of our community. It is dedicated to the empowerment of women and children. To this end they provide safe, secure and confidential refuge to women and children. They advocate social changes towards a non-violent society. They provide and promote community awareness and education on violence against women and children, and ongoing support for women and their children to make independent decisions about their future. The provision of these services is non-judgmental, supportive, empowering, confidential and unconditional.

[1420]

I'd like to take this moment to honour some of the founding heroes of this society: Janet Northcott, Susan Tixon, Ellen Little, Kathy Booth and Pat Wilson. I would also like to commend the entire staff at Hope Haven Transition House for their energy, hard work and dedication to the women and children in need.

B.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago this week on November 26, 1980, the British Columbia Special Olympics was created to embrace individuals with an intellectual disability and celebrate their personal achievements. The B.C. Special Olympics organization has worked hard to provide sports programs and competitions to meet the needs and goals of these individuals. In 49 communities across British Columbia, B.C. Special Olympics offers year-round programs to 3,500 participants in 14 sports as well as local, provincial, national and international competitive opportunities.

This is about more than just the physical benefits of improved health and athletic ability. The participation in sports gives athletes the chance to develop social skills, cultivate friendships, strive for and achieve goals and increase their self-esteem, enabling athletes to win in sports and in life. None of this would be possible without the thousands of coaches and other volunteers who give their time to make these events and programs a reality, and also the generous donations from supporters, corporations and foundations.

To acknowledge the 25th anniversary of the B.C. Special Olympics, the Premier hosted a celebration on November 15 at the Legislature. With athletes, volunteers and sponsors from Vancouver Island in attendance, this ceremony celebrated the ongoing achievements of the organization and the participants.

The Premier also unveiled a proclamation making November 20 to 26 of this year B.C. Special Olympics 25th Anniversary Week. Joanna Steele from Nanaimo was present and shared her Special Olympics experience, saying: "I finally feel I belong somewhere and am accepted for who I am."

I'd like to congratulate the B.C. Special Olympics for their 25 years of making it possible for these wonderful athletes to achieve their goals.

Oral Questions

ANNUAL REPORTING BY

B.C. CORONERS SERVICE

C. James: In 2001 the annual report of the B.C. Coroners Service stated its responsibilities as the following: "Ensuring that no death is overlooked, concealed or ignored." My question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General explain why the B.C. Coroners Service has not released a single annual report since 2001?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, it continues to be the case in British Columbia that no death is overlooked and no death is ignored. The B.C. Coroners Service is a profes-

[ Page 2142 ]

sional organization of men and women around the province who investigate every death when it occurs and make sure that British Columbians' needs are looked after in that way.

Frankly, I think it's irresponsible for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that these people are not doing their job.

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

C. James: I think it's irresponsible for the minister and the government to point fingers everywhere else, particularly at staff, instead of themselves. You would think that someone, anyone, in government might ask the question about why there hadn't been a coroner's report since 2001. We know that 713 child death files have been overlooked or ignored. We know that 546 secondary child death reviews have been neglected and concealed. The Coroners Service budget was cut by 15 percent by this government. It's clear now that 1,259 child death reviews fell through the cracks.

So my question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain what else has fallen through the cracks because of the financial squeeze that this government put on the Coroners Service?

[1425]

Hon. J. Les: Nothing is falling through the cracks. All deaths in British Columbia are appropriately, professionally and carefully reviewed by the Coroners Service. That includes all child deaths in British Columbia. Those, too, are properly, carefully and professionally reviewed by the Coroners Service.

We have already canvassed the fact that 713 files did not receive the second stage of review. We have committed to ensuring that that review happens in a timely way, as quickly as that can be done. We recognize that in some of those cases, that will take time because of other processes that are underway. With respect to the 546 cases the member refers to, those reviews have been done, and they will be reported out on as soon as the Coroners Service is able to do that.

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

C. James: It's clear from the minister's own comments that 713 files went missing. It's clear from the direction here that since 2001, there has not been a report from the Coroners Service. So I question how the minister can say that everything is just fine.

Let's take a look at the Coroners Service and take a look at what they have changed. In 2002 an information bulletin from the Coroners Service says: "In response to the need to reduce expenditures, part of our strategy has been to reduce the number of autopsy and toxicology examinations."

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he explain what impact reducing autopsy and toxicology examinations has had on the coroner's ability to determine cause of death and make recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: This much I know for certain, Mr. Speaker — that the professionals in the British Columbia Coroners Service will in no way compromise the level of professionalism that is required to properly conduct their obligations.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING

ON B.C. CORONERS SERVICE

A. Dix: The same document from the chief coroner says: "We may not always be in a position to answer all questions that may arise without the benefit of autopsy and toxicology results." They can't have those because the Solicitor General and his colleagues cut their budget.

After these changes the Coroners Service no longer needs to show the definitive cause of death and only a reasonable, presumptive cause of death. B.C. Liberal policies are to lower standards. The Coroners Service, by policy, is not getting all the answers.

Can the Solicitor General explain how best guesses will help formulate recommendations for the public and government to prevent future deaths?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's highly unfortunate that members opposite continue to impugn the reputation of members of the Coroners Service in British Columbia. This is a professional group of people who do excellent work on behalf of British Columbians. I should also point out to the member that in four out of the last five years, the coroner's budget was actually underspent. This year there was a $1.4 million increase to the coroner's budget, and the coroner has made us aware that he will require some additional funding so that he can perform the reporting function more fulsomely. That funding will be provided as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Just a few minutes ago the Solicitor General said in this House that nothing has fallen through the cracks. After the last two weeks, after his admissions around 713 child death cases, that's an extraordinary thing to say. The Coroners Service has cut the number of inquests by two-thirds. They've cut the number of autopsies. They've cut the number of toxicology reports. B.C. physicians are so frustrated that many of them are refusing to sign death certificates. There has been no annual report — a question the minister didn't answer — and 1,259 child death reviews have been shelved or kept from the public.

These are children like Austin Martel and Brandon Seymour. Their parents want answers, but they can't get any because this government's Coroners Service has become dysfunctional.

[1430]

Will the minister admit that budget cuts have put the financial squeeze on the B.C. Coroners Service and they can no longer do their work adequately?

[ Page 2143 ]

Hon. J. Les: We have already made clear that there evidently were issues around the transition from the Children's Commission to the child death review unit within the Coroners Service. We're developing that information to see what went wrong and why those 713 cases were not reviewed by the child death review unit.

What the members opposite continue to do is characterize those 713 files as having gone completely unreviewed. That is patently false. The appropriate coroner's review or medical doctor's review was done in each of those cases. I think it is important for members opposite to finally get that. I thought for a while that they simply didn't understand that fact, but today I think I'm forced to come to the conclusion that they simply don't care what the facts are.

R. Austin: Coroner's inquests under this government are also losing ground. In 1997, 34 coroner's inquests were held, and the average time between the date of death and the inquest was 6.4 months. Only 13 inquests were held in 2004, and they are taking much longer to be held. In cases like Jeff Berg and Harvey Charlie's granddaughter, it took years. One still hasn't been called into the death of Savannah Hall.

Can the Solicitor General explain why the Coroners Service has been subjecting families to such long delays?

Hon. J. Les: Again, we have a member who is impugning the reputation of the Coroners Service. The Coroners Service does not subject British Columbia families to any undue delay or discomfort. As the member well knows, there are cases where it takes some considerable time before an inquest or other proceedings of that nature can actually happen. Sometimes there are criminal investigations, and sometimes there are other processes that need to occur first before an inquest can be held.

It is obviously inappropriate for any of us to insert ourselves politically into those matters. I do not propose to do so. I think the member should respect that it is going to take, actually, in some cases a number of years before those processes can be completed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Skeena has a supplemental.

R. Austin: Let me quote the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. "The coroner is no substitute for reviews." It was this government that cut the coroner's budget and downloaded extra costs. As a result, fewer inquests are being held, and they're taking longer. In addition, autopsies that would have been necessary in the past are no longer being done, and families are left without answers.

I will ask the Solicitor General again: why has this government allowed B.C. Coroners Service to become so dysfunctional?

Hon. J. Les: I reject categorically the assertion by the member opposite that the Coroners Service in British Columbia is dysfunctional. It simply isn't so. We have a professional Coroners Service within British Columbia that is serving British Columbians well.

HANDLING OF CHILD DEATH REVIEW

OF CODY FONTAINE

L. Krog: I want to talk about one of these outstanding cases. Little Cody Fontaine was only three years old when he was attacked and killed by Rottweilers in his Maple Ridge home just after Christmas in 2004. Two days following that attack, his grandmother questioned whether Cody's mother, a convicted drug trafficker, was capable of caring for Cody. The child and youth officer said she and the coroner would both investigate. There has been no public reporting since. It's been ten months now.

Can the Attorney General confirm that his office asked the child and youth officer to investigate, and can he explain what progress, if any, has been made?

Hon. J. Les: I do not have a specific answer to the member's question, and I will take it on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new question, member?

L. Krog: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1435]

CALL FOR REINSTATEMENT OF

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER

L. Krog: There obviously have been no answers and no recommendations in the Cody Fontaine case. Brandon Seymour's mother is still waiting. Harvey Charlie has tried for years to get the government to pay attention to his granddaughter's death. Austin Martel's family was told in a letter that his case would simply be dropped. And Daniel Smith's family was told that if a fuller review is ever done, it won't go public.

This government shut down the Children's Commission, and this government cut the coroner's budget. The result is that parents and families are not getting answers, and this government is not learning.

Will anyone on that side of the House commit to the families and parents of these children and to this House that they will reinstate an independent Children's Commission so the public can finally get some answers?

Hon. J. Les: I want to reiterate once again that all child deaths in British Columbia are appropriately and professionally and carefully reviewed by the Coroners Service. Then they go on to a second-stage review process in the child death review unit, which has been functioning within the coroner's office since January of 2003. All of those reviews will be reported on publicly. As I've said previously, they will be reported on individually or in aggregate. We've already seen one report that comments on infant deaths, for example, from

[ Page 2144 ]

January of 2003 to June of 2004. I would commend it to the member for his review. I think it's indeed a commendable document.

Those files from prior to 2003 that unfortunately did not receive that second-stage review will be reviewed. They will be commented on publicly. Everything will be completed as it should be.

IMPACT OF B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL

AGREEMENT ON RANCHERS

C. Wyse: I have a rancher in my constituency by the name of Marvin Monical, who says this government's offloading of the costs of privatization has hurt his business. Prior to CN buying B.C. Rail, the construction and maintenance of fencing that helped to keep cattle off the rail was done by B.C. Rail. Ranchers were compensated for cattle that were killed on the rail lines, and B.C. Rail was required to upkeep the fencing.

According to Mr. Monical, he followed procedure, identified his dead cattle, took pictures and sent that information to CN for reimbursement. He has heard nothing from CN to date.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What has the minister planned for area ranchers, already hit by hard times in the industry, as far as compensation for dead cattle on the rail lines formerly owned by B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. CN and CP have a policy in place — both federally regulated railways, of course — of maintaining fences along the rail lines.

It would help the member to know that Transport Canada is actually working on a new regulation with the railways that will more clearly define — because, frankly, it's not very clearly defined — what the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the respective parties are with respect to fencing. I can assure the member that we will take an active

part in that discussion and ensure that the ultimate regulation will be done in a way that benefits ranchers across this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: I do. I appreciate that the minister is going to get involved at this late date. I wish he had been involved, along with his government, before this problem got downloaded onto my constituents. Before they were not involved, there was a clear process in place. B.C. Rail looked after these problems.

The cost of privatization of B.C. Rail has been completely offloaded onto ordinary British Columbians. Government hasn't looked after individual landowners' interests, only itself. Now ranchers who have rail lines through their ranch land are being negatively impacted. Ranchers who have been fighting for their viability through the BSE crisis are now facing the offloading burden put upon them by this government.

The Minister of Transportation has said in this House that the financial impacts of the sale of B.C. Rail have been good for northern communities. Can the minister stand in the House today and tell B.C. ranchers that the privatization of B.C. Rail has been good for their business?

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the member opposite to actually go talk to the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. The president will tell him that this government — this government here, actually — came in with a $9 million fencing program, a program that will help ranchers in their fencing to ensure that they keep their cattle and livestock off of the highway system. That was something that was very, very positively received.

The other thing I would say is that this member always just looks at one side of the equation and conveniently forgets the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of benefit — like the northern development fund, the investment in the port of Prince Rupert, over 1,000 new railcars and benefits right across the province.

CN RAIL RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CONCERNS

ON PROPOSED LAC LA HACHE LOG SORT

D. Chudnovsky: It's interesting. This minister seems to think that if he only talks louder, British Columbians won't notice that he isn't answering their questions. But British Columbians are noticing that he isn't answering their questions, and here's another one.

There's an industrial site in Lac la Hache that's been vacant for 20 years. B.C. Rail owned the property. CN is now going ahead with plans for a log-sort operation on this site. The site is surrounded by residential homes. CN says it doesn't need the okay from people in the area because they're governed federally. Last Thursday at a public meeting in Lac la Hache, residents expressed their concern and opposition. The minister constantly tells this House and the people of B.C. that the privatization of B.C. Rail was good for the province, but here's another case where the deal creates problems for British Columbians.

What will the Minister of Transportation do for the people of Lac la Hache?

Hon. K. Falcon: I believe the piece of land that the member is referring to actually operated as a sawmill for over 50 years on that particular site. There's actually nothing new to industrial processes taking place along the lands alongside railways. There are often complaints against the attendant noise associated with that, whether it's car-shunting, log-sorting or the operation of sawmills or what have you. I imagine this member's duty over the next few years will be to hunt down every possible complaint he can find.

But I can tell him that this land operated as industrial land for well over 50 years as a sawmill. There was

[ Page 2145 ]

a public process. People had an opportunity to air their concerns. We'll let that process work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: For the information of the minister, that industrial site hasn't operated as a sawmill for over 20 years, and it is now surrounded by residential homes. That's the issue. That's the problem that the people of Lac la Hache have. That's why they met last Thursday night. That's why they're asking for help from this minister.

Is the minister going to tell those people in Lac la Hache the way he has told British Columbians about level crossings and about derailments and about fencing? Is he going to tell them that the solution for British Columbians is to go to Ottawa and have their problem solved? Or is he going to do something about it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, the member is right. The sawmill hasn't been operating for many years. Sadly, like so many sawmills that that member's government drove out of business, that's not an unusual…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: …situation. I'm sure that members are very well used to seeing businesses….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The minister continues.

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, the issue here that I think the member, in all seriousness, should be aware of is that we have a pine beetle kill operation in process in British Columbia. That is creating extraordinary strains and extraordinary requirements, and the applicant has put forward, as I understand, an application for some log sorting. That is something that is going to be increasingly important in this province as we try to deal with the impacts of the beetle kill.

[1445]

I think that we have to develop a sense of perspective about this. Yes, there will always be concerns raised by residents regarding any of the industrial uses that are typically associated with lands alongside a railway. But there was a public hearing held. Folks had their opportunity to speak both for and against this, as I understand, and we'll let that process work.

B. Simpson: I find it quite hysterical that the minister, in order to try to find some way of dodging this question…. He's got to take the dismal decade and expand it back ten more years.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: Yeah, I guess so. I guess it's getting more dismal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member continues.

B. Simpson: The point that the minister is missing…. This is not an issue of industrial expansion in Lac la Hache. In fact, the residents in Lac la Hache have said they would like more industrial activity. This is an issue of public policy. It is an issue of what rights the public have with respect to CN's use of what used to be B.C. Rail property.

In 2004 this minister stated in this House: "We retain public ownership of the railbeds and rights-of-way — total public ownership through the B.C. Railway Co." Total public ownership.

So if we retain total public ownership of the railbed and rights-of-way, why is it that the public's concerns expressed last Thursday in Lac la Hache will not be considered by CN in this particular case?

Hon. K. Falcon: Naturally, of course their comments will inform the decision that is ultimately made. But I think this member well knows, whether it was under B.C. Rail or whether it is under CN, that any of the lands alongside a railway have always been exempt from local zoning control. The member should know that, should be aware of that, and that a lot of the industrial-type activities that take place along railways have taken place for as long as railways have been in operation.

In fact, I believe there was a previous application under B.C. Rail for the same kind of re-log or log-sorting operation some ten years ago, so this is not unusual at all. A public hearing was held by residents. They had an opportunity to speak both for and against, and I have no doubt that input will help inform the ultimate decision.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I'm glad the minister mentioned the previous application and the fact that it was in fact turned down when British Columbia owned the railbed and the rights-of-way. Then British Columbians had the ability to have their voices heard, which they do not now.

This government claims that they have total public ownership over the railbed and the rights-of-way. The fact is that CN is acting as if they own that property. CN did not attend the meeting on Thursday. CN is

[ Page 2146 ]

brushing off public concerns. That's the issue here. I want to know what this minister is going to do about it.

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess I am, once again, having to refer the member to actually read the agreement. The agreement will confirm what appears to be apparent confusion in the member opposite's mind — that, actually, we are the landlord and the owner of the railbed, the tracks, the rights-of-way. I would encourage the member to actually go and read that.

The difference between ten years ago and today, of course, is that we actually have a pine beetle situation that is very serious in British Columbia. As a result of that, I think we have an opportunity to ensure that, in whatever form, we all try to work together to ensure that we can deal with the rather extraordinary situation we have in this province, where you have an enormous amount of wood coming from the forest sector trying to get to the marketplace.

[1450]

The member opposite talks about nobody being able to be heard. Yet a public hearing was held, and I understand some 60-odd people attended. People spoke for and against, and that will help inform the decision.

CN RAIL RESPONSE TO CONCERNS OF

CARIBOO REGIONAL DISTRICT

N. Macdonald: The Cariboo regional district has been told that its zoning and land use planning processes no longer apply to B.C. Rail properties. They did before the sale of B.C. Rail. They do not now. That's the issue.

The Minister of Transportation is dismissive, so I'm going to direct my question to somebody that I know understands what is going on here, which is the Minister of Community Services. Will she stand up for local government? Will she represent the Cariboo regional district, take their land use concerns forward directly to CN and solve them?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have the details of the issue in the Cariboo, but perhaps the member could bring them to my attention. I'd be happy to look at that.

S. Simpson: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation tells us to read the agreement. Maybe the minister would be so kind as to provide an agreement where he hasn't blacked out all of the specifics before giving it to us.

As CN pushes ahead with this log-sort operation in Lac la Hache, they are apparently able to do this without paying attention to — and they certainly don't seem prepared to pay attention to — provincial environmental regulations.

Now, we know that we have been successful on this side of the House in forcing the Minister of Transportation to object to CN's bullying around this. My question, though, is to the Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of Environment commit today that he will represent the Cariboo regional district's environmental concerns to CN in a very forceful way on the question of the Lac la Hache log sort?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad the member for Vancouver-Hastings is availing himself of the interest in log sorts up in the Cariboo. One thing I can tell the member for Vancouver-Hastings is that, actually, the agreement, almost 1,000 pages, is available on the website. The only issues that are blacked out have to deal with personal privacy and issues that are consistent with personal privacy and the Freedom of Information Act. So actually, if the member wants to go through, he can look at clauses like 21.4, 21.7 and all the other clauses associated with environmental issues, and he can inform himself of the facts.

[End of question period.]

Mr. Speaker: I want to advise members of the House that at times when other members are presenting petitions…. There is an obligation that they have from their constituents to present petitions. So the bantering back and forth of whether it's right or wrong should be lowered in the fact that members have that obligation to present it, whether they believe in it or not.

HANDLING OF CHILD DEATH REVIEW

OF CODY FONTAINE

Hon. J. Les: Earlier this afternoon there was a question from the member for Nanaimo, which I took on notice. The question referred to little Cody Fontaine in Maple Ridge, who was attacked and killed by Rottweilers. The member wondered what had happened to that investigation. As a matter of fact, I'm advising the House — information has just been provided to me by staff — that that investigation continues, and it's being conducted by the Ridge-Meadows RCMP.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the honour to present the 2004-2005 annual report of the child and youth officer for British Columbia.

[1455]

Motions without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF

CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm seeking leave to move the charging of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, which is charged with the task of reviewing annual reports and service plans for B.C. Crown corporations. The committee is provided with the usual powers, and we have members. I think beyond that, the motion is the standard one for the select standing committee, and I seek leave to move its assignment.

[ Page 2147 ]

[That the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations be appointed to review the annual reports and service plans of British Columbia Crown Corporations.

In addition to the power previously conferred

upon the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, the Committee shall be empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the

House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist

the Committee,

and shall report to the House as soon as

possible or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. W. Oppal: I ask leave to table a fact sheet

summary of the statement of expenditures for the Air India trial.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Calling the Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

[1500]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $192,838,000 (continued) .

C. Puchmayr: As we left off yesterday…. I did submit a fax to the minister's office, Madam Chair, with respect to the employment standards offices — the few that are still left. I think my question was with respect to the catchment area of those specific offices. Oh, is it appropriate to pass a document to the minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: what I might suggest doing is…. I apologize; I probably should have done this previously. I have an extra copy of this document, so rather than…. I'll read it into the record, and then I'll make sure the member has a hard copy as well.

For the Vancouver Island region — it's up to Bella Bella, including the Powell River region — those are the offices located in Nanaimo and Victoria. For the interior region, which has offices in Kelowna and Nelson, that would be Manning Park east to the Alberta border and from the U.S. border north to include the Central Okanagan region.

In the northern region there are offices located in Prince George, Dawson Creek and Terrace. The catchment area there would be the Queen Charlotte Islands through to the Alberta border and north to the Yukon border and south to the southern interior and Kamloops.

The lower mainland region, where the office is located in Burnaby, would be the lower mainland — metropolitan Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby, the GVRD communities. The Fraser Valley region, where the office is located in Surrey, would be through the valley out towards Agassiz and, of course, the southern border being the U.S. border.

C. Puchmayr: We talked about the number of complaints and the concern that this side had with respect to how complaints are logged and monitored. My question is: is there a breakdown of the disputes that are filed with the employment standards branch through the electronic filing? Is there a logging that would break down the demographics with respect to whether there is a proportionate amount of cases being filed by youth workers or child workers versus adult workers, ethnic workers, male and female workers?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: The best advice I have at the moment, and it may evolve, is that specifically with respect to the categories of gender and age, we don't believe there is a breakdown along those categories, and we are endeavouring to obtain more specific information about how the data might be broken down beyond that.

C. Puchmayr: The tracking that I had concern with was with the fact that the information coming into the branch would only come into the branch after the formal appeal kit was filled out and filed and the employer was served by the employee. My concern was: how do we quantify whether or not people are abandoning their appeals because of the onerous obligations that are put to them with respect to the new appeal formula?

[ Page 2148 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the delay, but maybe I can provide the member and the House with some additional information. We spent some time yesterday talking — and I think it was appropriate to spend the time — about the situations that may exist that give rise to a complaint.

The point that I should probably emphasize is the information and advice I've received that whilst one can understand the difficulty associated with an employee bringing a complaint against an employer, particularly at a time when they are still in the employ and the anxiety that would cause, by far and away the majority of complaints that the branch is dealing with are filed by individuals after they have left their employment, either voluntarily or involuntarily. So that is the first point.

To the extent that people are…. The notion of filing a document that gives rise to a complaint being generated against an employer — that undoubtedly occurs. In fact, it does occur, but it does not occur as frequently, by any stretch, in situations where people are still employed; although it does happen.

[1510]

The other bit of information that I think is relevant to the discussion the member and I are having relates to the fact that we can do a comparison of the number of complaints that are abandoned — the complaints that are brought to the attention of the branch and are then abandoned somewhere along the process. Prior to instituting the requirement that a complainant — those that are able — complete the self-help documentation, there were in the neighbourhood of 4,000 complaints abandoned annually.

It is proper, as I'm reminded, to point out that that is 4,000 against a larger pool of complaints. That now has dropped, however. First of all, the number of complaints has dropped, but also the number of complaints that are abandoned is down around 1,300 in a year. I would like to think, and I'm hopeful, that that is in part attributable to the fact that people who are pursuing complaints by virtue of the self-help kit are in a better position to judge at the outset whether or not they actually have a cause of action under the Employment Standards Act.

It is, I think, open to discussion for us, and we are continuing to try and determine to what extent that is so and whether or not the reduced numbers are attributable to other things. But I would like to think — and the purpose and objective was to ensure — that people pursuing their rights under the Employment Standards Act have a detailed and accurate understanding of what rights are afforded them under the act and an understanding of the process they need to employ to enforce those rights.

C. Puchmayr: Would it be safe to say, then, that the tracking system of people who are looking at the self-help process, which is a process that is mandatory prior to phoning an officer except for extreme cases…? Would it be safe to say that there really is no ability to come up with any true data where we could monitor or track some trends or possible impacts — maybe more so to younger workers versus older workers? I believe the figure was how many times people logged on to that system, and logging on to that system doesn't really break down what the needs of that individual are.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll provide some additional numbers to the member. Quite frankly, one can interpret these numbers differently, and I'm not claiming to…. I'm hopeful that the way I am interpreting them is in

part correct, but I'll share them with the member.

[1515]

This reflects the downloading of the self-help kits, and I may have referred to these numbers yesterday — now that I'm looking at them. I talked about how in '02-03, when for part of the year they became available, about 3,400 kits were downloaded; in '03-04, 42,000; in '04-05, 35,000; and then so far this year '05-06 — just under 15,000. So people are certainly going to the site and taking advantage.

Now, what I was going to say in response to the member's question — and I think it's a good question, a fair question — is: how can we know with any degree of certainty whether this tool is acting as something of assistance to people or as an impediment? I think that goes to the heart of what the member is suggesting. We have been doing some surveying of people who are making use…. I don't have the date for when the survey was completed, and I'll try to get that for a subsequent answer here.

These are the kinds of questions we asked people who had made use of the self-help kits: "Where did you get your copy of the self-help kit?" "How did you find the instructions provided?" "How did you find the amount of information?" "How did you find using the wage calculations required and the request for payment form?" So a series of questions, and we tried to track and ask the person, if they were completing the document at the end of the process, how their particular issue or complaint was resolved, and 344 respondents to the survey provided some of these answers.

They talked about where they got their self-help kit. Sixty-four percent said they got it at the employment standards office and then just under 20 percent from the website. My guess is that that number is different now than when the survey was taken, but we'll find out when the survey was taken.

"How did you find the instructions provided in the kit?" Sixty-six percent responded that they found the instructions in the kit easy to complete, 31 percent responded that they found the documentation somewhat difficult to complete, and 4 percent found it very difficult to complete. To what extent that was attributable to understanding the questions being posed, linguistic challenges, I don't know, but our objective certainly is to ensure that this tool that is designed to facilitate the complaint process is as user-friendly as possible.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister copy us with the details of that survey, including when it was taken.

[ Page 2149 ]

Was it a period of time when more employment standards offices were in existence, or was it a time after the reduction in the offices? I'm a little troubled by the 64 percent that came in and received the kits at the offices versus the 20 percent that picked up the kits over the Internet. I think it's easy to track people coming into an office and getting a kit, but the offices are not that accessible.

So this side would be interested in looking at the entire survey and the breakdown of the survey. Being aware of the time and my limitations through this process, I'm going to…. If the minister will agree to submit that information to this side, I can continue.

[1520]

But specifically in the case of agricultural workers…. There is a link on the employment standards branch page for information for agricultural workers. Basically, it tells you to read the 2005 memorandum of understanding. Could the minister please explain how this was derived, why we now have a memorandum of understanding where the signatories are different growers associations and farmworkers councils and how we arrived at this document? The document is dated 2005, so it's a fairly current document. What is the specific date in 2005?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I am referring to the correct document, and if I am, the member can indicate as such — the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, among what was then the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, the employment standards branch, the B.C. Agriculture Council and B.C. Agriculture Council member organizations. In the document I have, dated the 29th day of April, 2005, the final page lists those member organizations.

In short, the objective here…. It is one of a series of MOUs and signals a trend that the branch is pursuing within various sectors of the economy. It's a short document committing, in this case, the B.C. Agriculture Council and their member organizations and the employment standards branch to work together in a coordinated way, first of all, to recognize what some of the employment issues are — occupational issues relating to the sector — and commit to processes and cooperation to ensure that solutions are being sought to ongoing problems and, in effect, to work together to ensure that the needs of the workers and employers are being properly met.

C. Puchmayr: I've certainly been involved with a few negotiations, and this is actually the smallest collective agreement I've ever seen. One of the things that is glaring in its absence in this document…. And yes, I do have the page that lists the associations: the Cattlemen's Association, Cranberry Growers Association, Grain Producers Association, Corn Growers Association, Strawberry Growers Association — just to mention a few. What consultation was taken with…? You did mention that the genesis of this or the desire of this was to ensure some recognition of workers' rights. What consultation was done with workers' representatives or even labour representatives?

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: He may have been using the term loosely, but it's not a collective agreement, the document we're dealing with. I don't want to leave any impression in the House or for people watching that the memorandum of understanding is some kind of collective agreement. It's not. It is a general memorandum of understanding.

I should say to the member that it was primarily, and is, and the other sectors of the economy…. It is designed to and the objective was to provide some form of coordination among a variety of agri-industry organizations.

As I am reminded, part of what is being facilitated here is a clear understanding of the involvement that employment standards will have in terms of attending at various locations and dealing with workers.

I think the member knows what some of those issues were in the debate that has lingered over the years about farmworkers and ensuring that their rights are adequately protected, that they have access to employment standards officials and that employment standards officials are conducting themselves in a way that is helpful but minimally disruptive — although, as always, the objective is to make sure that the requirements and obligations that employers have under the act are being followed.

It is primarily that kind of a document and therefore engaged the attention of the various growers and producers associations primarily.

[D. Mackay in the chair.]

C. Puchmayr: I won't split hairs on the term, but a memorandum….

Hon. M. de Jong: Not with me around, you won't.

[Laughter.]

C. Puchmayr: My apologies for denigrating….

No, I won't split hairs on this, but a memorandum of understanding is an agreement. This was derived collectively, and it was achieved collectively between 25 employer associations. My concern with this is that it doesn't address…. I'm concerned about how the needs of the actual workers were addressed in coming to these bullet points of conclusion on basically what the wishes of this memorandum of understanding are to achieve.

[ Page 2150 ]

The evaluation says, just to read, that the "success of the partnership will in part be measured by complaint and audit results in future years using 2002 data…baseline," and the memorandum of understanding is "to be evaluated annually to ascertain results and the need for revision to program focus and direction."

If there's such a difficulty in filing complaints with this by linking on to the employment standards branch webpage and getting this document, what kind of input would the actual workers who are trying to get some address to their issues…? How would they actually play a role in identifying some of those concerns by those employees?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: It wasn't my intention to sort of chastise the member. Although I'm not a labour lawyer, he and some of his colleagues who have had extensive involvement with some of these labour matters I think will know that the term "collective agreement" under the Labour Code, for example, has a specific legal meaning. This document that we are dealing with is not that kind of an agreement. It is certainly designed to be an MOU, and that is the case.

Let me — just because we have dealt with it thus far in the abstract — point out what the goals of, as the document says, the partnership…. It is designed to be a partnership in terms of a program that engages the attention of the producer associations, as employers, and the employment standards. So if we go to the bottom of page 1 of what is really a two-page document, it talks about how, by virtue of signing on to this MOU, member organizations, largely of employers, are committing to improving compliance in the hand-harvesting sector, with a particular focus on the field crop industry.

What employers, by virtue of their association, are saying is: "We are committed, and we want to work with employment standards to improve compliance with the Employment Standards Act" — compliance that accrues to the benefit of workers, because the employment standards legislation is designed to provide those workers with rights — "and as a group of growers and producers, we want to work in our sector with employment standards to improve compliance." It goes further and says that the B.C.

Agriculture Council and its member organizations agree that they will not support or condone the utilization of unlicensed farm labour contractors. So again, an agreement or a commitment from an organization and its composite membership that says, "We think that's bad for workers, and we want to send a signal that we don't condone that kind of activity…."

A third example. It says here that under this agreed-upon program: "An officer of the employment standards branch would be assigned to liaise with the council and its member associations with initial priority on education with the hand-harvest sector." These liaisons would include visiting producer operations to further both the goals of the MOU and industry compliance with the legislation, including timely sharing of information related to non-compliance issues. We want to work together.

We want to ensure that workers' rights are protected, and one of the best ways to do that is obviously to ensure that workers understand what their rights are but also that employers understand what their obligations are and that they need to respect those rights.

I can read the next one:

As the largest employers of hand-harvest labour in B.C., the blueberry, raspberry, strawberry, field vegetable and tree fruit associations have not and will not condone any core violations, including the non-payment of wages owed to farmworkers and hand-harvesters by growers, farm labour contractors, processors or fresh packers.

Now, there's a fundamental right for a worker. You've got to pay them. What this association and its membership are saying is: "As a group, we recognize what those obligations are." We often have a saying on this side of the House — it sort of goes without saying — that you've got to pay your members. I guess the theory here is it goes a lot better with saying — that as an organization, we want people to know what their obligations are under the Employment Standards Act, and as a branch, we want to ensure that employers understand that.

[1535]

That's the rationale behind the document. As I say, there is a series of them that the branch is negotiating with various sectors — the restaurant sector, I believe, and the garment sector as well — all built around the same principles.

C. Puchmayr: How will the workers know that these points, or these visions, are something that they can govern themselves around and feel that they're protected by the legislation and the act?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I am going to cite some statistical information. I think we all have to be cautious about statistics, because one is inclined to interpret them in the way most favourable to one's own argument, but here are some. They would suggest a certain trend, but I don't think we should ever rely exclusively on the documentation.

I'll go back to 2001. Within the farm labour sector there were 67 complaints. In 2002 that went up to 75. In '03 it went down to 46 and in '04 to 38. This year so far, 23. That has an asterisk. I presume it's because the year isn't over yet.

Now, the argument that might follow is: "Well, you're not as available," or "You're not there to facilitate the receipt of complaints," and because of the unique qualities of the workforce and where they are located out on the land base…. But I note, also, that from '02 through to '05, site visits have gone up from 48 to 59 to 63 to, this year, 102 — where employment standards officers have attended and conducted interviews.

I will say this. It's my recollection, although I wasn't the minister at the time, that the branch has been working to ensure that those site visits take place in a way that works for workers and also respects the fact that

[ Page 2151 ]

they are visiting a jobsite and aren't unnecessarily disruptive for employers.

So the visits seem to be up; the complaints seem to be down. As I say, what we're hoping is that workers who are better informed about their rights, coupled with employers who are better informed about their obligations, represent an equation that equals fewer complaints and less need for the branch to be involved in a dispute resolution.

C. Puchmayr: I'll politely ask again: how would the employees know that there is some sort of vision that is designed to govern good working conditions on those specific sites?

Maybe I should add to it: is it mandatory that this memorandum is posted? Are there translations to these documents that are posted on the site, or is there an obligation by the employer to ensure that the workers are aware of what the employers' responsibilities are and what the employees' limitations are on the sites, including wages?

[1540]

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I want to offer to the member is: as an instrument for a worker to cross-check whether his or her rights are being respected, this document is wholly inadequate. It would do a worker very little good to go to the lunchroom and see this document. In fact, as a worker, I might look at this and ask myself: "What are my rights?"

The definitive listing of those rights is in the Employment Standards Act. That's why that law exists. What officers will do is attend at one of the site visits, and if they're going to a place where they know that a particular first language is predominant, they'll ensure that they have material with them in that language. They will ask basic questions. "Are you getting paid? Are you getting paid in a timely way? What are your hours of work?" In that way they try to derive some better understanding of what the conditions are and whether the employees are having their rights inspected.

This document represents an attempt and a declaration by the signatories that they wish to work with the branch to facilitate that process, to ensure that their members understand what their obligations as employers are so that they will respect and adhere to those obligations. With respect to the member's question about how a worker relies upon this to ensure that their legal entitlements are being respected, that, with respect, is not the intention of the document. It would be seriously lacking if someone were to purport that's what it's for, because it's not.

C. Puchmayr: You make my point most eloquently.

I think we started on the issue of the website and how difficult it is for employees to get information with respect to protection and rights. When you link on to the employment standards branch "Welcome" page and click on to a

section for agriculture workers, it gives you information for agricultural workers.

It's very short, and I'll read it. It says: "The Employment Standards Act and regulation sets out minimum working conditions for all workers covered under provincial labour laws. These webpages cover the special rules that apply to agriculture workers and employers in British Columbia. Read the" — and then it has a thing you can click on to — "2005 memorandum…. If you have specific questions, please contact…." Then it has an address and a phone number. When you contact that phone number, they want you to get a self-help kit.

He can respond to that if he likes. I'll give him the option, also, if he wants to move on to something that he said with respect to the numbers of complaints. I think the 2001 complaint or the 2005…. So far the complaints were very minimal. So I have some concerns with respect to the complaint process.

[1545]

I'll give you an example of a recent complaint, and I believe it was on or about October 4 of this year. It was at a farm in Maple Ridge where farmworkers from Mexico who came into this country under the Canadian seasonal agricultural workers program, under a contract from their contractor that brought them into the country to work, were promised a wage of $8 an hour, which is significantly more than the piecework rate, which is now only available for farmworkers, and it's greater than the training wage. Yet the working conditions were so deplorable on this farm that they staged a strike, and they asked to be returned to Mexico, where their working conditions were better.

I'll tell you what the working conditions were. They were living in construction trailers — drafty, with holes through them. They had no cooking facilities. They had to cook outside. So this is a complaint that you would think under a normal procedure would come through the Employment Standards Act, but it was a complaint through their contractor, and they came into this country under the Canadian seasonal agricultural workers program.

So if this is what's happening in the province…. I'm concerned that the statistics that we are seeing seem fairly low, and I would like to have the availability of the inspection reports and the time of year these inspections are happening on the farms. I know the minister commented with respect to not trying to disrupt the working. I'd be interested to see when these over 100 inspections happened, what time of year they were, what types of violations were found during those inspections and what remedial action was taken with respect to any possible infractions.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try to deal with, specifically, the seasonal worker issue first, and then we can come back. I don't know how much of an answer I have with

[ Page 2152 ]

respect to the details on the specific site visits. I'll not disregard it, but I'll try to deal with the seasonal worker issue first.

[1550]

I think members know, and I'm certain that this member knows, of course, that we are dealing with a program that was signed off upon and negotiated by the federal government — and, by the way, a program that as a resident of the Fraser Valley I am supportive of insofar as growers and producers were facing some serious labour shortage issues. So to the extent that those labour shortage issues can be alleviated through programs like this, I think that's a good thing. In fact, I think there may be a case, an argument to be made, for looking to expand that kind of program to other jurisdictions, and I am interested in exploring that.

But having said that, employers who participate in the program sign an agreement. In addition to the obligations they have under the provincial Employment Standards Act, they also assume certain obligations pursuant to the terms of the agreement they signed with the federal government. That agreement and those obligations include things like the cost of transportation and, as the member alluded to, specific obligations around conditions of accommodation.

The accommodation under the terms of that agreement must meet with the approval of the foreign government's agent. Now, I will have to confirm who is the agent for, in this case, the Mexican government, but there are some strict obligations. Beyond that, though, I think the member and I would agree that as employers, when Canadian people who are employing people in this country bring workers pursuant to this agreement to our country and to our province, they should and must adhere to those obligations. People should be residing in appropriate accommodation.

The employment standards officials, though, are primarily responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Employment Standards Act are adhered to. Are the workers being paid, are they working through proper hours — all of the things that the Employment Standards Act is designed to do to protect the workers in this country. Those protections extend, most certainly, to workers under this program, but the employers' obligations go further, into things like accommodations, when they sign on to this agreement.

It is quite proper for the member to draw attention to situations where those obligations may not have been met, and they should be met. It is a key part, I think, of this program moving forward and even, perhaps, expanding, for those who participate in it to demonstrate that they do so in good faith and that they are prepared to meet all of the obligations imposed upon them, certainly, by the Employment Standards Act and, secondly, by the terms of the agreement they have with the federal department HRDC.

C. Puchmayr: It's quite strange that we have a shortage of workers in that industry and very minimal standards and some very poor working conditions to such a degree that we have to bring workers in from other countries and offer them the equivalency of our minimum wage. It is very puzzling to wrap my mind around that concept.

But understanding that the minister certainly sees that there's possibly an issue here with this specific case I gave him, I submit that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that there are numerous cases such as this one. I would ask the minister if he plans to improve working conditions of farmworkers through possible legislation or regulation.

[1555]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to speculate — it would be improper for me to do so — around future legislative initiatives that come before this chamber. But I do want the member to know this. In fact, I wanted to convey to him a couple of things. For those of us who reside in the Fraser Valley, this issue of a labour shortage has been developing for some years now. We may find it odd or he may find it odd that producers are having difficulty attracting the workers they need in the hand-harvest sectors, but I can assure him that they are.

What a program like this is designed to do is try to assist them. What it is not designed to do and what the government has no interest in allowing it to do is to relieve employers of the obligations they have under the Employment Standards Act or under the agreements they sign with the federal government. So at the completion of each harvest season, officials with the employment standards branch of the provincial government sit down with representatives of the country from which workers have come — the example in this case, Mexico — to review what has taken place, to ensure that where there have been allegations of breaches of the law or obligations, they have been properly pursued.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about visitors to our country. So in addition to wanting to ensure that they are afforded all of the protection of the laws that exist here, we want them to feel welcome. We want them to feel good about coming back because we need them to come back.

If the member has information about other circumstances where, in his view, there has been inappropriate conduct or the obligations of the employer under either the act or the agreement haven't been met, then I want to know about it because we should pursue it.

But there is a flip side. And I know the member would not want me in any way to mislead the House. There is a flip side to this argument, and that relates to the stories that appeared on numerous occasions in — well, I'm from Abbotsford — the Abbotsford papers, interviewing people who had come from Mexico who were thrilled with the reception they had received. They were absolutely ecstatic at how they were being treated and made it clear that they intend to come back. Our job is to make sure that those are the stories, that people feel good about coming here, feel good about where they're working, that their rights are being respected, and that employers understand that that is an

[ Page 2153 ]

obligation they have. When that happens, my belief is everyone will benefit.

C. Puchmayr: I believe in this case, the Mexican farmworkers did have a negotiated minimum wage. My question to the minister is: what would the minimum hourly wage be for harvest crop farmworkers in British Columbia or for British Columbia citizens that are engaged in that work, as opposed to workers that are coming under the federal program?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: Just verifying that under the terms of the Employment Standards Act, wages in the hand-harvest sector are generally paid on a piece basis — whether it's by the flat in the berry industry or by the bushel in other industries. Whether a worker comes from British Columbia, from elsewhere in Canada or from another destination internationally, the obligation remains the same. The hourly minimum wage doesn't apply, although that does not mean that an employer cannot come to an agreement with an employee or a group of employees that would see a minimum hourly wage paid.

C. Puchmayr: I'd like to move on to child labour now. I would imagine that the minister has the appropriate staff to deal with child labour issues.

Under the law now in British Columbia, children as young as 12 can work. I know, minister, in my debate the other morning — the rebuttal — I made some comments with reference to newspaper routes. I want to ensure the House that I am not talking about newspaper routes or lemonade stands. I'm talking about children as young as 12 working in virtually any industry in this province and the regulations that were removed, which used to have a system of monitoring from the employment standards branch.

Among some things, it ensured that the worksites were safe. It ensured that both parents acknowledged and agreed that the young person could be employed. It ensured that there were considerations made with respect to the child's education. It governed safety issues with respect to proximity of stop buttons and safety shutoffs, and it also made provisions with respect to transportation getting to and from the worksite. There has been a very significant reduction in those protections.

So one of my concerns is: how many children between the ages of 12 and 15 are currently employed in the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: We would not know that figure.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to injuries on the worksite, I would presume that injuries that are reported on the worksite would certainly go into the record. So could the minister please explain or answer how many injuries there are with employees between the ages of 12 and 15 during this last fiscal?

[1605]

Hon. M. de Jong: The information I do have at my fingertips relates to a significant decrease in injury rates for young workers at a time when, of course, the employment rate for young workers is at an all-time high. What I don't have but will endeavour to get for the member are more specific numbers that he has requested.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister answer whether or not statistics are kept breaking down the specifics of the 12-to-15-year-olds category as opposed to now the 12-to-18-year-olds category?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure that I understand the request. Is the member seeking data on injury claims for workers between a certain age, and if so, which ages?

C. Puchmayr: Yes, that's correct, and it would be between the ages of 12 to 15. The other question that I had with respect to that: does Worksafe or the Workers Compensation Board break down the young…? I know there's a young worker injury rate. Do they actually break it down to 12-to-15, or is it merely the 12-to-18 calculation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The number that I have been provided with: for young people who have been working, age 15 and under, for 2005 we have reports of four injuries.

C. Puchmayr: A recent report that was done by a professor at Simon Fraser University showed some real concerns with young workers that were, in his words, intimidated and not willing to make claims. Is the ministry looking at some regulations with respect to workers in that segment and increasing protection to those workers?

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: If I might just take a moment and in the process provide the member with some information in answer to his question.

The dilemma that, of course, has plagued governments and society for a number of years is what ultimately gave rise to the change, and I'm hopeful that people who quite properly continue to examine this issue will at least acknowledge the accuracy of this fact. For years we deluded ourselves as a society that a requirement to obtain a permit was actually being followed. We knew that for decades, thousands of young people between the ages of 12 and 15 were working. Most of the members of this House, I suspect, at one time or another counted themselves among that group.

If you were like me and grew up on a farm, from the time you were old enough to walk, you helped. By the time you were 12, you were certainly throwing bales of hay on neighbouring farms.

The notion that people were abiding by the requirement to obtain a permit, as the law required, was

[ Page 2154 ]

a myth. We only had, through that period of time, a couple of hundred permits on file, and they related to work at, I think, the PNE mostly. It was the one place where people were actually abiding by that requirement. So we were hiding behind a myth that we actually knew how many people between the ages of 12 and 15 were working, because no one was getting the permit. That was through the '80s and '90s and into the early part of the new millennium.

So we made some changes. That change did not affect anyone under the age of 12, for which that permitting requirement remains, but it certainly changed the regime for young people between the ages of 12 and 15. They are now required and their employer is required to have parental consent on file and on record, which strikes me as being, first of all, eminently reasonable and eminently doable.

The initiative now, to come to the member's actual inquiry and question, is that there is a concerted effort underway to ensure that young people, their parents and guardians and employers understand the importance of meeting that obligation — the importance of actually having written confirmation of the fact that if a 14-year-old or 15-year-old is helping out and being employed and working somewhere and being paid for that, there needs to be parental consent.

We want to know that that child's parent or guardian is aware of the fact that they're working, and that the employer has satisfied that requirement that it's all right not just with the student but also with the parent or guardian of the student.

There is a concerted effort underway now to ensure that all of those parties understand the importance of the obligation and the importance of meeting it.

C. Puchmayr: One of the provisions that was removed was the safety check that used to be prepared by the branch. Now the onus is on a parent. My question is: does the minister feel that a parent going down to a worksite is conversant in understanding the safety that the child may be exposed to in that worksite?

[1615]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer…. Well, let me say this. Employers have obligations, and they exist vis-à-vis anyone that works for them. Those obligations relate to things that exist in the Employment Standards Act and also relate to regulations under WorkSafe B.C. or WCB, as it was formerly known.

Previously — and I think the member stated this correctly — there was an obligation that accrued to the director within employment standards, who was responsible for issuing a permit for that student between the ages of 12 and 14 and attaching certain conditions or making certain requirements and warranting certain safety obligations. I think the best thing I can say, again to the member, is that it was all a myth. It never happened. Thousands of students were working, and no one was getting the permit. None of that was taking place.

I would suggest that a better approach to this, recognizing that young people do want to work and earn some pocket money while they're in school — and we actually think that's a good idea within reason — is to ensure that employers understand what their obligations are vis-à-vis that young person and, under the Employment Standards Act and the WCB's WorkSafe B.C. regulations, to invest in that young person's parent or guardian some authority to ensure an added layer, if you will, of insurance and ability to track that those conditions and requirements are being met. The parent is far more likely to pursue it and far better positioned to pursue it.

This is an eminently more logical and practical way to ensure that work conditions for people entering the workforce on a part-time basis for the first time are having their rights respected with respect to safety and other employment conditions.

C. Puchmayr: The report by the professor at SFU talks about some very serious concerns in the governance or in the regulation of young workers. One of them is that a very high percentage of workers work unsupervised,

whereas there is a provision for supervision that's laid out in the policy. Some work with supervisors barely older than them, with no adults on the site.

[1620]

I listened to what the minister is saying with respect to this matter, but my concerns are when there is a drastic reduction in fieldworkers for employment standards branch, there is a significant reduction in jobsite inspections with Workers Compensation. To me that raises a very serious red flag — a red flag with respect to children on the worksite.

My question is: does the minister plan to look at the situation and deal with some regulation or legislation that will put more protection into young people working in potentially dangerous environments?

Hon. M. de Jong: Some of that focus and initiative is already taking place. I mentioned the education drive, and I am advised that already this year there have been upwards of 140 such seminars designed to emphasize to employers and the parents of young part-time workers the requirements that must be met under the act and the rights under the act.

I've got regulations in front of me regarding the Employment Standards Act, which relate to adult supervision.

Section 45.4 of

part 7.1 relating to conditions of employment for young people says: "An employer of a child must ensure that the child works only under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who has reached 19 years of age."

So there is that, and I think the member, in fairness, pointed this out. It is important, of course, from a practical point of view that the person exercising that supervisory capacity has sound knowledge of the job, the jobsite and any equipment being operated on the jobsite. So they need to be properly qualified to exercise that supervisory capacity.

[ Page 2155 ]

These discussions and debates in the chamber are important, and I do want the member to know what is fully in my mind. While that work is taking place, I don't hesitate to tell him that a far greater priority, to my mind — given the statistical information available — relates to the situation in the forest sector.

If it is a question of prioritizing the work that needs to take place, the member will know — and he has spoken on this himself in the chamber and elsewhere — that I regard that as a far more challenging and far more urgent situation than the one we have been describing here — which doesn't mean it's not important. I will continue to be pleased about the work that's taking place. But the priority between the two at this point, in my mind at least, is very much with what is taking place in the forest sector.

C. Puchmayr: Well, there are a lot of priorities in life, and under this ministry, these are all components that I've been going through — components of this ministry. The issues that I've raised are issues I have concerns with and that have been communicated to me. Understanding that 40 deaths of forest workers are extremely serious, and we are…. Fortunately, there is a lot of representation out there, which is taking this matter seriously.

We have the Forest Safety Council, we have the steelworkers union, we have the Western Fallers Association, we have the Truck Loggers Association, we have this side of the House, and we have the minister telling this side of the House that there are some initiatives underway.

[1625]

The reason I'm bringing things in this order of priority is that I'm bringing things to this House where the employees have no representation. I will be going into forest workers and workers compensation. I will attempt to, but I'm quickly running out of time here.

To me, all workers need their needs addressed. I'm speaking out for the workers that have virtually no union representation. Now, in my opinion and in this side's opinion, they're losing a lot of safeguards — the regulatory safeguards — that used to be in place and that are being eliminated through what I would see as cost-cutting measures. My concerns are with all workers. I'm sure the other side would agree with me that we need to be concerned about all workers in this province.

I will now close my

section of the debate. I just want to thank the minister and thank the minister's staff for this process, and I very much look forward to February when we will go into this process again. I look forward to working with the minister on the forest safety issues, and I will bring forward some of the other issues that I've raised in this House on this estimate. I will also remind the minister and his staff of the disclosures that I asked for with respect to the two matters — the one being the inspections on the sites and the other being with respect to, I believe, some training initiatives.

I will thank the minister and his staff, and I will yield to the other part of the Labour and Citizens' Services estimates.

Hon. M. de Jong: While we effect a change, I echo the member's sentiments regarding the contributions and assistance and participation of staff. I will say to him many thanks for the interesting exchange. The last comment on the last part — I agree with him entirely that all of these are crucially important issues. I hope he appreciates that I was simply trying to be forthright with him about, among a whole series of priorities, what I see as some of the top priorities along the way. I know that we will continue to work together, and there are obviously some challenges that we are facing collectively.

But I think that we can meet those challenges with goodwill and good faith on the part of all parties and stakeholders.

To staff: thank you.

I think we are now on to the Citizens' Services portion of the ministry.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I was wondering if maybe we could take a quick five-minute recess so we can confirm what order we're going to do these things.

The Chair: We'll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[R. Cantelon in the chair.]

On Vote 35 (continued) .

H. Lali: I'd like to begin by just making a statement that this is my first time actually going up in estimates against the hon. Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. We've crossed swords on many occasions before, and I guess this is a little bit different. I'm on this side of the House and the minister is on the government side of the House. Having said that, I'm looking forward to the next little while, as we enter the estimates for Citizens' Services.

I'm going to start with the chief information officer, the e-government Premier's Web portal project. We'll go on to FOI, and then, the alternative delivery service. Then we'll see what kind of time lines we have, and we'll take it from there.

Having said that, I want to start by asking the minister…. In the 2004-2005 budget, it included as one of its new-era commitments, the commitment to make B.C. a world leader in e-government, to give all citizens and businesses better on-line access to core services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In that same budget the status of this commitment was generally labelled "ongoing," stating that the government's Internet portal was launched in September 2003.

Now this Internet portal, of course, is better known as a sinkhole, the Premier's folly or his pet project — it's also been known as the digital dumpster — into which millions of dollars have been poured and end-

[ Page 2156 ]

less deadlines have been missed. We know that this embarrassment was shuffled out of the Premier's office and into the forerunner of this ministry on the eve of the 2003 budget because if it stayed in the Premier's office, it would have put the Premier over budget and triggered the 10-percent salary withholding in the budget law. Maybe that's why we have heard so little about the Web portal, aside from the Achieve B.C. pilot project launched in September 2003.

[1635]

In fact, a January 2005 document on this minister's website refers to a single coordinated entry portal that provides access to the services of all levels of government. The document is entitled Imagine the Future . I'd like to ask this minister how much taxpayers should imagine that this Web portal project will end up costing in the end.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, welcome to the world of estimates from a different perspective than the one he was accustomed to for, I think, five years, if I recall correctly — five or six years.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Four and a half.

I wonder if I might take a moment to introduce to the House and the member some of the staff that are here with me today. Chris Norman is here. Deputy Gord Macatee is here. Lois Fraser is behind me, and Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland is here from the ministry. I have everyone. This is the minister over on the left.

If I might just take a moment and point out that we are now dealing with that aspect of the ministry or that area of the ministry's responsibility that historically people would have regarded as government services, some of the e-government technical services. It is that part of government that, to a certain extent, depending on your perspective, is concerned with the provision of services to government and within government.

The point that we are trying to make, by virtue of the different name for the ministry, is all of that. The provision of services — and in some cases, equipment — to various departments of government is done with one thing in mind. It is to provide proper levels and, we hope, excellent levels of service to citizens, to the people who ultimately pay for them. That's really at the heart of what we're doing.

I hope that during the course of the discussion we will have here today with the hon. member, we will explore some of the ways we are attempting to do that: some of the ways we are attempting to facilitate access to government services and government information; how we are endeavouring to ensure that privacy protection exists and how those two concepts don't need to be incompatible with one another; and how, at the end of the day, the ability that people, citizens, have to access their government and make it work for them, we hope, is being improved.

It is a large task. The member has referred to one component of that, and I've talked on long enough now to forget the specific question that he asked about that one component, being the portal. So I'll let him briefly repeat the question.

H. Lali: The question was: how much should the taxpayers imagine that this Web portal project will end up costing?

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the things I neglected to mention, and then I'll get right to the heart of the question…. I promise not to forget it this time. I hope — during the course of, if not these estimates, then estimates into the future — that this member and others will take advantage of a tool that has been created that is going to pose…. It's a tool government has created, but at the end of the day, it may prove something of a challenge for government.

[1640]

The service plan for this ministry is something that this member and others can measure performance against, just as the Premier, in his exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, invited that analysis to take place. There will be times when it is not a flattering one for government, because the objectives that are laid out in that service plan are designed to provide a measuring stick for how we're doing. Sometimes we meet them, sometimes we exceed them, and sometimes we fall short. That may be something, I hope, that members take advantage of. It's certainly an opportunity for us to gauge our performance as government and as departments of government.

Coming, then, to the portal. I look, in part, to the service plan and can tell the member that for the fiscal year '05-06 the cost of operating the portal is $5.41 million.

H. Lali: Before I begin, excuse my rudeness. I want to actually recognize the staff as well. The minister just did that a few minutes ago, and I know how hard staff work to provide, on our side, this big binder. The minister probably has about ten of these binders, or at least that many. It's all the staff who are here and the staff who work in the ministry who do all this hard work. I want to recognize the staff's hard work and thank them as well.

The minister says $5.14 million. The Premier had first said it was going to cost $2.5 million. Then it was $4.5 million. Then he said it was going to $6 million. By September of 2000 estimates were up to $18 million. The minister said $5.14 million. That's a big difference between the formerly estimated up-to-$18 million, which would have been at least a 750-percent increase from what had originally been projected.

I want to ask the minister: how many contractors are working on this project, and what is the total number of contractors who have been hired to date? Can the minister also provide the names of these contractors and firms?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I've two parts to my answer to the member. I do want to draw the distinction — and I'm certain that the member understands it

[ Page 2157 ]

— between the capital cost of establishing the portal and the ongoing operating cost. The figure from the service plan that I've provided him with relates to the ongoing costs of operating the portal, and there will be costs each year in perpetuity associated with the upkeep and the maintenance on the portal site.

The second question I recall hearing related to the number of contractors involved — and I apologize for the delay. We'll verify this for the member, but my best information at the moment is that there are a couple of contracting companies presently involved with the operation and presentation of the site.

[1645]

H. Lali: Now, we've heard that there have been numerous consultant reports on this digital-dumpster mess. In fact, when our research department went to file an FOI, they were told that there were so many consultant reports and so many thousands of pages detailing the ongoing failure of this project that it was impossible to fulfil the FOI request without the names of the consulting firms. Well, that's sort of like asking FOI for a particular egg and being told to go and find a chicken where the egg came from first.

Anyway, we have in our possession one of these reports, dated March 2004 — six months after the supposed launch of the site. How many other reports have been filed on the portal project?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're going to try and get a specific number for the member so that he has something specific to work with.

I will say that the initiative here is designed to facilitate and ease access to government, to services, to information, to application processes. In the time that I have been assigned this responsibility, I will confess to the member that it is a very complex matter. The nature of the reports varies from conceptual to design-related to technical.

I should also say to the member that my early impression of where we're at is that we still have some work to do. I'm not certain that the conceptual objective here has even yet been met in the way that we want. So my expectation is that when we have this discussion next year, in addition to that material which he is requesting now, there very much is a need for ongoing analysis. Are we meeting our objective? Is people's access to government being facilitated and improved upon in a very user-friendly way?

The technology continues to evolve. I don't know about the member, but I am the last person in this chamber to purport to be an authority on that evolving technology. But I do know that it does present real challenge in terms of trying to present a window on government that is functional, user-friendly and takes proper advantage of the latest technology.

H. Lali: Well, I have my own challenges with technology, as the minister has just said, and I think the terminology for people like us is "technopeasant." So, as one technopeasant to another, we're having this little debate.

But I find it a little troubling because I'm asking the minister some questions, and even though it's not coming out quite clearly from the minister's mouth…. What's happening here is that all of the criticisms of this project — the Premier's pet project — are being validated, in that it's now almost December of 2005. This project was launched in September of 2003, over two years ago, with so much fanfare. We've seen the minister give us a figure of $5.14 million for operating, and yet it is not known what the capital is.

[1650]

Hon. M. de Jong: It's $5.41 million.

H. Lali: My apologies. It's the other way around here. It's $5.41 million. Yet we don't know the costs for the capital or how much it took. We've gone from a figure of 2½ to 4½ to six to 18 — projection. Now we still don't know what the costs are, and it's still not supposed to be functioning. We've had two years of this Premier's pet project — over two years — and still there is so much confusion, and now we're being told that it's still not up and running.

This March 2004 a report by Deloitte Consulting stated that the B.C. government's Web portal project "lies squarely in the trough of disillusionment, and the next step is to re-establish and refocus the strategy and begin implementation of key recommendations." Has the government followed this advice? Or is the government following the advice of a different consultant's report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I should offer this to the member. I thought that in a

preamble to his question, he made reference to the fact that the project and the portal is not yet up and running. It is, in fact, and the observation I was making and will repeat now is that it is operating at a level that is providing a service that I think can be improved. I acknowledge in as forthright a manner as I can that we are very interested in taking the necessary steps to improving the level of service and the manner in which people access the portal.

I think the report the member is referring to — and I appreciate the fact that he's taken time to read it in detail — lists a variety of things that government might wish to address in terms of ensuring the service is meeting the expectations we set for it, and that is certainly something we want to do.

I should say, as well, that I am the first person to agree, notwithstanding my disturbingly poor appreciation for all the technology, that we set some ambitious expectations here. The ability to deliver on those expectations and to meet the objectives is certainly a challenging one, so the member will not hear me in any way deny the challenge posed by meeting those expectations and the fact that we do have some information that has highlighted how we might better do that.

My guess, again, is that…. Well, not my guess — I know that we will continue to challenge our partners,

[ Page 2158 ]

our contractors and the experts that do work with us. We will continue to challenge them to provide us with advice on how to improve the level of service that British Columbians can expect from the portal.

[1655]

H. Lali: I guess it doesn't really fully answer my question, but I do stand corrected. What I meant to say was that the portal wasn't fully functioning. I think I said it wasn't started up at all, so I stand corrected on that.

Now, this March 2004 consultant report. I think it's Deloitte Consulting. This report details over five pages of foundational and related next steps. Has the ministry implemented any of these? Also, how much was the Deloitte Consulting contract worth?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies to the member for the delay. I'll answer the first part of the question as best I can. We're still trying to track down some additional information. There certainly was a series of recommendations in the Deloitte 2004 report. A number of those recommendations have been acted upon and implemented. Some have not. A couple of the more significant bits of advice contained within that report are things that we are still very much considering in the overall desire to ensure we've got the best product before British Columbians.

I know the member is going to have more questions about the details, and I'll go right to work while he is pondering what I've just said.

H. Lali: Well, in the interests of time, I'm going to roll three questions into one here. I'll say them slowly enough so that staff are able to write this down.

Was it this consultant's report that led to the chief information officer's December 2004 e-government plan? By then the CIO was R.C. McCandless.

This sets out a three-year strategy from 2004 to 2007. Is the Web portal project on track for 2007?

My third question here is: if no, then has the minister been given a firm end date for the completion of the Web portal, and is he going to insist on one?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to the first question is no, and the answer is that the Web portal continues to operate.

[1700]

I believe the member was asking if I have set a deadline for its completion. I think the second question was: is it complete? The answer to that question — in my mind at least — is that while it is operating, I don't think it is operating at a level and providing the level of service that we sought when we initiated it in the first place. So I think the answer to the second question is no, it is not yet complete.

The third question: have I set an ultimate deadline for completion of the project? I think the answer to that is no, because I still see the need for a degree of improvement. While I would like to see that happen as quickly as possible, my sense is that this is going to be the type of project that continues to evolve with the technology. I'm not sure we're ever going to get to a point where we're able to exhale and say: "Hmm. There. Done." It is going to require an ongoing examination and review.

It won't be me doing the technical part of the review, I can assure the member. But I don't want people to approach this, knowing what I do know, from the perspective of, "There. We've got to a certain point, and that's all we have to do, and the rest will take care of itself for the next ten years," because I don't think that's the way this technology works.

H. Lali: Well, I certainly hope the minister doesn't ask me for technical advice on this, either, as we mentioned earlier.

From the minister's answer, and when I talked about the costs…. When it was first announced by the Premier, he said it was $2½ million. We went to $4½ million, to $6 million, to $18 million. From the minister's answer, it seems like we're going now from $2½ million to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million–plus. That's a lot of taxpayers' money on the Premier's pet project, which I think — and has been clearly stated by even some of the government's own reports — is just a trough of disillusionment. When is this going to end? That's the question that people in British Columbia are beginning to ask more and more.

One of the issues involved with this digital dumpster scandal was the payouts to the previous revolving-door chief information officers, CIOs. The first CIO, Lee Denny, received $150,000 per year under this government, and then his successor Scott Campbell got hired on a contract and was paid $275,000 a year. You hire somebody first at $150,000 a year; he creates a mess. You hire somebody for double that amount of money, and he creates more of a mess. And this $275,000 was for only nine months of work for this government.

My question to the minister is: what was this $275,000 for? Could the minister please give me some details?

[1705]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question related specifically to Mr. Scott Campbell. I will tell the member that most of that information isn't available at our fingertips insofar as it was canvassed last year in the estimates. What I can tell the member is that he was certainly the chief information officer, that his remuneration and the terms of his engagement were governed by a contract, and that at the time of his departure his payments had been made in accordance with the terms of the contract.

I can't recall, and I will endeavour to find out for the member, whether the $275,000 figure — which he has mentioned and at first blush is correct, I think — represented the payments he had received pursuant to the work he had done under the contract or whether there was a payout as part of his leaving the position. We're trying to obtain that information for the member.

[ Page 2159 ]

H. Lali: Well, thank you, hon. minister. I look at this amount of $275,000 for nine months' worth of non-work, and I shake my head. We just went through a process as MLAs, looking for a 5-percent wage increase, and we know and the minister knows how hard we work.

There are some people out there — yes, hon. minister, there are a few people — who would sympathize with us MLAs. They are wondering: "That's a lot of money — $275,000 for nine months of non-work on this Premier's pet project." On the Premier's pet project, nine months of work for $275,000.

Now, the author of the December 2004 e-government report was Mr. McCandless, who is a current chief information officer. I would like to know, hon. minister: when was he hired? And was there anyone between Mr. Nicholson and Mr. McCandless?

[A. Horning in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to the ultimate question from the member is no.

But I do want to say this insofar as Mr. Campbell is concerned. I don't know Mr. Campbell. And the member is quite correct: $275,000 is a lot of money. It's a lot of money by any measure, and the member is certainly able and capable to point out where he believes expenditures by government have been appropriate or inappropriate.

I think this project, this service, is eminently appropriate and important. I think I know the member well enough that his objectives are not served by casting doubt on the commitment that Mr. Campbell brought to his job. I don't know him, but my recollection from the reports I heard is that he applied himself with all of the diligence that the member does to his task and was paid the moneys according to the contract.

I am hesitant to not at least comment on the fact that I assume all of the people in this chamber and the people that work for government, within government, and contract with government do so in good faith and apply themselves diligently, and even passionately, to the assignments that they accept.

H. Lali: My motives are not to cast aspersions on any individual who works for government. That's not why I'm asking these questions. I am asking these questions on behalf of the people of British Columbia who have elected me as a member of the opposition to do my due diligence and to put forward their issues and problems and concerns so that I can raise them here in this House — just as I know the minister has been elected by his constituents to serve on their behalf and ask questions when it is necessary, and put forward issues.

My line of questioning is…. I'm trying to figure out if nine months' work for $275,000, which basically has not amounted to much, is value for the money. That's on the one side.

[1710]

I know the minister said that he doesn't know Mr. Campbell personally. Perhaps there may be some information that he might be able to share if Mr. Campbell — not the Premier, but this Mr. Campbell — has any connections to the B.C. Liberal Party or to the Premier's office.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am not aware of any such connection.

H. Lali: To a previous question, when I asked the minister if there was anybody between Mr. Nicholson and Mr. McCandless, the answer was no. My follow-up question to that is: does this make Mr. Nicholson the fourth CIO since 2003, or am I missing someone?

Hon. M. de Jong: Number four on the list, number one in our hearts.

H. Lali: Well, I can see the hon. minister hasn't lost his penchant for humour.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I would like to state that this is not the first time the minister has lost his pension; this is the second time he's lost it. And so has this member sitting across the way. I think after this, when it's finished, we'll probably go to some pub and drown our sorrows by sharing a drink of Scotch together or something.

Thank you, hon. Minister of Environment, for that little interlude. I think we all needed it. Sometimes we may end up taking ourselves a little too seriously.

Now, getting back to the serious matter: how much severance was Mr. McCandless paid out? I also want to ask a second question. What pay rate is the current CIO being paid at, and is it the same level as that paid to Mr. McCandless?

Hon. M. de Jong: The present chief information officer receives on an annual basis a salary of approximately $125,000. We are checking on the amount for his predecessor, which was, we believe, slightly below that.

H. Lali: When we look at Lee Denny, $150,000…. We've got $125,000 per year for the present one, and the one before that was roughly around the same. Then you have this big anomaly; $275,000 on a contract basis for nine months of non-work paid to Scott Campbell by this government. That raises some pretty interesting questions. I know the minister doesn't have the information right now, so we'll have to follow up with this at another time.

[1715]

I'd like to ask the minister: what other staff are dedicated to this portal project? How many are public service positions, and how many are contractors?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. We're trying to break out…. There are a number of people who, as the member might imagine, are involved in the sense of facilitating the posting of information and

[ Page 2160 ]

checking of information. I'm trying to get a reliable number for the member that indicates how many people are dedicated on a full-time basis to the maintenance and operation of the site, and if there are other people that have sort of sporadic involvement. I'll try and get that number, if he can just bear with me for a moment.

[1720]

The best information we have at this point is that there would be, in terms of the operation — full-time maintenance of the Web portal and governing its day-to-day operations — 18 staff. In addition to that, each ministry would have at least a contact person or someone who would be responsible for liaising with the main Web portal operations group to input information and to ensure that the information contained thereon was accurate and that sort of thing. However, those would not be individuals occupied on a full-time basis and attached directly to the group responsible for the Web portal.

H. Lali: Now, the Office of the Premier's service plan indicates that the Premier also has an information management plan, which refers to such initiatives as the federated enterprise architecture. Can the minister tell me: has the Premier taken back some responsibility for his Web portal project, and does his office have a piece of the costs?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is no. Happily, the program is the responsibility of this department, and on days when I have difficulty going to sleep, I can read material dedicated entirely to the operation of website portals.

H. Lali: And I thought I was the only sick person who was doing that — going to sleep to do that. I guess we don't have anything better to do.

Hon. minister, do any other ministries share a piece of the costs of the portal project? On this section, I've got one other final question, so I'm going to lump it into two. The first one is: do any other ministries share a piece of the cost of the portal project? The second one is: can the minister tell this House what the total cost is to taxpayers to date for the Premier's pet project, this portal project?

[1725]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have been, I think, guilty of characterizing this in an inaccurate way. I keep referring to this as a project. Within the context of the usual meaning of that term, it was something that government initiated and remains very excited about, but it is an ongoing service. I do want to make that point — that it is a project centred around the idea that we would provide this on an ongoing basis as a service. So to that extent, there's not an end date that one can point to.

The answer to the member's question about whether there are costs of the service project elsewhere in government…. The answer is no. But following along the lines of what I think I related to the member in my earlier answer, there are certainly people within individual ministries who are assigned the task of ensuring that what is on the website portal as it relates to their ministry is accurate, that the on-line forms that are there are user-friendly.

There are certainly people within individual line ministries charged with the task of ensuring that what is being conveyed from their ministry via the portal is accurate and that information coming in is being properly dealt with. I don't have a quantifiable number for that except to alert the member that there is certainly an addition to the 18 people I referred to, others in government departments who have involvement with the portal in the way that I've described.

Then I think the final question that the member asked related to the cost of the service project to this point. We have talked somewhat about the capital expenditures which are listed. That number is listed in the service plan accurately, I am told, at $7.9 million. Then through the