British Columbia Hansard — 20130718am Hansard v3n6

20130718am-Hansard-v3n6

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, July 18, 2013 Morning Sitting Volume 3, Number 6

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC First Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..................................................................................................... Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Clerk Consultant ..............................................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP) ............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...................................

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston Vacant ...................................................................................... Westside-Kelowna LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds .........................................................................

Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack .........................................................................................

John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon. Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ...................................................................... Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .............................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ......................................................................................Vacant Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 2; Vacant 1

CONTENTS Th ursday, July 18, 2013 Morning Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 691 Estimates: Offi ce of the Premier Hon. R. Coleman A. Dix Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 702 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) C. Trevena Hon.

T. Stone V . Huntington Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 710 Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training (continued) Hon. S. Bond L. Popham J. Shin Hon. N. Y amamoto

THURSDAY , JULY 18, 2013 Th e House met at 10:02 a.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Orders of the Day Hon. D. McRae: Madame Speaker, this is my fi rst time doing this, so I'm going to do my very best. I hope my tie is on straight. Today I call debate on estimates…. Interjections. Hon. D. McRae: Th at's okay. I saw the member of the opposition with his tie all the other way, so it goes both ways. Madame Speaker, even though my colleagues are at- tempting to distract me, I'm going to call debate on estimates for the Offi ce of the Premier in the main cham- ber today.

I call continuing debate of estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, and I call continuing de- bates for estimates for the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training in the Birch Room. [1005] Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Th e House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 10:06 a.m. On Vote 10: Offi ce of the Premier, $9,008,000. Hon. R.

Coleman: Joining in the committee discus- sions today are John Dyble, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, cabinet secretary and head of the public service; Kim Henderson, the deputy minister, corporate initia- tives; Neil Sweeney, deputy minister, corporate policy; Deborah Fayad, assistant deputy minister and execu- tive fi nancial offi cer with the Ministry of Finance; and Michelle Leamy, director of executive operations in the deputy minister's offi ce. A. Dix: I know I wanted to express personally to the Deputy Premier our condolences on the death of his mother.

I know, having spoken to him about this — I think most recently at the prayer breakfast we were at together some time ago — how important his mother was in his life. Obviously, on behalf of all the members of the House and members of the opposition, we want to pass on our condolences and our appreciation for him being here today under what are obviously diffi cult cir- cumstances. Welcome to Mr. Dyble and his team to the Legislature as well. I think it's obviously very helpful to have him there, especially for the fi rst set of questions — which will, of course, be about Mr.

Dyble's report and investigation into what has become known as the quick-win scandal. Can the Deputy Premier, to start with, tell us who de- termined the terms of reference for the Dyble review? Hon. R. Coleman: Th anks for the condolences about my mother. I'm going to state her name so that she can be in Hansard. Her name was Rosa Th eresa Stewart, born August 30, 1919. She was a terrifi c lady. I wrote about her while I sat by her bedside, and I published it for people that wanted to see. Th e terms of reference for the report were draft ed by Mr.

Dyble, and they were published on March 1 in an in- formation bulletin that was provided to the public. A. Dix: So the terms of reference were approved by the Premier and the cabinet, then? [1010] Hon. R. Coleman: Th e terms of reference were pro- vided by Mr. Dyble and reviewed and accepted by the Premier. Th ey did not have to go to cabinet. A. Dix: Th en it was, just to be clear, the Premier and Mr. Dyble who determined that the scope of the review would be limited to certain ministries, to the public ser- vice and potential violations of the Public Service Act. Hon. R.

Coleman: Th e Premier reviewed the terms of reference and accepted them. Th ey were draft ed by Mr. Dyble and not edited by the Premier. Th e scope of the review that Mr. Dyble brought forward was to include the scope of his position as the head of the public service. A. Dix: So it was them who determined that there would be no review. It was the leader of the Liberal Party and Mr. Dyble who determined that the scope of the re- view would not touch on the Liberal Party or the Liberal caucus. Hon. R. Coleman: On page 9 in the report there's a quote there that's pretty clear.

It says: "Th e scope of the review does not include external partisan ac- tivities or activities that relate to the use of caucus resources. Th at said, the team did review partisan activities and caucus activities that relate directly to the use of government funds, activities by government employees using government resources or direction to government employees based on non-government activities." 691

British Columbia Debates692 Thursday, July 18, 2013 A. Dix: Well before the opposition cast light on the scandal, there was widespread use of private e-mails by cabinet ministers, government MLAs and public servants to conduct government business to avoid FOI laws. It was clear from the documents we released, the initial docu- ments that preceded the review, that that was a key part of the scheme, in fact — the use of private e-mails as re- ferred to in the report.

Who decided that the private e-mails of cabinet min- isters, MLAs, Premier's office staff and other public servants who were part of this scandal would not be searched? [1015] Hon. R. Coleman: Th ere are two pieces to this. Th ere were private e-mails provided for review by government staff with regards to this particular issue. In addition to that, there were about 1,100 e-mail communications that went out to private e-mails that we were able to get access to through our server. For the record, I don't know how the member char- acterizes it.

I actually have a private e-mail that doesn't do any government business. If you were to search mine, you would fi nd no government business in my private personal e-mail. A. Dix: Th is is to say that it was apparent on this issue that private e-mails were being used signifi cantly for government business. It was already apparent when the terms of reference for the review were set out and the de- cision was taken not to pursue those.

I gather that what the minister is saying is that either the time of the review didn't permit that or the decision was taken not to pursue information in that regard — to see if information had been, for example, consistently transferred to the Liberal Party. Did Mr. Dyble have the power to subpoena witnesses, and if not, why did they choose not to take that power? [1020] Hon. R. Coleman: We did receive private e-mail rec- ords in addition to the 27 interviews that were conducted.

Th ere are, on page 15 of the report, in freedom of infor- mation and privacy, a couple of paragraphs, and I'll read the bottom paragraph on page 15. It says: "While B.C.'s FOIPP Act does not specifi cally include or exclude records created or transmitted using non-government e-mail ac- counts, its broad coverage essentially includes any record that is created on behalf of a public body.

As such, a record related to government business created by a government employee or service provider would be presumed to be covered by the act, regardless of where the record was located or the medium used to create or transmit the record." Th at's why we were given and were in the possession of and had the opportunity to review private e-mails. A. Dix: Well, the question was…. With respect to pri- vate e-mails, Mr. Bonney, who was a public servant, in the course of his actions as a public servant on behalf of the Liberal Party, had thousands of private e-mails which were not reviewed.

But the question was: why did Mr. Dyble not have the power to subpoena witnesses or choose not to take the power to subpoena witnesses? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, to the member oppos- ite, Mr. Dyble doesn't have subpoena powers. He should know that. On page 28 of the report that specifi cally deals with Mr. Bonney's e-mails:"…records show that…Bonney had forwarded over 1,100 e-mails from his government account to one of three personal e-mail accounts during the time he was employed in the public service." Th at was in the report. Also, it should be noted that Mr.

Bonney was not an employee of government at the time the report and inter- views were done, but he did voluntarily do an interview and go through his involvement, and it is in the body of the report. A. Dix: So the decision was taken…. Y ou can create inquiries where people have the power to subpoena wit- nesses. Th at could have been done by the cabinet and led by the Premier, recommended by Mr. Dyble. Th ey chose not to do that. I mean, that's a fact. I wanted to ascertain why they decided that they would do that. Were the wit- nesses who were interviewed required to swear an oath? [1025] Hon. R.

Coleman: Th e review team found it wasn't necessary to go to the level of inquiry, simply because they had full cooperation of all parties that were involved. Th e e-mail trails matched up to the interviews of the folks that were involved in this, and they felt that they had the information required for them to be able to do an assess- ment of what had gone on and make the recommenda- tions that are contained in the report. A. Dix: Oh, the decision not to take those powers was made prior to the full cooperation. So the Premier and others were not interviewed under oath when they were interviewed by Mr. Dyble.

With respect to that, were the interviews recorded and transcribed? Hon. R. Coleman: Th ose who did the interview had extensive notes, which are actually part of the 10,000, 11,000 documents that were released as a part of the re- port and put on line. Th ey matched up to those inter- views. And information recorded and brought in to those interviews actually matched up to the e-mail trails as far as fi nding out that we were actually getting solid infor- mation from both parties and from the review of e-mails. A. Dix: Th e Premier has described her interview as follows.

"We sat down this week, and it was not just with

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 693 him" — referring to Mr. Dyble — "but with his team. So it's a group of senior deputy ministers across govern- ment. We sat down. Th ey asked me a few questions. But the thing is, Kevin, I never saw the document. I didn't know it was being prepared. Th ere wasn't a whole lot I had to tell them, but obviously, they needed to talk to me about it." Is that characterization a correct characterization of the interview that was done with the Premier? Hon. R. Coleman: Th e interview was about 30 min- utes.

Y ou know, I've had experience in another life — two former lives: one in the private sector in a private inves- tigation role and the other in the role of a police offi cer. When someone has no information, you don't have to continue an interview. Th e reality is the Premier provided what she had avail- able, in her understanding of what went on, to the inter- viewers. It was very limited, as she said publicly — that this was going on and didn't, in the e-mail trails or any- thing, have anything to add. A. Dix: We'll return to that. What we understand is: the interviews were not recorded and not transcribed.

Th e witnesses did not appear under oath. And the inter- views, given the Premier's thing, were strictly limited to whether, in her case, she'd seen that particular document. Th e list of witnesses on page 77 of the report — was that the full list of witnesses interviewed by the Dyble team? Hon. R. Coleman: It's pretty transparent that those are the people that were interviewed. A.

Dix: See, it just shows how estimates can be better than question period, because we asked that question about 13 times in the House in the last three days, and the government refused to answer the question about whether a particular individual was interviewed. It turns out she was not. Th e government ministers in question period, for reasons passing understanding, refused to answer that question. [1030] To return, then, to the document search, maybe you can walk me through these documents.

On March 1 the direction was given, according to the report, to various government ministries and offi ces to search and turn over documents. Keep in mind that the report came out March 14. What were the search criteria for this docu- ment search? Hon. R. Coleman: So we don't have to bounce around on questions with regards to this particular one, I will read into the record "Records Search," appendix G, page 81 of the report. If the members would…. I'll get it done well within 15 minutes, so it'll be fi ne.

"On Friday, March 1, 2013, the review team provided instruc- tions to the logistics and business services…" Sorry, Mother, for the glasses. Interjection. Hon. R. Coleman: No, she wouldn't like them. "…division, responsible for information access operations of the IAO, and the offi ce of the chief information offi cer, responsible for information technology investigations and forensics, on the records search for the review. "Search criteria was provided, specifying all potential individ- uals involved, and specifi c search terms were provided.

For the physical records search, individuals within the Ministries of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training; Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology; government communications and public engage- ment; and the respective ministers' offi ces were asked to search e-mail, hard drives, LAN, SharePoint/Groove and physical fi les. "All staff participating in the search were required to complete and sign an 'investigation records search sign-off form.' Each area was given until 11 a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013, to complete their searches and print all records.

Staff from IAO arrived to col- lect boxes of records at 11 a.m. on Monday, March 4, 2013. "Employees who indicated they could not collect material in this time period were asked to provide the records available within the time period and to follow up with additional records as they became available. "All records were scanned into an electronic format, maintaining the order in which the records were collected by program areas. Electronic fi les were labelled with the area of government and the name of the individual that supplied the records.

Optical character recognition" — it's called OCR for an acronym — "was applied to all records to facilitate key word searches. Th e IAO estimates that approximately 10,000 pages of records were collected. "The investigations and forensics unit, information security branch, offi ce of the chief information offi cer, conducted investi- gations related to cyber security and the unauthorized or inappro- priate use of government information and resources. Th e primary focus of the unit is on the collection, analysis and

interpretation of electronic evidence. "Th e unit was engaged to assist by collecting electronic data from government systems and by searching the data based on time per- iods and key words supplied. "Current and historical data from mailboxes, home drives and computers was collected. Commonly accepted forensic techniques and tools were used to search across the aggregated data. Th e data related to specifi c persons identifi ed by those leading the investiga- tion. Th e unit also responded to ad hoc requests for additional, or more specifi c, information.

"Th e results and analysis were provided to the investigation team in various ways, including in-person reviews." A. Dix: First of all, to the Deputy Premier, I can't be- lieve that his mother would be anything but proud at any time. Interjection. A. Dix: We won't get into that now. Well, maybe outside — maybe we should do that part under oath, Minister. Th e question, I guess, to fl ow from that is…. So the document search request was put out March 1. It comes back March 4. Th ere were some records, presumably, that

British Columbia Debates694 Thursday, July 18, 2013 came somewhat later than March 4, if I correctly read the appendix to the report. How long did it take from that point — this assem- blage of 10,000 pages? Presumably, at that point they came in. How long did it take for Mr. Dyble and his fellow investigators to have those 10,000 pages put in order so that they could be reviewed? [1035] Hon. R. Coleman: After they were picked up on March 4 they were all cataloged by March 5. Th ey use an electronic model. Obviously it's an investigative model for creating a search engine to track certain things.

Th at was then matched up to interviews that were taking place to corroborate the information relative to what we were being told versus what we found, and it did corroborate. On March 8 the staff had completed a review of all of the documents read, not just the review team. Th e members of the review team and other professional pub- lic service were involved in that. Th en the corroborated information that would come out of that went to the re- view team, who then again reviewed the documenta- tion that was made available that corroborated what we were understanding. So you have electronic records that match up.

Y ou have interviews that are then taken for the information to match up to the electronic records, and that then corroborates into your, basically, completion. So for the record for the member, the review team's steps, which were outlined on page 9, were….

Th e fi rst thing they did is the record-gathering, including a review of all general administrative records, personnel and relat- ed fi nancial records and Treasury Board records through an electronic search of all potential documents and a paper record search. [1040] Th e second thing they did is they then reviewed the chronology of events, which was corroborated out of interviews, etc., actually to take that chronology and then develop a list of people named or involved, which is third. Th at list was put together of people named or involved and the assessment of their roles.

The fourth step the team did is development of a framework for interviews and interview questions. Th e fi ft h step was that 27 interviews were conducted. Th e sixth step was the collation and analysis of all the fi nd- ings, and the seventh was the preparation of the report. A. Dix: So the review documents are prepared. Most of them come in by March 4. Th ey're analyzed by other staff , and they're in the hands of the deputy minister and the senior review team — the team conducting the inter- views — around March 8 or March 9.

With respect to a specifi c interview, I suppose, I want to confirm that the interview with Mr. Bonney took place on March 2, prior to any of this information hav- ing been gathered. Hon. R. Coleman: Th at is correct. On page 77 of the report…. On Saturday, March 2, Mr. Bonney was inter- viewed. As I explained the fl ow, you are collecting records, and you're doing interviews. Y ou receive the documen- tation to actually corroborate the interview information and see if the two match up, and they did. A.

Dix: With great respect, usually what you do is you gather the documentary evidence, and then you ask the witnesses about it. Th at's usually what happens, and it's not reversed. Th is was an unusual process driven by…. Well, let me ask the minister specifi cally this, then. Let's go on to the member for Richmond-Steveston, the minister of the day, and the former member for Burnaby- Lougheed, Mr. Bloy, who were both interviewed — again, prior to the documents coming forward. Is that correct? Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pretty familiar with how an in- vestigation and interview processes can work.

In actual fact, as you go through the process, oft en what you do is you interview a witness or do an interview of a person when you have time to do so as part of your investigation. What you do then is you take the results of the inter- view, and you then see if they corroborate up to other information that you were provided in that interview. In this case, it would be the search of documentation and e-mails that would have matched up, basically, to the dis- cussion or the story that was discussed in the interview itself. Th at took place in this particular case.

If you were to be doing an investigation further and you found out that there was a portion of the informa- tion provided in an interview that did not match up or corroborate to the other collection of information, then you would go back and interview. But if it does match up, it is not necessary to go interview for a second time. A. Dix: So the interviews with the Premier, Mr. Bloy, Mr. Bonney, Ms. Welch and the member for Richmond- Steveston occurred in advance of the documentary evi- dence, right?

All those occurred in advance, and the documentary evidence was not used in those interviews to question those witnesses. [1045] Hon. R. Coleman: Right from the beginning we had some records and information. We also collected 10,000 pieces of information. Th ose were going in parallel pro- cesses, because we obviously had enough of the initial information to conduct the interviews, to ask what the involvement and the background was of individuals and what went on. As we came through the conducting of…. I shouldn't say we, because I didn't do this.

But the normal process would be that you would then review the information that you got from the interview to the information you received as a printed or written or e-mail type of record.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 695 If there was any diff erentiation between the questions and discussion relative to that, you would sometimes go back and interview for a second time if you needed to corroborate something that wasn't correct that you got out of the interview. Th at would appear not to be the case in this situation, in that the interviews were actually conducted by people who were, in my understanding, forthright and open. It was corroborated by the collection of the data. A.

Dix: Let's use an example, for the sake of argument, with respect to the document that's found on page 2639 of PDF 3, the document that we've been talking about in the House the last number of days. Th at document would have come out not…. It wasn't a document provided by the opposition, which would have been the early documents. It was amongst the 10,000 pages. Th e document says as follows. Y ou know, it speaks to inducement. It says as follows: "We will see if we can help fi nd you something else." Th is is the member for Richmond-Steveston suggesting that he ask Ms. Sarrafpour: "Can you send…your resumé?

Send it to Brian also. Assess her response and advise. Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how doing anything would damage the Premier and the party. Have him say how he will try and fi nd her work and get her back involved. Assess her response and advise. Have Brian meet with her and do the same. Assess her response and advise. If need be, off er X dollars per month to do non-public work up to the election, developing her database of potential supporters. Brian Bonney." Th is document would have come to the attention of the review committee when? Who was it reviewed by?

Was it the subject of the interviews with the Premier, whose interests are directly discussed here? Mr. Bonney, the member for Richmond-Steveston, Harry Bloy, Ms. Welch — was this part of any of those interviews? It seems from what we've heard today that the inter- views occurred, Mr. Dyble got these documents, and then no further questions were asked. Is that correct? [1050] Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I am not going to men- tion any individual's name in the House, because whether they want to say something publicly which is hearsay….

Th at's entirely up to them, but I'm not going to breach freedom of information and privacy from a minister's perspective. Th e review team did fully canvass the issues related to this individual. Th e records the member is quoting from are records that the review team actually made public as part of the 10,000 records. Had the suggestion in the e-mail led anywhere, the review team would have docu- mented that, and the fact is that they didn't fi nd anything that led anywhere. A. Dix: Specifi cally, was the e-mail on page 2639 — this is in the public report — discussed with Mr. Bonney on March 2? Hon. R.

Coleman: Th e tone of the e-mail was obvious- ly inappropriate. We acknowledge that. It's obviously in the public record that it's in the fi le. Th ere wasn't one in- dividual in the investigation…. It wasn't the only person that had any interaction with this individual. Th e indi- vidual left in September of 2012, ending their contract with caucus. Had the suggestion in the e-mail led any- where whatsoever, the review team would have docu- mented it in a report because it was leading somewhere, but it did not. A. Dix: Th en, the specifi c answer to the question was: there's an interview of Mr. Bonney on March 2.

Y es or no, was he asked about this e-mail? Hon. R. Coleman: The interview records have been severed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by professional public service, so I'm not going to get into that type of detail here today because I don't want to breach the rights of an individual relative to this discussion. In addition to that, I will say again to the member that had the suggestion in that e-mail led anywhere to any in- appropriate other activity, the review team would have documented it in the report — which they didn't, be- cause in fact they didn't fi nd anything.

Th is was an exhaustive investigation that was done and brought the Dyble report and its fi ndings to us. Th e e-mail the members opposite refer to was wrong. Th e approach and suggestion in the e-mail was wrong and inappropriate. But as I said before, if there had been any acting on that inappropriate e-mail and its language…. Th e review team found that it didn't lead anywhere, and the review team would have documented it in a report. A. Dix: Okay, so when was the e-mail brought to the attention of the team?

Look, it's fairly obvious that if the team didn't get the e-mails and didn't have them ana- lyzed until well aft er the interviews with Mr. Bonney, the member for Richmond-Steveston and Mr. Bloy, then they weren't the subject of those e-mails. Th e minister talks about doing interviews and having things matched up, but none of those people, according to the report, were called back. [1055] Perhaps the Deputy Premier could explain how it was that it was determined it didn't go anywhere when the Premier wasn't interviewed again about it, Mr. Bloy wasn't interviewed again about it, Mr.

Bonnie wasn't interviewed again about it, the member for Richmond- Steveston wasn't interviewed again about it and Ms. Welch wasn't interviewed again about it. I mean, what's set out here is a plan to induce someone…. Oh, and Ms. Sarrafpour was never interviewed. We received the e-mail. Th e review team received the e-mail. Th ey didn't, presumably, ask, because they didn't

British Columbia Debates696 Thursday, July 18, 2013 have the e-mail when they did the interviews. Th ey didn't ask about it before, and they didn't ask about it aft er- wards. So what steps were actually taken with respect to an e-mail which suggests inducement? Hon. R. Coleman: Th e Dyble report was conducted by four very capable, most senior public servants in gov- ernment. It was thorough, it was timely, and they looked at all of the documents.

Th e government went to extra- ordinary lengths to publish and post all 10,000 pages re- viewed as part of the report, you know, and obviously had to redact, under freedom of information and privacy, stuff that would have been personally not allowed to be released under that act. Th e report found no evidence that the document in question was acted on — no evidence that the document in question was acted on. If there was evidence to sug- gest that the e-mail was acted on by government, it would have been included in the report and the recommenda- tions relative to that document would have been made. A.

Dix: What steps were taken? What steps were taken to decide that the e-mail wasn't acted upon? I mean, the obvious steps to do would be (1) to have recalled Mr. Bonney, (2) to recall the member for Richmond- Steveston, (3) to recall Mr. Bloy, (4) to recall the Premier and (5) to recall Miss Welch. None of those things happened. None of those things happened, so what we have is a serious statement of an attempt to induce someone to silence. Th at doesn't clearly fi t up with the interviews taking place — certainly not the Premier's characterization of her interview. Th e report is limited in its scope.

It can't review, as it states, MLAs or cabinet ministers. So the interviews take place. Th e e-mail is found. What steps did the Dyble review panel take, when the minis- ter says it didn't lead anywhere, to fi nd that it didn't lead anywhere when they didn't bother to ask Mr. Bonney again, didn't bother to ask Mr. Bloy, didn't bother to ask the member for Richmond-Steveston, didn't bother to ask the Premier and did not bother to ask Miss Welch? [1100] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. R. Coleman: Th ere was a fulsome investigation.

Th e e-mail was totally inappropriate — we've actually said that publicly — and the content of it was inappropriate. It was not acted on. Members can fi nd that, even in the comments of the individual, who has actually changed stories twice. Th e actual fact of the matter is that the report found no evidence that the document in question was acted on. It was inappropriate. It's part of the record of the report that Mr. Bonney had inappropriately acted in his involve- ment, and that's why the report had come to the conclu- sions, and what have you, relative to the end of the review.

If there's no suggestion that the e-mail was acted on by government…. If there had been, that would have been included in the report, and the recommendations would have been made appropriate to that one particular e-mail. There were 10,000 documents that were reviewed. Th ere was no evidence that this particular e-mail was acted on, and therefore, it was dealt with in that way by having, obviously, the corroboration of other informa- tion and data that you bring together in an investigation — bring that together, and you come to your conclusions, which the investigators did. A.

Dix: Specifi cally, yes or no, did Mr. Dyble or any of the other deputy ministers involved ask the Premier, Mr. Bloy, the member for Richmond-Steveston, Ms. Welch — they didn't ask Ms. Sarrafpour, we know, because they didn't interview her, right? — or Mr. Bonney about this e-mail? Hon. R. Coleman: Clearly at the beginning I stat- ed that the Premier had no knowledge, so, obviously, it would be a waste of time to go back and talk to the Premier.

But at the same time, as you come through the report, you review your information, you corroborate back and forth from your interviews into the data and look at the information, and you come to conclusions that this document was not acted on, and there's no evi- dence to suggest otherwise. Th e investigators, the people who did this report — I have extreme confi dence in their professionalism. I am quite comfortable with what they found and how they came to their conclusions with regards to this report. A. Dix: Th at's the question. On this question, no fi nd- ing was made in the report about this matter.

Th e e-mail, according to what we were told in the report, was not available to the investigators when all of these people were brought before them. Th is was brought before them. What steps did they take to determine, to use the minister's term, that no one followed up on it? We now know, of course, that had they interviewed Ms. Sarrafpour, they would have discovered that there was evidence. Th ey chose not to do that, right? [1105] Th ey didn't ask the member for Richmond-Steveston. Th ey didn't ask the member, Mr. Bloy. Th ey didn't ask the Premier. Th ey didn't have it when they talked to the Premier.

Th ey didn't ask the Premier. What steps did they take to determine that this very serious e-mail, which the government itself has said is unacceptable…? It lays out a plan, a scheme, to si- lence somebody. What steps did the Dyble committee take? Th ey didn't bother to interview anybody. Th is was new information. Th ey didn't bother to reinterview Mr. Bonney about it. Th ey didn't bother to reinterview Mr.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 697 Bloy. Th ey didn't bother to reinterview the Premier. Now, I understand that they were under pressure to re- lease the report. I understand there are 10,000 pages. We went through the pages. A lot of them were blanked out. It took us a long time to fi nd this, right? I understand all of that. But what steps did they take to make a determina- tion, in the absence of asking anybody about it, that the e-mail didn't go anywhere? [1110] Hon. R. Coleman: During the interview process of the 27 individuals, this individual the member is refer- ring to….

Involvement was discussed, including with Mr. Bonney, with regards to their involvement in all the things it related to, including their leaving caucus in September of 2012. Th e issues were canvassed with Bonney and others during that period of time. Th e e-mail became available. It was then determined that it had not been acted upon, and it was a singular e-mail relative to this particular issue. Anyone that had a working relationship with the individual — that was canvassed in their interview. Th e report is clear that Mr.

Bonney's involvement had some questionable activity around it, and that's why the report was put together in the fi rst place. We went to extraordinary lengths, publishing and posting all 10,000 pages that were reviewed as part of the report, including this particular e-mail the member brings up. Th e report found no evidence that the docu- ment in question was acted on. If there had been, we would have gone further, relative to that particular docu- ment. But there was no evidence that it had been acted upon other than this e-mail. A.

Dix: Well, what's more accurate, of course, is that the government didn't seek any evidence, and that would have been available to them. But they did the interviews. Th at's what the minister just said. Th ey didn't, as I under- stand it…. Th e report refers to the interview with Mr. Bloy, which was principally about seeing the draft strat- egy document and workplan. Th ey did the interviews. Th ey got the document. Th ey did not ask Mr. Bloy, for example, or Ms. Sarrafpour if…. "Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how do- ing anything would damage the Premier and the party.

Have him say how he will try and fi nd her work and get her back involved." We now know, of course, that such a meeting did take place. So the review panel interviews Mr. Bloy. Th ey get this e-mail, and they do not re-interview Mr. Bloy. Is that the case? Hon. R. Coleman: Th e involvement of this individual, relative to this entire situation, was canvassed in inter- views with people that would have had any involvement with the individual during the process. Th e individual left in September, 2012. Th ere is an e-mail that we have said was wrong, and it was incorrect. We have said that. It was not acted upon.

Anyone who had a working relationship with the in- dividual was obviously asked about that relationship and that contract and that work during their interviews. It was corroborated by the 10,000 pages that were reviewed as part of the report. Th e report found no evidence that the document in question was acted upon. Th erefore, it was not included in the report. If it had been included that there was evidence to corroborate anything further than just that particular e-mail….

I'm not going to get into the debate today with re- gards to comments of an individual which have not been consistent and would be classifi ed as hearsay, taken in isolation. Any other conversation in any investigation subsequent to this…. Our corroboration comes from the 10,000 documents, the information that we received through the interviews and the work done by the re- view team. [1115] A. Dix: So the review team gets an e-mail that says: "Have Harry Bloy meet with her and explain how do- ing anything would damage the Premier and the party." Th ey don't talk to Mr. Bloy about it. Th ey don't talk to Ms.

Sarrafpour about it. Th ey don't talk to anybody else about it. How did they determine that nothing happened? Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to become repetitive here. Th e government went to extraordinary lengths, publish- ing and posting all 10,000 documents. All the pages were reviewed as part of the report. Interviews were conducted, and relationships with people across the spectrum rela- tive to this particular review were canvassed, including an individual the members brought to the House. Th e individual had left in September of 2012.

Th e evidence clearly showed that anything in that e-mail had not been acted upon, and there was no evidence brought to gov- ernment that would have suggested otherwise. A. Dix: Th e evidence clearly showed it was not acted upon. Th at's what the minister said. What evidence? Hon. R. Coleman: Th e Dyble report was conducted by four senior public servants in the government. It was thorough. It was timely. Th ey looked at all documents, 10,000 of them, and went to extraordinary lengths of publishing and posting all 10,000 pages.

The report interviewed 27 people and discussed the involvement of everybody across the spectrum, including the individual the member is speaking about. Th ere is one e-mail that we fi nd wrong. We've said that. But the fact of the matter is there was no evidence that that document was acted on. Th e member can de- cide how, aft er the fact, he would conduct an investiga-

British Columbia Debates698 Thursday, July 18, 2013 tion, by reading a report on an investigation. But I would submit to the member that the people that did this work — independent of government, senior public servants — did their job. A. Dix: Th ey got the assignment on February 28 and produced the terms of reference on March 1. Th ey got the documents, 10,000 pages, a week later, aft er they'd been gathered. Th ey started writing the report, presumably, at the very latest, on March 12 or 13, right? Th e minister asserted a few minutes ago that the Dyble committee had evidence that this e-mail wasn't acted upon.

I didn't say that; the minister said that. So what's the evidence? Really, the only way to get such evidence would have been to ask the people involved, and they didn't do that. So they didn't make a determination, in fact, in the re- port about this e-mail. Th ey didn't make a determination. Th ey didn't ask Mr. Bloy. Th ey didn't ask Ms. Sarrafpour. Th ey didn't ask the Premier. Th ey didn't ask the minister. Th ey didn't ask Ms. Welch. Th ey didn't make a determination. Th ey decided, pre- sumably, that they couldn't address it. But they didn't make a determination, because no evidence….

When the minister says that "there is evidence that it wasn't acted upon," what is the evidence? Is there a scintilla of evidence, one way or another, that the committee reviewed that it was acted upon or not? Given the seriousness of the e-mail, which the govern- ment has agreed to, why wasn't a single person asked about it? Hon. R. Coleman: Again, I will state that we went to the extraordinary length of publishing and posting all 10,000 pages we reviewed. Th is individual left the con- tractual relationship in September of 2012.

Subsequent to September 2012, through the entire review process, there is no evidence and no record of any contractual or employment record relative to this individual. [1120] Th at part alone would tell you that the e-mail wasn't acted on. In addition to that, in all the interviews, people's relationships were canvassed with regards to — including this individual — the relationship and why they may have left or decided to terminate their contract. A. Dix: To be clear, the review committee got the e- mail. Th ey'd already interviewed Mr.

Bloy, already inter- viewed the Premier, already interviewed the minister, already interviewed Ms. Welch, already interviewed Mr. Bonney. Even though, presumably, the e-mail doesn't match up to anything that was said in those interviews, the e-mail that came out of the process…. Even though that was the case, none of those individuals were recalled, and no evidence was brought to bear. No evidence was sought to determine whether the e-mail had been fol- lowed through on or not. No evidence was brought to bear. Th ey didn't ask any- body whether such a meeting took place.

Th ey didn't ask anybody if such an off er was made. In other words, they didn't pursue the issue. Th ey didn't make a fi nding. We have a very serious allegation, and it's not ours. I mean, the conspiracy involves the people involved. It's the people at the most senior ranks of government — right? — who are involved in this. No one brought it for- ward at the time in September, and said: "Oh boy." How is it possible you could get that e-mail and not interview anybody about it to fi nd out what happened? Hon. R.

Coleman: Again, the government went to lengths, with the 10,000 pages of documents which were produced, and they were published. Documents were coming in, had already had been received, as you also went through the document search. Th e report found no evidence in the documentation in question. I'm not going to get into the discussion and interview of the particular individual at the time that the member opposite is talking about. Obviously, there are pieces of every interview that are safe through personal privacy and protection.

Th e contractual employment records search did show us that aft er this individual left , there was no contract for the individual, or employment record. In addition to that, during the interview with the individual, the individual did not fl ag this as an issue. A. Dix: Sorry, during the interview with what individ- ual? Ms. Sarrafpour was never interviewed, right? Never interviewed, by the report. Y ou have an e-mail that suggests someone is being in- duced, but the person was not interviewed.

It turns out, of course, that we see from the contract that the Liberal operatives have an unusual way, contrary to all of the rules of government, to make contracts and to bring people on board. Th at's the way it goes. I guess the question is: what person? What person did they ask? Did they ask anybody about this e-mail in any of the interviews they did? In any of the interviews they did, did they ask anybody about what is a transparent at- tempt to induce someone to silence, to protect the per- son that the Deputy Minister to the Premier reports to? Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think I misspoke.

Th e mem- ber used a diff erent name in his

preamble to the question than the name he just used. Th e reality is this. We did interview these folks. We interviewed the people that sent the e-mail and every- one that received the e-mail. We did a search of the con- tractual employment records to be sure that nothing had been acted upon, and that's the case. [1125] Th e member opposite and I could get into a debate about use of government funds for political purposes

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 699 and what have you. I'm not getting into that today, be- cause there isn't any…. Y ou know, I think, in this particu- lar case, we became aware of something that took place. Th e leader of our province, the Premier, acted upon it im- mediately and said: "We're not going to go and…." I mean, there was no indication whatsoever that any- body didn't want to look into it. We looked into it and conducted…. We got four public servants to work over- time, weekends, nights, and other people who put togeth- er search engines to search all of the documents and do the work.

We did it so that it could be out there in front of the public in advance of an election writ, because we felt it was important that that information be there and that the people see that we had done what we thought was right with regards to it. I mean, there are other forms of leadership that could have been taken on this. Our leader took leadership and took responsibility and apologized to the public and had a review and an investigation conducted. A. Dix: I recall it was the Deputy Premier that fi rst apologized to the public.

In any event, with respect to this question, because the Deputy Premier wants to be clear about names, Ms. Sarrafpour said that Mr. Bloy came and met with her, of- fered her a job — right? — an inducement. So the only step that the Dyble report did was to look at government records, not any other records — not caucus records, not anything else — and didn't talk to Ms. Sarrafpour or Mr. Bloy. So the question is…. Th e e-mail says — pretty ser- ious — that he's going to meet with someone to protect the Premier. Th at's the evidence that was presented. Did the Dyble review team ask Mr. Bloy about that e-mail? Hon.

R. Coleman: I'm going to answer the question again. Th is review was thorough. It was timely. It looked at all the documents. Th ere were extensive interviews con- ducted, including conversations with regards to rela- tionships and what their roles were within the package. Pieces of those interviews are redacted, and they're re- dacted for the protection of people's personal informa- tion and privacy. I will not in this House breach that law. I will not do it. [1130] Hon. Member, I will tell you this. Th e report found no evidence that the language the member refers to in the particular e-mail was acted upon.

Th ere was no evidence that suggested it was acted on by government. Th ere were no contractual or employment records relative to this in- dividual to show that it was acted upon aft er the individ- ual left government in September of 2012. A. Dix: To review, because it's apparent that the gov- ernment did the interviews, didn't have the e-mail, didn't ask anybody about it but claims to have determined that they did a thorough investigation of this question. I think, simply put, it would've been very diffi cult, in the time frame required politically, for the government to do such an investigation, in fact.

In fairness to the indi- viduals involved…. Clearly, the individuals involved got an e-mail that was dramatic and problematic. Th ey chose not to inter- view anyone about it, and that is, I think, a fact. It's a suggestion in the e-mail, and I think, frankly, that it ought to have provoked at least the return of Mr. Bloy to the witness chair, at least the return of the member for Richmond-Steveston to the witness chair, at least the return of Mr. Bonney to the witness chair and at least a question of Ms. Sarrafpour about what had happened.

None of those things happened, and we know that be- cause the minister told us this morning that none of those things happened. Y ou have this document, largely redacted, which shows, in fact, that all of those people were involved in consid- ering this act, and no steps were taken to confi rm wheth- er it happened or not with any of the individuals involved. I think that's a pretty serious matter. Pretty serious, be- cause had they done that, had they called a witness, they would have had evidence. Of course, when you have evidence, then you have to assess the evidence.

Presumably, the decision was taken not to conduct that interview. Presumably, the decision was taken not to have another interview with Mr. Bloy or Mr. Bonney, the member for Richmond-Steveston or the Premier or Ms. Welch. I guess the claim that the report reviewed the e-mail and dismissed it is simply not true. Th ey got the e-mail, and they didn't pursue the questions raised by the e-mail. Th ey pursued other questions. Th ese are always choices, I suppose, that you make when you do a report.

Th ey got a very, very serious e-mail that the government acknow- ledges is unacceptable, that directly involves the Premier and protecting the Premier and the Liberal Party, and no individual — no one — was interviewed about the e-mail. I mean, it seems staggering to conclude that, actually, given the nature of the e-mail. We, of course, don't have all of the e-mail, and this isn't the only part of that e-mail that we'll be asking about. Th ere are other serious ques- tions related to that e-mail. What is clearly true is that the government decided not to ask anybody about it.

Now, I'll ask the minister one last time, because the minister hasn't responded to this question. Why was it that not a single witness was brought back and asked about this e-mail? Hon. R. Coleman: Th e member opposite might want to twist words and use terms like "witness" when a re- view has taken place and try and raise the temperature on something that was a report that was done.

British Columbia Debates700 Thursday, July 18, 2013 I think that something happened. We actually said it was wrong. We actually asked independent public ser- vants to do it. Th ey were completely independent and un- directed by government to do their review and how they would conduct it. Th ey interviewed people and talked about everybody's involvement, including the individual the member wants to bring to the fore in this discussion. If we had directed them to do specifi c things and inter- fered with the review, the opposition would be scream- ing, saying that we were interfering in the review.

It was independent. [1135] It was conducted by four of the most senior public ser- vants in government — people that I've gotten to know over my career and that the member opposite knows from the time he's been around here to be of the high- est ethical standard, people that are capable of doing something that's thorough and timely, relative to some- thing like this. Th ey looked at all the documents. In each interview they discussed the involvement and canvassed people with regards to involvement with regards to this. Th ey then did an extensive review of 10,000 pages of documents.

I'll repeat that the report — and the member opposite will not like this — found no evidence that the document the member has brought up was acted upon. Now, you can accept that or not. I mean, you're not go- ing to. Obviously, if this continues for some time, we'll get into some other performances that the public should be aware of with regards to public fi nances and the op- position, at some point in time — and be happy to maybe bring that into the discussion. But I'm going to stay with this because I'm staying at a high level. Th e high level is that we did a report, conducted by senior public servants.

Th ey looked at all documents and interviewed 27 people. Th ey talked about everybody's in- volvement in it. Th is one document the member is talk- ing about was part of the 10,000 pages that were released by government. We're the ones that posted it, so nobody was saying: "Gee, let's hide something." Th en in the investigation there was no evidence to sug- gest that the content of an inappropriate e-mail was acted upon. It wasn't acted upon, hon. Member. A.

Dix: People who had direct knowledge — which the minister doesn't, and none of the review team did, because they didn't ask people about the e-mail — say to the contrary. I think what is clear…. Y ou get this every time. It's not the ethics of Mr. Dyble and his team that are in question. It's clearly the Premier and her political team, of which Mr. Bonney was a key member, in which Miss Sarrafpour was a member, in which Mr. Bloy was a member. It's those people that are in question in this e-mail, not Mr. Dyble. We can't confuse these issues. I understand the challenge faced by Mr.

Dyble in deal- ing with this matter. It's not them that are in question. It's the individuals involved in an e-mail that, on the face of it, is a conspiracy to silence an individual who has informa- tion that would do damage to the Premier and the party. In fairness, in addition to Mr. Dyble, the terms of ref- erence which he draft ed but which were approved by the Premier precluded him asking questions about the Liberal Party, precluded him asking questions about Mr.

Bloy and his constituency fund, precluded him from ask- ing questions about the Liberal caucus, even though this matter at its core was about the merging of government, party and caucus. At its core that's what the matter was. Th at's what the question was. Mr. Dyble was limited to dealing with one portion of that question, which was under his broad responsibilities. An independent review, clearly, would have sought to dis- cuss all elements of that question.

But what we have here is an e-mail that's very serious, that has serious implica- tions for the Premier, and no one was asked any questions about it in the review. None of the witnesses were asked questions about it. For anybody to say that on this question the matter dealt with it is just not correct. Th e best one could say, I suppose, is that the review was silent about it. Clearly, this e-mail was not dealt with by the review in the way one would normally deal with such a thing, which would be to ask people about it. Th ey just didn't do so. Th ere may be reasons for that.

None of those reasons have been given. But it's wrong to say that there is evi- dence to say that it didn't happen. Now there is evidence to say that it did happen. Th at is, I suppose, a pretty ser- ious question. I wanted to ask, with respect to the review, whether the Deputy Premier is confi dent that the document retrieval process obtained all relevant documents. [1140] Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we had a search process — very extensive. We feel that we did get all the documen- tation. Some 10,000 pages were reviewed as part of the report.

We created, using the appropriate expertise with- in government, the search engine and what have you so that we could actually fi nd records. Th en the people that know how to investigate documents and correlate them relative to that, as I read into the record earlier, which was quite extensive…. Th at's on the record. Th e Premier of the province of B.C., when she became aware of this in the public realm, immediately took the leadership to say, "We're going to go look into this," im- mediately said, "Th is is inappropriate," and immediately took the steps necessary to go out and have the leader- ship….

She took the leadership to put together a review team of four senior public servants who conducted interviews, who went through the 10,000 documents and who then advised me that the report found no evidence that the

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 701 document in question was acted upon. I am prepared to accept the word of those senior public servants. A. Dix: It's not their word that's in question. It's the word of people they didn't ask questions of. I guess what the Deputy Premier means by "immedi- ately" is "three days later." But we have a broad…. I guess in all of the history of British Columbia, three days could be viewed as immediately.

I want to ask, then, about pages 2637 and 2638, where there are numerous references to list collection and the brazen use of public resources for partisan electoral pur- poses by the Liberal government. Who reviewed these documents, and what assessment was made of them? [1145] Hon. R. Coleman: Th e report deals with the member's question, starting on page 23, No. 3, "Databases and lists." I won't read all of that into the record. But for the mem- ber's information, that was part of the review, and there were recommendations attached to the report relative to that question. A.

Dix: Well, the central element of the plan was to have lists created by government staff that eventually, I guess, followed through on lists produced in the distri- bution of grants and other community meetings paid for by government and that those lists be forwarded to the Liberal Party's database, right? So when the report con- cludes that no database was created within government, that database presumably already existed at the Liberal Party headquarters.

Y ou'll recall that the Liberal Party was excluded from this review by the leader of the Liberal Party, the Premier, when she approved the terms of reference. I wanted to determine, given the review, on how many occasions — because a lot of the documents are redacted — were there references to lists and list creations that were forwarded? And why is it that Mr. Dyble and his team decided not to pursue those lists into the Liberal Party? Hon. R.

Coleman: Page 23, No. 3, "Databases and lists," in the report: "Th e December 2011 spreadsheet makes specifi c reference to Win 2013 soft ware for the ability to create 'ethnic lists' and creation of an 'ethnic database.'" I've already said that this action was inappropriate and that that's why this report took place. "Th ose interviewed understand that while some initial work was completed on looking at the potential to use Win soft ware for caucus, it was not pursued." In addition to that, "Every person interviewed was clear that no data- base was ever developed," with regards to this.

Basically, I'll not go through all of it, but at the bottom of the paragraph is: "Again, these contracts were never signed by government. During the records search no evidence was found of a database having been created." A. Dix: Well, they forwarded information which the Dyble report didn't have the ability to pursue, so pre- sumably no database was created in government to deal with this question. But clearly a database was created, just not in government. Th e evidence around the creation of lists is, I think, a fairly signifi cant part of those parts of the information released that we can see.

We'll return to lists in a moment. Th e member for Richmond-Steveston — and it's in the report specifi cally — said he never saw these planning documents. How does it square with all of the e-mails showing that the member for Richmond-Steveston was part of the communications chain? [1150] Hon. R. Coleman: The e-mail records show that back in the early days and into January, with regards to the multicultural strategy the member for Richmond- Steveston was not copied on the e-mail trail. Other future documents show that he may have received some of the later information.

In actual fact, when this was started, he wasn't even the minister, so obviously, his involvement would have come at a diff erent stage throughout this. I'm sure we're going to continue this throughout the aft ernoon. We have another four hours of this to go. I don't know if we'll get to any other subjects. I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 11:53 a.m. [1155] Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Madame Speaker: Th is House at its rising stands ad- journed until 1:30 this aft ernoon. Th e House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

British Columbia Debates702 Thursday, July 18, 2013 PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sturdy in the chair. Th e committee met at 10:08 a.m. On Vote 45: ministry operations, $812,278,000 (con- tinued). C. Trevena: To the minister, today we're moving on, as I mentioned to him, to issues of safety on the highways. I think it's a paramount concern for everybody. I'd fi rst like to ask about safety in the bus industry.

In January my colleague from Surrey-Newton wrote to the former minister, following the Mi Joo bus crash in Oregon, with a number of questions about the Ministry of Transportation's responsibility and its oversight of this specifi c bus company. We still have not, seven months on, received a response to this letter. [1010] I am very happy to read the questions into the record so that the minister is aware of them. One is that…. Th e U.S. Department of Transportation revoked Mi Joo Tour and Travel's authority to provide passenger service in the U.S. on January 8. It took three more days for B.C. to do the same.

How can a foreign country act so much faster than the home jurisdiction? Th e Minister of Transportation said that Mi Joo Tour and Travel had a clean safety record for three years previ- ously, following a warning letter aft er a spot check. Was there any government monitoring to ensure that Mi Joo was meeting its obligations respecting other driver hours and recordkeeping? If not, why? Given that safety violations at Mi Joo Tour and Travel were only discovered following a fatal crash, how can we be confi dent that the government is rigorously enfor- cing rules and regulations that protect passenger safety?

What prompts a safety order to passenger transportation companies in B.C.? Does the ministry have the adequate staff resources to monitor passenger transportation com- panies and other commercial transportation companies? As I say, these are all questions which were posed back in January. I think they are particularly pertinent for an ongoing understanding of what happened with Mi Joo and with the growth in our bus industry and with the current budget. So if the minister could respond, I'd ap- preciate it. [1015] Hon. T. Stone: Good morning, Member.

I look for- ward to another day of good questions and — hopefully, in your opinion — fulsome answers. In terms of your question with respect to the crash in- volving the Mi Joo bus company, this was a very sad and tragic event that took place on December 30, 2012, in the United States, the state of Oregon. My understand- ing is that there actually were signifi cant delays in ob- taining all of the accident reporting information — the data from this particular crash — from U.S. authorities. However, we were eventually provided with the material in early January.

Upon review of the material, immediately the Mi Joo bus company was suspended. In fact, the date of that was January 11. Before they can operate again, they have to prove to the province of British Columbia that they are monitoring their drivers' hours, that the drivers are keep- ing within the maximum number of hours allowed and that they're doing the appropriate pre-trip inspections. We've asked them for evidence or proof of the improve- ments that they're making to their internal procedures and how they monitor their employees and their internal processes.

We have received a response from them, and the staff is looking into that material. Th e outcome of the U.S. investigation will still form part of the completion of our review. Until that has all come together, the suspen- sion will remain in place. I think it's important to note that following the crash, the ministry did conduct a safety audit of the Mi Joo Travel and Tour company. Th is is a standard practice which happens aft er these kinds of occurrences.

To the more general question around ongoing mon- itoring and enforcement of safety for our roads, we do have a vigorous program for monitoring the safety of buses. Th ere are over 20 weigh scales and over 100 mobile inspection vehicles that are in all corners of the province. On top of that, out of a total of approximately 260 CVSE staff , 200 are dedicated to enforcement. CVSE actually conducts over 30,000 detailed inspec- tions annually, looking at both the safety practices of the vehicles in question and the drivers' records.

In addition to these inspections of buses, there are over 100,000 in- spections per year of commercial trucks across British Columbia. So that's quite a vigorous program. Finally, the member referenced a letter that was pro- vided to the former minister. Th at is indeed correct. Th at was January 31, 2013. A letter was provided to my pre- decessor, the Minister of Transportation at the time. I actually have in my hands here a copy of the response that was sent to the member for Surrey-Newton, which I would be happy to facilitate for you.

But I believe there was a response that was provided to the questions that were posed in that original letter.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 703 C. Trevena: Th ank you. I appreciate that. I will follow up with that for the response. If there are still gaps, in light of the time, I'll follow up, requesting further written responses, because I think there are still some questions, from the minister's answer. [1020] I have one further question on safety. I know that my colleague from Delta South also wants to ask about CVSE. My other question is partly CVSE, but it's also generally on trucking safety. Long-haul truck drivers are now a permanent class in the provincial nominee program.

My question is: does CVSE know what the provincial nominee program is doing in light of the fact that we may have many people coming in as provincial nominees who have really no ex- perience of driving either in B.C.'s road or weather condi- tions, particularly in winter — so the safety issues of that? Hon. T. Stone: First off , I wanted to correct, for the record, my previous response, so the facts are accurately refl ected.

I mentioned previously that there were 30,000 inspections of buses. [1025] In actual fact, there are 30,000 detailed inspections that are done of buses and commercial trucks on an an- nual basis. Th e hundreds of thousands of inspections that I referenced refer to the visual inspections that are done at the weigh scales, which again, is a combination of buses and commercial trucks, just to set the record straight on that point. In terms of this last question, though, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure doesn't actually have responsibility for driver certifi cation, as I know the member is aware.

So I would encourage the mem- ber to direct this particular question to…. With respect to the provincial nominee program, that falls within the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. With re- spect to the driver certifi cation, that, obviously, is within the purview of the offi ce of the superintendent of mo- tor vehicles, which falls within the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. V . Huntington: I'd like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. It's a great department with wonderful people in it, and you'll fi nd, I think, that you'll enjoy it very much.

And saying that, I'd also like to thank your staff for the signifi cant amount of time they've spent with me over the last year or so on a few issues that have troubled me. I've been satisfi ed on a number of counts but want to explore three of the issues a little bit further today, the fi rst being the issue of quad-axle trailers con- tinuing to operate at maximum axle weights. As the minister may know, the full axle weights…. Th ese trailers fail to meet the accepted national standards for vehicle stability, and I believe that that results in road safety being compromised in this province.

In recogni- tion of these shortcomings, there was an interprovincial MOU that was signed by all the provinces, and it man- dated the reduction of maximum allowable weights for the trailers. B.C. did not follow suit with that mandate, even though the MOU had been part of…. I believe it was signed by B.C. back in 2004. It took until 2004 for CVSE to issue a notice that similar weight reductions were be- ing scheduled for B.C. I have to say that I suspect that no- tice caused a lot of consternation, because I would think that people had had some serious talks with ministry of- fi cials or ministers themselves.

It has been ten years now since that notice was issued, and there have been annual postponements, leaving, I believe, the roads in British Columbia in an unsafe con- dition when the quad axles are operating at full weight. I think some of this justifi cation is because the industry would take the position that these trailers are not oper- ating interprovincially, so they don't have to accept the Canadian standard in that case. In phone calls with me, very irate phone calls with me, industry offi cials have indicated that the tax standards are out of date.

I'm here to say that those tax standards were based on vehicle dy- namics testing, which was based on fundamental laws of physics. Th ey cannot be made out of date, with the excep- tion of new science or new innovation. I would like to ask the minister why CVSE is failing to issue the notice and

schedule the rate reductions for quad-axle trailers. [1030] Hon. T. Stone: To the member for Delta South: con- gratulations, as well, on your re-election. I certainly ap- preciate your acknowledgment of my appointment. Indeed, I do also want to take this opportunity to underscore the initial comments you made about the exceptional staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I have to say that, in the fi ve weeks on the job, I hear from every corner of the province what tre- mendous people we have working in this ministry. For that, we're all very fortunate.

In terms of your actual question, to date there has been no evidence here in British Columbia that the limits that are applied to quad-axle trailers actually are causing any safety issues on B.C.'s highways. Th ere are a number of other provinces which have the higher restriction level that exists here in British Columbia as well. Th at being said, we absolutely take seriously the con- cern. We have actually initiated a review internally to look at this matter further, and we expect to have the re- sults of this review done soon.

We'll look at the results of that, and if there is any need to change our policy on this, I would expect a decision would be made on that by the end of this year. V . Huntington: I'm assuming that review is what is

British Columbia Debates704 Thursday, July 18, 2013 commonly known out there as the EBA study. Perhaps there's another review going on that I don't know. [1035] Minister, the topography in British Columbia is un- like anywhere else in this country. Th ese standards for weights are actual. Th ey're real, and they do aff ect pub- lic safety. Well over two years ago the CVSE issued an RFP for a study that was to examine the safety benefi ts of the re- duced weights.

Th at RFP was pulled, and it was reissued with the terms of reference slightly changed, not only to study the safety benefi ts of reduced weights but also to study the economic impacts on the industry of reducing the weights. Th at study — the fi nal report was given to the ministry in December of 2012. It's been almost 18 months since I've been trying to get that report. I FOI'd the report and received a redacted copy that was so ridiculous, I have to say, that it even redacted the names of the trucking organizations.

Minister, engineers tell me that the only way you can assess the annual exposure to crashes and rollovers is to look at the total miles travelled and the total number of crashes and assess them based on that and any other issues that engineers do take into account on vehicle dy- namics. From the very beginning, a study of that nature in British Columbia is fl awed, because the province a num- ber of years ago said that the RCMP no longer had to report rollovers and crashes that did not result in injury.

ICBC doesn't require reporting of rollovers and crashes on these heavy natural resource roads that don't have injuries. I want to see, Minister, and I hope that you would want to look at, this EBA report. I would like to see that it's released. Th ere is no reason that it's continuing to be held by the ministry. I would like your eff orts in allowing this report to be released so that we can see for ourselves exactly what stats were used, how the results could pos- sibly be real without stats that measure all the crashes and rollovers, and why CVSE has failed to release this publicly. [1040] Hon. T.

Stone: The report that was released in December was a draft . I believe the copy that you were provided was a draft fi nal. My understanding is that we're getting very close. We're working with EBA, the consult- ing fi rm, to fi nalize the report. We should have that done within the next short while. I will absolutely release the report to the member opposite when it is fi nished. I ex- pect that that shouldn't be any later than this fall. I want to point out, however, that this report will form one set of data points in the overall decision that we will make.

We will look at what is the reality in other juris- dictions. We will look at our own internal statistics on this and weigh all of this into a fi nal decision. It's im- portant for us to understand where we are with safety on the roads and also understand the economics of this. We expect to be at a point of decision on this by the end of the year. Finally, I will say that just because there are cer- tain standards in other provinces does not mean that those same standards are necessarily relevant in British Columbia.

We prefer to make decisions based on facts that are specifi c to the realities of our transportation infrastructure. We have highly qualifi ed staff in the min- istry, engineers, that are continuously looking at safety and areas for improvement. If it's deemed to be the right thing to do for safety and deemed to be in the interest of British Columbians, then and only then will we see a change in this policy. V . Huntington: Y es, you do have highly qualifi ed staff , Mr. Minister.

But the ministry also has a highly infl uen- tial industry, and I would suggest, with great respect, the minister take a very close look at the infl uence of the in- dustry on the decisions being made at CVSE. My last question is related to — I brought it up previ- ously — the fact that CVSE is allowing trucks to operate without functional ABS. In December of 2011 a notice was issued by CVSE that ABS was not needed or not necessary on natural re- source roads, primarily. But as we know, this is a standard that is mandated for heavy trucks by Transport Canada.

Rather than compelling the trucking industry to work with manufacturers to solve the maintenance issues that I think are basically the problem — i.e., the cost of main- taining ABS on natural resource roads — CVSE has al- lowed these trucks to operate without the ABS being functional. Th e notice was in December of 2011. Th e issue of what was a natural resource road became one that even the inspectors in Transportation needed to have resolved, so a second notice was put out in April of 2012, four months aft er the initial notice, stipulating that….

Natural resource primarily was defi ned as: 55 percent of your operation had to be on natural resource roads. Th at was looking at logs, etc. So 55 percent of a truck's operating time can be with- out…. If the operating time was 55 percent of the truck's mileage, he can operate on public highways without func- tioning ABS. I think that is another issue that has to be seriously examined. [1045] Th ese are costs of maintenance. We know that. But rather than resolving those issues with the manufactur- ers, CVSE has seen fi t to allow this safety precaution to be lift ed.

I would like to know when the minister will direct CVSE to stop issuing permits that allow this and to mandate that the industry work with manufacturers to solve their maintenance issues with ABS so that the public is secure in its safety. [1050]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 705 Hon. T. Stone: To the member opposite, yes, she is quite right. A notice was provided on December 31, 2011, that provided for this exemption. It came into eff ect on January 1, 2012. I really want to make clear that all trucks in British Columbia are required to have well-functioning brake systems, and there are all kinds of checks and balances in place to ensure that that's the case. Again, we have great people in the ministry and are very active in monitoring, through inspections, the trucks on our roads to make sure that that's the case.

Th ere are less than 1 percent of the commercial trucks in this province that operate almost exclusively on rural and resource roads, as the member mentioned. In fact, the issue, when it was brought forward to the ministry, from those trucks was that it's actually a greater safety issue to have the maintenance and the types of perform- ance challenges on the ABS brake systems due to the conditions that they were travelling in, for the most part, which are dirt roads, rural and resource roads. Frankly, it's in the greater public safety interest….

In the opinion of the Ministry of Transportation, as well as with full authorization of CVSE, providing those trucks with an exemption and not requiring them to have ABS brakes for rural and resource roads is actually in the pub- lic interest from a safety perspective. That's where the policy is at. We do not expect to change that policy. I will point out that there is a require- ment in the policy for an annual renewal. We will look at this issue on an annual basis and determine — again, based on facts — whether or not a change in policy is re- quired at that time. V .

Huntington: I'd just like to remind the minister that trucks are specifi cally required to only operate on natural resource roads. Rural roads weren't part of that, although you would assume a natural resource road is rural. Natural resource roads 55 percent of their operating time — that is the requirement. Th e rest of the time, if they were inspected on a public highway, they would still be exempt from having a functioning ABS. I'd like to perhaps end this by saying, Minister, that these trucks are typically operating at maximum weights.

Th e quad-axle trailers they're pulling are allowed in B.C. to operate at maximum weights, and they are typically travelling at extremely high speeds. I do not, with re- spect, believe this is in the public interest. I do not be- lieve it is good policy, and I believe the minister should be re-examining this issue. Hon. T. Stone: In response, your concerns are duly noted, and I encourage you to continue to raise this issue in the months and years ahead.

I will reiterate that the engineers and the staff in the Ministry of Transportation, as well as the very experi- enced staff in the CVSE branch, have looked at this and have studied it and have determined that the safety on the resource roads is actually improved by providing for this exemption. Again, there is an annual renewal provision on this policy, and we certainly will take a look at the data that's at hand at that time to determine if any further changes are required. C. Trevena: We're switching to B.C. Transit now. I've just got three areas, very cognizant of the time.

We have limited time to cover a very vast ministry. I wanted to focus on three areas of B.C. Transit. Th e first one is actually a basic one — funding for B.C. Transit. Between the February budget and the June re- vised budget, the amount of money listed in the service plan for transportation investments for rapid transit bus and other transit priorities has decreased by $27 million. Appropriations are down in the estimates book, yet the ministry avows to be investing in public transit infra- structure. [1055] It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

Y ou're tak- ing money out, but you say that you're investing in it. I really want to know how you are squaring that circle and actually putting the investment into public transit infrastructure. Hon. T. Stone: Th ank you for the question. With re- spect to transit funding in British Columbia, the gov- ernment remains committed to the B.C. Transit plan, the 2020 plan that calls for doubling ridership over that period of time. In terms of the capital numbers that the member men- tioned in her question, I think it's really important to note that the numbers fl uctuate. Sometimes they go up.

Sometimes they go a little bit down, depending on the timing of a number of factors. Th e member knows well that transit delivery is indeed a partnership between the province and, certainly, our local government partners. Job 1, we go to our local partners, and we say to them: "Are you able to maintain your share of the base oper- ational funding that's required to keep your system, as it currently is, operating?" Question 2: "What kind of ex- pansion would you be interested in, and can you aff ord your portion of that as well?" Once we have that aggregate data, B.C.

Transit brings that back, and in consultation with the provincial gov- ernment, we determine what level of funding will be pro- vided at that point in time by the province. We may see in any given year that a capital number for transit might be a little up, or it might be a little down. [1100] On the Evergreen project, for example, the original forecast in February versus now showed that project ac- tually up by tens of millions of dollars. It's all about the timing with respect to our local partners. It's also about

British Columbia Debates706 Thursday, July 18, 2013 the timing with respect to our federal partners, which oft en are involved on the capital side of many of these projects. Last but not least, B.C. Transit actively engages in public consultation on these projects. In the case of the Kelowna rapid transit, there was a very thorough con- sultation that was done with the people of Westside in Kelowna to make sure that B.C. Transit was clear on the priorities of the people in those communities, and then the decisions were made. I would end by simply saying that the overall capital budget for the total transit plan….

In terms of where we were in February and where we are today, from 2013- 14 to the end of 2015-16, the total transit plan actually has gone up from $836 million to $846 million. Again, there might be some adjustments, some up and down in some of the line items, but the overall spend is very much in place. C. Trevena: Th ank you to the minister. I am actually not talking about the Canada Line or the Evergreen line, which are in TransLink, but the B.C. Transit section, which has gone down. Y es, it goes up and down.

Looking to local partners, the local governments ac- tually don't have that much discretionary spending to continue to invest in B.C. Transit. Th e government keeps on avowing that it is in favour of encouraging the use of public transit, but it's got to come up to the plate to en- sure that local governments can also have the support. Local government doesn't have the discretionary money. It's relying desperately on one-off , one-time grants. So really, we are talking about a $30 million cut over the three years for B.C. Transit.

I wonder if the govern- ment has actually measured what the likely impact of that sort of cut will be in that line item. [1105] Hon. T. Stone: First off , let's be really clear. Th ere has been no cut to B.C. Transit. If we fi rst talk about oper- ational grants, the total operating grants from the min- istry to B.C. Transit for 2012-13 stood at almost $93 million. Th at is scheduled to go up for 2013-14 to al- most $102 million. It then goes up again in 2014-15 to $107 million, and in 2015-16 it goes up yet again to $113 million.

From an operations perspective, this govern- ment is continuing to invest more in operating grants for B.C. Transit. On the capital side I come back to my previous answer. Th ere has been no cut there either. Th e investments that are made on the capital side are largely dependent upon the timing of the matching contributions from our part- ners, most of which are at the local government level. But a good amount comes from the federal government as well. So the timing of those commitments is really im- portant.

I should also point out — and I think I said this yester- day — that there is no province in the country, no prov- ince in Canada, that invests more on a per-capita basis in transit than right here in British Columbia. In fact, as a percentage of the overall capital contribution for tran- sit investments in British Columbia, municipalities in British Columbia are asked to pay the least amount of any set of municipalities across this country. Th e record is a very good one, one that we're very proud of.

As I said a moment ago, we are as committed today as we ever have been to doubling transit ridership through our transit 2020 plan. I will highlight two terrifi c success stories which show that the plan is working. Th e Cowichan-Valley-to-Victoria transit route is at capacity. It's a tremendously successful route. And as I mentioned yesterday, the rapid transit line that now is in place between Westside and Kelowna…. I believe the ori- ginal projections on that route were a 10 percent increase in transit ridership over a three-year period. We actual- ly saw a 9 percent increase in ridership in the fi rst year.

Outstanding results. I think it demonstrates that the investments this government is making on both the oper- ational and the capital side are really paying off towards our goal of doubling transit ridership in this province by 2020. C. Trevena: We can pass fi gures and work through them, but I want to move on, because I'm very aware of the time. Hopefully, both sides are committed to ensur- ing that we have a very healthy B.C. Transit system right across the province, both in rural and urban areas. I'm very cognizant in my own community of the work with VIHA and then B.C.

Transit in getting the Mount Waddington transit network, which has really changed the way of living for a lot of people in the Mount Waddington area. It's great to have that. With this commitment and talking about the transit plan, I'm assuming…. When the minister talked about transit 2020, is this the transit plan for 2008, or is this a separate document we're talking about? Also, I wanted to start moving along, looking at the report of the independent review panel. I know that the recommendations were welcomed by the government and the report was welcomed by the government.

I won- dered when the government is going to act on specifi c recommendations. I won't ask about the changes to the B.C. Transit Act, because obviously there is no legislation happening in this session. Maybe in the fall session, if we are having a fall session, we would see the change in the legislation. [1110] Specifi cally, the recommendations were that the prov- incial government should provide B.C. Transit its capital funding through the service plan with output targets; that the provincial government should develop a policy framework for intercity routes — obviously, beyond

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 18, 2013 707 the Kelowna one mentioned; and that the Ministry of Transportation should provide B.C. Transit with the clear direction on its role in implementing the provin- cial transit plan. Hon. T. Stone: First off , the member just asked a very simple question: what was I referring to, a new report? No, it's the 2008 transit plan. I will say on that, however, that it was dated 2008. Th at was fi ve years ago. I'm pretty certain that as a priority I'll be moving forward a refresh at some point in the near to mid-term. We're working in our ministry with B.C.

Transit on a refresh of that transit plan. I think that some of the circumstances with transit around the province have changed a bit here and there. It probably is time to pull that report out and refresh it. [1115] On the question specifi cally about the panel's recom- mendations, as the member knows, there were 18 recom- mendations. B.C. Transit has been working their way through those recommendations. Government supports all 18 of them.

Over half of the recommendations ac- tually have been implemented — things like the imple- mentation performance reports, and we're working with a number of municipalities on that front; changes to the strategic communications; and so forth. With respect to legislative amendments that may or may not be triggered as a result of the recommenda- tions, I think it's important to note, as well, that very few of the recommendations actually will require legislative amendments. However, on those that may require legislative amend- ments, B.C.

Transit is working in partnership with the working group that was established between a number of local governments, UBCM and B.C. Transit to really work their way through those recommendations to iden- tify which ones may require legislative amendments and to prioritize those amendments. I understand that B.C. Transit will be providing that information to the ministry at some point in the near to mid-term. Obviously, we'll look at that list of priorities, and we'll make a decision on whether or not to proceed and, if so, when we would do that. C. Trevena: Th e specifi cs on the report….

It's good that the recommendations are being implemented. I look forward to seeing a feedback report when we get them all. I wanted to ensure…. On recommendations 17 and 18, the policy framework for the intercity routes, we've heard of the Cowichan-Valley-to-Victoria one and the Kelowna one. If there are any others…. But also 17, where it "should provide B.C. Transit its capital funding through the…service plan process with output targets." Is that happening? [1120] Hon. T.

Stone: First, with respect to recommendation 17 from the panel, which involved capital funding ap- proval with output targets through an enhanced service plan process, I'm pleased to report that that recommen- dation actually is completed, and it was incorporated into the preparation of the current service plan. I'd be happy, outside of this forum here, to provide you with further details on it if you would like.

Y ou won't see it per se in the service plan because the recommendation was to actually change the policy with respect to how the service plan is prepared, insofar as ensuring that the cap- ital funding approvals with output targets are part of that process. Th at one is done. In terms of recommendation No. 18, which deals with intercity routes, I could not agree more with the member opposite that there are some terrifi c examples of inter- city routes in British Columbia that are tremendous suc- cess stories. Y ou know, we believe and B.C.

Transit believes that under certain conditions, certain circumstances, certain makeup of the communities in question and so forth, there are likely other routes in British Columbia where an intercity route would make a lot of sense. I think in some situations it likely wouldn't make sense. A one-size- fi ts-all approach on intercity routes is likely not going to work around the province. Th at being said, at the working group that I referenced a moment ago — B.C. Transit, local governments and the UBCM — this is one of the remaining recommendations that they're still working on.

Th ere has been vigorous de- bate, I understand, at that working group table, and they inform me that I should have a recommendation on my desk in the short- to mid-term with respect to the cre- ation of a policy on intercity routes that could be applic- able provincewide. C. Trevena: Moving on and moving a bit backwards, we had the 2008 transit plan. Going back, I think, to about 2006…. I know it was long before the minister's time in elected politics, but in fact his former boss, the then Premier Gordon Campbell, talked about the hy- drogen highway.

We were going to have this fantastic link from B.C. all the way down to California, hydrogen pumps all over the place. It seems to be that it's only in Whistler at the moment, and we have hydrogen buses in Whistler. I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about the buses and the fact that we don't actually have the hydrogen here in B.C. and the fuel has got to be transported, I believe, from Quebec. I wanted to ask the minister…. Bearing in mind the time, I'll wrap up all these questions together. How much hydrogen is transported? How oft en is it transported from Quebec?

I'm assuming it's from Quebec, and if the minister wants to correct me, I'd be happy to have that correction, to fi nd out where it's from. And how many tractor-trailers are used in bringing the hydrogen across

British Columbia Debates708 Thursday, July 18, 2013 the country? [1125] Hon. T. Stone: Thanks for the question about the Whistler hydrogen bus. A very straightforward answer. Th ere are two tractor trucks that transport the fuel from the one supplier that provides us with the fuel. Th at's Air Liquide in Quebec. It takes ten days for each of those trucks to travel from their location in Quebec to British Columbia. Each one of those tractor-trailers carries about 10,000 kilograms of fuel on each trip. Again, two trucks, 10,000 kilograms of fuel transported, and it takes about ten days to cross the country. C.

Trevena: One quick follow-up on that. Are they sort of going a constant ten days so that they are on the road the whole time? Or is it that you get three shipments a month? How does that work? Hon. T. Stone: Every ten days B.C. Transit receives a shipment of the 10,000 kilograms of fuel. It's dropped off . Th e truck leaves. Ten days later another truck arrives. C. Trevena: Sorry, I should have asked this together, at the same time. What's the cost of this — for purchasing the hydrogen and the fuel costs for the tractor-trailers from Quebec? Hon. T.

Stone: Th e annual cost for the hydrogen fuel is $2 million per year. Th at's inclusive of the actual cost of the hydrogen as well as all transportation costs to move the hydrogen out from Quebec to British Columbia. C. Trevena: We're now moving from B.C. Transit. Much as I'd love to continue with B.C. Transit, I'm very aware that we have many other areas of this vast ministry to cover. We'll be looking at TransLink this aft ernoon. I'm moving on to a couple of major projects in the Lower Mainland — the Port Mann Bridge and the Massey Tunnel. Th anks to all the support staff .

While you're changing staff, I have one, I think, straightforward question on the Massey Tunnel. It was a fl agship project. Th e Premier promoted it hugely dur- ing the election. [1130] It is mentioned in the minister's letter of expectations, but it just talks about consultations and planning. Th ere is no money earmarked in the budget for what was de- scribed as a fl agship project. I wondered if the minister could tell me very briefl y where we are with it. Hon. T.

Stone: With respect to the George Massey Tunnel, again, as part of our commitment to our Pacifi c gateway program and making strategic investments in our transportation infrastructure network to facilitate the movement of people and goods — which, again, is all about investment and trade and jobs and growing the economy — we have identifi ed as one of our next core priorities on the infrastructure side in the Lower Mainland a replacement of the George Massey Tunnel.

I know the member knows well that it is the second- largest traffi c bottleneck now in British Columbia, and 80,000 vehicles use the tunnel every single day. So it is a top priority of the government, and certainly it was spe- cifi cally mentioned in my mandate letter. [1135] With respect to where we're at on the project, we've just completed a series of consultations, which the member referred to. Th e second phase of consultations was real- ly looking at a wide variety of potential options for the replacement.

I believe over 2,000 people participated in those consultations, so there was a high level of engage- ment from the public. We actually have allocated in the budget…. Th ere is some money in the budget with respect to the planning components of the project — the work that's been done up to this point and that we would be doing moving for- ward. It's rolled up under the Other Highway Corridors line item in the transportation investment plan, so we can provide those specifi c numbers to the member should she want them.

Specifically, there's a project development fund of about $2.4 million, the pre-project development of about $3.55 million, and then another $324,000 earmarked for the Massey Tunnel replacement study. So those dollars are there — again, under the Other Highway Corridors and Programs line item of the transportation invest- ment plan. Beyond that, the next step in this process is to get into the engineering and technical analysis as well as the re- lated capital side, the funding side, with a specifi c option in mind. We're reviewing the results of the consultations up to this point. We exp

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20130718am-Hansard-v3n6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20130718am Hansard v3n6
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c236cd499deafc4075d74bf724dae2e15c4c69cc

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).