2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 5

[ Page 6815 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to all members this morning. Today in this House we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development, and in Committee A we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1005]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

The committee met at 10:06 a.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,339,088,000.

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd like to make an opening statement, and I'd like to begin by thanking the ministry staff that are joining me here today: my deputy minister, Mark Sieben, and Assistant Deputy Minister Wes Boyd, Molly Harrington and Debi Upton.

The Ministry of Social Development has over 2,000 employees who work with families in B.C. to help them achieve their social and economic potential. They are dedicated and compassionate professionals who strive every day to provide the best service possible, and I commend them for the hard work that they do every day.

My ministry is about helping families in their greatest time of need, when they have no one else there to help them. They include providing income assistance and employment programs.

My ministry also supports B.C.'s most vulnerable, those who are disabled and people who have many barriers to taking care of themselves. This is done through Community Living B.C., and it helps more than 13,000 adults with developmental disabilities achieve their goals and live the life that they want to live.

They also provide support for the homeless. The homelessness intervention project was launched in 2009 and has housed over 3,900 homeless people across B.C. communities: Victoria, Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Prince George.

As the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, I'm looking forward to meeting and working with the diverse cultures that make B.C. the wonderful province that it is.

The 2011-2012 operating budget for the Ministry of Social Development is $2.3 billion. The total budget for income assistance for 2011-12 is $1.5 billion. In the budget for 2011-12 more than $350 million will be invested through my ministry in a full range of employment programs to help build better lives for themselves and their families.

Staffing is also working on new employment programs which were developed after considerable consultation with stakeholders across the province over the past three years and reflect the feedback we've received regarding the need for better services for those trying to find a job. Part of this work includes creating new employment centres in April 2012 which will make it easier for people to find work and provide stability for their families.

My ministry is also investing resources through Community Living B.C. to help those with developmental disabilities. Community Living B.C.'s 2011-12 operating budget is $701 million.

The ministry is also replacing outdated and inflexible information systems used to deliver income assistance and employment programs. Integrated case management is a $182 million capital project being implemented over six years. Expenditures in the 2011-12 budget are estimated at $31.7 million.

[1010]

The 2011-12 budget for the Ministry of Social Development focuses on helping British Columbians build a bright future. I'm looking forward to working alongside the great staff within this ministry as well as the people in B.C. in developing strong families and strong communities.

S. Simpson: It's a pleasure to be able to come and do estimates today with the new minister and get an opportunity to discuss social development with the minister. I do want to thank his staff for the briefing I got yesterday afternoon. That was helpful in preparing since we kind of are a little bit rushed getting into these estimates. They've come a little quicker than we had originally anticipated, but I'm sure we'll be fine.

Just so the minister knows my thinking on how we're going to go through today and tomorrow: some general overview to start in regard to the ministry; integrated case management; then on to income assistance, poverty-related issues; persons with disability issues — PWD — to follow that.

We'll see how our timing is. We'll need to fit in employment programs, then probably multiculturalism or employment programs. We may need to finish one of those off early tomorrow, and then the remainder of tomorrow, the last few hours, will be community living issues.
[ Page 6816 ]

That's roughly what we're looking at as timing and pretty much the same, I think, as I spoke to the deputy about yesterday.

My first question is in general overview. I see that the budget is at $2.3 billion. Could the minister tell us: how many FTEs does the ministry have today?

Hon. H. Bloy: Okay, I just want to let the member know that the government isn't reporting full FTEs any longer. There is no plan to return to detailed FTE reporting within the budget document, but I can let the member across the way know how many employees that we have. This year we have 2,079 employees in the ministry.

S. Simpson: How many of those employees are part-time?

[1015]

Hon. H. Bloy: The vast majorities within this ministry are full-time. There are a lot of flexible work hours by individuals. We have very few part-time employees. A lot of it is by employee choice, mothers returning to work.

S. Simpson: Can the minister just tell me…? Does the minister not have a number on how many part-time employees there are? Full-time — I'm not worried about flexible hours. People make up a workweek however they make it up, but people work 35-plus hours a week or people work less than that. I'm trying to determine of the 2,079 how many work pretty much full-time and how many don't.

Hon. H. Bloy: We do not have a record of the number of part-time employees for the member, but we will endeavour to get the information.

S. Simpson: I am a bit concerned that the ministry isn't able to determine relatively easily how many employees it has of a full-time nature and of a part-time nature. So we'll move to maybe a little more specific question around FTEs.

When I look on page 158 of the Estimates, I'm looking at the core business areas. In the income assistance area, one of the areas, I'm assuming, where the largest number of employees are…. They work around income assistance — that and community living, I would expect.

Could the minister tell me how many people, employees, work in income assistance? And I'm particularly interested in how many employees work around the delivery of income assistance generally to people in British Columbia.

Hon. H. Bloy: The number of people working on income assistance is 1,526.

S. Simpson: I might come back to some of these questions, but I'm going to move a little bit because I know we're going to be tight for time today.

The minister spoke about it a little bit earlier. One of the ways that I know the government is looking to improve its efficiencies and things is the introduction of the integrated case management system and the bringing in of a new system to be able to track and be able to manage people in the system. Maybe we'll ask a few questions and do a little bit related to the integrated case management. That might help me to deal with some of these other matters.

[1020]

The minister, I believe, said at the start that the integrated case management is projected to be a total cost of $182 million over the six-year period. I believe that has increased since the original projection of costs. Could the minister tell us: when the project was first introduced, what was the anticipated cost that has now presumably grown to $182 million?

[1025]

Hon. H. Bloy: I just want to assure the member across the way that the price hasn't risen — the original estimate for the project plan for $107 million. But the firm Treasury Board allocation to purchase software and build the system is $182 million.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe what the minister could provide…. I'm not going to ask him to explain this in detail right now. We have an original cost estimate of $107 million. We now have a cost of $182 million. Somewhere in here there's $75 million of differences. That's a real difference. That's almost — well, it's a 75 percent increase — a doubling of the cost, getting pretty close. It's not done yet, so it may double before we're done.

The only way it makes sense for this not to be a dramatic overspending in this area is if there were a whole bunch of new items that were added to the costs that had not been anticipated at the beginning. I can't imagine what those would be. You need technology. You need software. You need personnel. You need the work that goes behind all of that. That would be true in either case.

Somewhere in here we have a $75 million cost overrun on what the original cost was. Could the minister explain what that $75 million is or provide it in writing later?

Hon. H. Bloy: First, more functionality will be delivered by the project — more functional services for the two ministries that want to use it — and over time, it will be more adaptable.

A more conservative, phased approach has been adopted, increasing the length of the project and increasing testing and training costs associated with each
[ Page 6817 ]
phase, to make sure that we're getting what we wanted for what we're paying. The outcomes are there, which allows us throughout the project to take a step back and have the ability to adapt it. The project contingency was increased to make sure that we would cover the costs going forward and for the system integrator costs.

The bids actually came in higher than the original estimates. Approximately $38 million has been spent to the end of December 2009. The overall budget for the project is $181.7 million, with $86.8 million of that, system integrating services.

S. Simpson: Maybe I wasn't entirely clear. Could the minister tell me what the $75 million is being spent on that wasn't anticipated in the original bid of $107 million?

[1030]

Hon. H. Bloy: The additional cost was for more functionality that will be delivered by the project. A more conservative, phased approach has been adopted, increasing the length of the project and increasing testing and training costs associated with each phase while at the same time reducing the overall risk. The project contingency was also increased.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe we'll try this a different way. Could the minister tell me what "more functionality" means?

Hon. H. Bloy: We have a better ability to connect rules to benefit the eligibility determination, resulting in better support for more consistent decisionmaking. We have three additional rounds of business process re-engineering, a more comprehensive approach to business information and three additional staff deployments of user training. Staff will be better enabled to effectively use the tool as it's fully intended to be used. Together these will create a better overall solution coming out of the ICM project, which will meet current and future needs for the ministry.

S. Simpson: Then maybe what the minister could tell me is: if that's what's going to happen that costs an extra $75 million — or a portion of the $75 million; I'm sure there are other things, and we might get back to this — what was going to occur before if it wasn't exactly those things that were going to make the system more efficient? That was the purpose, as I'm told, for doing integrated case management in the first place. It was to do those things. I would assume that all of that was part of the $107 million.

What was the function going to be for $107 million that has become so much better for $182 million, which wasn't just bad projections on costs or cost overruns that got out of control?

[1035]

Hon. H. Bloy: The $107 million was only an estimate based on government's original planning. When we went to the market through the RFP process, higher real costs came out. We also chose a more conservative approach at that time to phase in over a longer period of time and to increase the contingency to reduce the risk in doing this project.

C. Trevena: I beg permission to make an introduction.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I have the honour today of noting and seeing that there is a very strong political animal up in the gallery. Roger Kishi is from Courtenay and is very involved both politically and…. I believe he's here today for the aboriginal friendship centres. I hope the House will make Roger very welcome. He's here to observe the proceedings.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: The minister suggested in his answer, I believe, that there was a $107 million budget for this, but it wasn't a real number because they hadn't gone to the marketplace to find out what it would cost.

Is the minister saying that when the contracts were first let, the number then increased by $75 million — when the contract was first let? I believe Deloitte has the contract to do this; I believe it's Deloitte. Could he confirm that? Or has it gone up since the contract was let?

Second, the minister talked about contingency. How much of that $182 million is contingency, and how much has that gone up since the original projection of $107 million?

[1040]

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to let the member across the way know that the approved budget was at $182 million for the contract. That was the full amount of the contract, and it didn't rise after the contract was let out. There are five phases of contingency, and each phase has a built-in contingency. In phase 1 it's 10 percent. In phase 2, or years 2 to 5, it's 20 percent. In phase 1 we didn't need to use the contingency.

S. Simpson: Just one more question on this, and then we'll move to some other things. Maybe one more question.

Could the minister explain this to me? In the first year of this, when it was coming in, there was a number put in the budget presumably for integrated case management. Can the minister tell me the number that was put
[ Page 6818 ]
in the budget? Was it $107 million, or was it $182 million? Was it $107 million, and subsequent to the budget, it was then increased to $182 million? Or was there just speculation about $107 million, and the number actually put in the budget was $182 million?

I'm trying to determine which one of those numbers was actually in the budget when this started — the first number, the lower number or the higher number.

[1045]

Hon. H. Bloy: I just want to let you know that the only approved budget to go ahead was $182 million.

S. Simpson: There's a provincial budget, so maybe we'll go back and try again. I don't have the number in front of me. Maybe the minister can help me with this. In what budget year was this budget included in the budget estimates? What was the number included in the budget estimates? How much was it? Was it $182 million in the budget estimates in the first year when this was anticipated, or was it the larger number?

Hon. H. Bloy: I just want to confirm that the $182 million budget is broken down into five phases. In 2010-11 we spent $28.2 million, and in the current year of which budget estimates are for, we spent $31.7 million.

[1050]

S. Simpson: Well, I'm assuming the minister doesn't want to answer the question, so we'll move on. I will go back and get those numbers myself, since the minister doesn't appear to want to answer the question.

The ICM system. There have been some issues around the responsiveness of the system. I know the ministry was working on that, in terms of it being a little bit slow in its responsiveness. Could the minister tell us whether those issues around the technical side of the responsiveness of the system have been corrected?

Hon. H. Bloy: The ICM phase 1 was implemented on November 29, 2010, on time, slightly under budget and within scope. Implementation impacted approximately 1,500 Social Development staff.

During the first few months of ICM implementation, staff experienced some challenges with the new system — including learning the new look and feel, adjustment of the number of steps needed to process transactions — and experienced slow systems performance. As a result, during the first two months delays in service were experienced by employment and income assistance clients due to staff learning the new system.

The system integrator, Deloitte, worked around the clock to monitor and address the ICM system performance issues, including on-site visits to identify and correct problems. Additional enhancements were made to systems to improve business processes and reduce the number of steps that staff needed to take to complete a transaction. Additional ICM refresher training is underway and will be completed by the end of May.

Transforming a vital business system is a huge undertaking, and while undesirable glitches are not uncommon in projects of this scope, we are confident that we are now back on track. The system is stable, and staff are so much more comfortable in using ICM.

So in response to the member's question, the initial concerns were experienced by staff.

S. Simpson: Just so I'm clear — and I appreciate the answer: have those issues now been addressed and corrected? Are those issues of slow responsiveness in terms of clients and that, which the minister acknowledged were there in the first phases of the system — whether it be technology, just learning, whatever the reasons are for that…? Have those now all been corrected, or is that correction in progress now?

[1055]

Hon. H. Bloy: Yes, all the technical glitches have been corrected, but we do continue to train staff on an ongoing basis.

S. Simpson: In regard to the other issue related to ICM that we know has been out there. Obviously, there are privacy-related issues in ensuring privacy protection is appropriate.

Could the minister tell us what the role of the Privacy Commissioner has been in relation to privacy issues? Has the Privacy Commissioner signed off entirely on the system?

Hon. H. Bloy: The Privacy Commissioner has been involved at multiple stages, with her and her staff. We did a privacy impact assessment. I just want to let the member know that she does not sign off, and she saw no reason not to implement the project.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

First, the Privacy Commissioner reviewed the privacy impact assessment prior to implementation, for phase 1. A full privacy impact assessment will be completed for every phase of the integrated case management project, and a full privacy impact assessment for phase 1, which is posted on the ministry website, was completed prior to implementing the project.

[1100]

S. Simpson: The minister is saying the Privacy Commissioner has raised no concerns about the system and about how the security of people's privacy will be protected by the system. Is that what the minister is telling us?
[ Page 6819 ]

Hon. H. Bloy: I just wanted to say that the Privacy Commissioner had no concerns. She is comfortable with the approach that we are taking as a government, and we continue to work with her and her staff very closely through each stage to ensure privacy protection for individuals.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: if that's the work that's being done with the Privacy Commissioner…? We had an opportunity to speak a little bit yesterday. I spoke a bit to some of his staff yesterday. Could the minister tell us: what's the role…?

There's a whole array of agencies or organizations, service providers, who are being pulled in now or who will, over the next period of time, be pulled in to this program and become part of it. I believe that as his staff said yesterday, the next big phase is the employment programs that will come in next April.

Could the minister tell us how the groups are being involved, how their input is being solicited for the operation of the system and how it will work — all aspects of it? How are they being involved, and what is the process for their input, and how are people or organizations being chosen to be part of that process?

[1105]

Hon. H. Bloy: We are working with service providers as part of this overall project. They are part of our working group to help design the system, and we asked for volunteers to come forward to help us work with the system.

S. Simpson: I guess my question…. Maybe I'll try to be a little clearer with my question. What are the processes that are in place for groups to have that input? I'm sure it's something. It's more formal than: "Just give me a call if you'd like to talk about it." What are the processes in place to allow groups to be able to help evaluate the system, to have input into how it might affect their ability?

I mean, we talked a little bit before; I've talked before. Obviously, there are lots of questions that will get sorted out about technologies, about how systems that are being used by organizations link to the ICM system of government, whether it's through portals or whether it's through a complete transition of the system — lots of those kinds of questions — which, I'm sure, are more than just an informal conversation. What are the formal processes for those groups to be able to be part of this conversation?

[1110]

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to assure the member across the way that we do have a detailed project plan, and part of that plan specifically includes service provider strategy. We're very specific in detail about what we want to do. Currently, in the joint application design, they are part of the team.

S. Simpson: Could the minister provide a list of the organizations that have actually been part of the process in a meaningful way — part of the process of ICM?

Hon. H. Bloy: I'd be pleased to get the list, and our staff is going to put the list together for you.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to the list.

I think I'm going to let that lie for the moment and move on a little bit, away from the ICM, to talk a bit more about poverty and income assistance and some of those supports, and have a bit of a discussion that's a little more philosophical with the minister.

The minister will know…. I don't think he had his current appointment at the time we had this conversion, but I've had the conversation with his predecessor about how we begin to address the issues of poverty, whether it be for the 38,000-odd kids who are identified as living in poverty in the province, living on income assistance…. There are many more than that living in poverty and in poor households that aren't collecting assistance. But certainly those kids, and other kids and families that are living in poverty….

I know that the minister, in having read his message in the service plan, and I know the comments of Ms. Clark that families are obviously…. The minister has talked about families being a priority, so I'm assuming that part of that priority is to break the cycle of family poverty where it exists in the province.

Could the minister tell the House what the strategy he views…? Particularly for people within his responsibility — collecting assistance. We'll keep it to the people collecting assistance. There's a whole other group of the working poor, but for now let's just keep it to the people collecting assistance and the families and the 38,000-odd kids or whatever that fall into that category.

How does the minister view the strategies or what's occurring within government and within his ministry? How does it get to breaking that cycle of poverty that we're facing? What specific things in this budget begin to take us down that road where we should be able to see progress in breaking that cycle of poverty?

[1115]

Hon. H. Bloy: To answer the member's question, addressing poverty requires a cross-government commitment.

There are 43,000 fewer children on income assistance now than there were in 2001. Since 2003, B.C. has made significant progress in reducing low-income incidence for all age groups and family types, and the gap between B.C. and other provinces has narrowed. According to the 2008 after-tax low-income cutoff, 11.4 percent of
[ Page 6820 ]
the population lived on low income. Although it is up slightly — 0.3 percent — from 2007, these are still the lowest rates since 1989.

The proportion of B.C. children living in families with low income in 2008 was 10.4 percent, down from 13 percent in 2007 — close to one-half of the rate of 19.2 percent in 2003. This was the lowest rate since 1980.

B.C. saw one other remarkable improvement in 2008. The percentage of children living in female-headed single-parent families with low income declined from 37.4 percent to 18.6 percent, the second-lowest rate in Canada and by far the lowest rate ever reported in British Columbia.

The province supports a focus on strengthening the economy and job growth as the major long-term strategy for reducing low income and poverty. The government must work with business, communities and families to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to achieve financial security.

To ensure that the work pays, the minimum wage is being increased in three stages. It is now $8.75 per hour in British Columbia. On November 1 it will be $9.50, and on May 1, 2012, it'll be $10.25. B.C. will have the highest minimum wage in Canada at that time.

In January 2010 the basic personal income tax credit was increased to $11,000 from $9,373, an increase of $1,627, and the spousal credit increased by the same amount.

[1120]

Provincial income tax has now been eliminated for 325,000 low-income British Columbians since 2001. British Columbia has the lowest provincial income tax rates in all of Canada and for the first two tax brackets.

Also, in January 2010 MSP premiums were eliminated or reduced for about 180,000 low-income families with enhancements to the premium assistance program. With the introduction of the harmonized sales tax in July of 2010, a new HST credit was introduced that more than offset the sales tax paid directly by low-income British Columbians.

We have increased the number of child care spaces in B.C. by over 30 percent since 2003, with more than 95,000 licensed care spaces receiving ongoing government funding. The after-tax income threshold for B.C. child care subsidy for a single parent with a child under six has been raised to about $31,000 from $19,000 in 2001. This is about $38,000 in before-tax earnings. A single parent with a child under six in licensed group care can save up to $550 per month or over $6,000 per year.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister has a list of numbers there, and we can all cherry-pick the place that we want to compare this number to that number. I can pick a number that makes the government look bad, and the minister can pick a number that makes the government look good. We can do that, and that's all fine. I can say that we still have the highest child poverty rates in the country, and the minister can say we've brought them down more quickly than at any time in the past. So we can have that little back-and-forth.

But the reality is that that doesn't do anything for the 38,000 kids and their families that are living in poverty. The minister and I having this go back and forth over who's got the number that either shines the best or the worst light on things isn't helping.

My question to the minister is this. Can the minister tell me how he feels about how we move forward as a province — a province that's wealthy in relation to the country; a province that needs to get its head around this issue of how we deal with this matter of poverty for these kids, for these families, for seniors, for all of those people? I know the minister, and I know that the minister cares about this. How do we move forward, and how does he see us doing that over the next few years?

The Premier has talked about families first. Well, I'm sure the minister would also say that when you talk about families first, you have to pay attention to those families who are most vulnerable and face the biggest challenges. That's the conversation I'm hoping to have with the minister today as it relates to these estimates and this budget and how the minister spends $2 billion plus.

Can the minister tell me: how does he see and view us moving ahead to begin to address these issues of poverty in ways that will be meaningful for those kids and those families and not as a debate of statistics between him and me?

[1125]

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, I want to say that I know the member across and myself and all colleagues in the House want to see the reduction of poverty day by day, and how we move forward is to ensure both a sound benefit and tax regimes.

As I have just outlined for the member, we are also profoundly committed to ensuring a sound economy that provides jobs for working parents so their children can achieve higher financial and well-being outcomes. We are proud of the profound achievement of reducing child poverty, even reducing it in 2008 in the face of the economic crisis the province was going through.

Research shows that a main determinant of low income and poverty is economic growth and employment opportunities that encourage full-time…. That is why B.C. supports a focused, strengthening economy and job growth as the major long-term strategy for reducing low income and poverty.

Income assistance alone is not an adequate response to poverty and low income. B.C. recognizes that a variety of approaches are needed, such as tax measures, subsidized housing options, child care subsidies, medical services,
[ Page 6821 ]
disability supports and employment programs aimed at reducing and breaking the cycle of homelessness.

Key to success in reducing low-income rates is ensuring that work is a better deal than income assistance. To this end, we have increased work incentives by continuing to provide many benefits and services to low-income families not on assistance. B.C. works with other levels of government and addresses low incomes. For example, B.C. worked with the federal government to redesign the working income tax benefit for B.C. to better assist clients' income assistance for employment.

S. Simpson: The minister will know that at least six other provinces have adopted, mostly through legislation but some through regulation, poverty reduction strategies that have some form of targets and timelines for bringing down poverty in their respective jurisdictions.

[1130]

The minister will also know that this is something that has been adopted by governments of every stripe. It's not Right; it's not Left. It's been governments of every stripe that have adopted poverty reduction strategies, and in most cases, they've legislated them. British Columbia has chosen not to pursue that approach but, as the minister says, to do a number of other things.

Could the minister tell the House: what is the thinking behind the government making the decision that a legislated poverty reduction strategy similar to or comparable to what has been adopted in six other provinces — I believe it's six; it might be seven now — is not an appropriate strategy or approach for British Columbia?

I'm just trying to understand here. So the minister is maybe clear on what I'm trying to get at here, I'm trying to understand the thinking behind the decision. I accept that there are many ways to get at this issue. That's an approach that's been taken by a number of jurisdictions. It's an approach that we on this side believe makes sense — a legislated poverty reduction strategy with targets, with timelines, where the government of the day can be held accountable for progress.

The current government, the B.C. Liberal government, has chosen a different approach. I'm simply trying to understand the thinking behind that. What is it about a legislated strategy that the minister and his government believe is not adequate, not appropriate, not the right solution for British Columbia?

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, a plan is not a panacea for poverty. We recognize that a number of other provinces have adopted official anti-poverty strategies with multi-year reduction targets.

This approach can help to focus government to achieve objectives. However, the recent economic recession provides a good example of how the labour market and budgetary plans and priorities of the province can change unexpectedly, making the targets less meaningful.

Having a poverty strategy does not mean that a province is more effective by reducing poverty. Quebec introduced a poverty plan in 2003, but since then their total rate of low income has declined by only 1.1 percentage points compared to 4 percentage points for British Columbia over the same period. Child low-income rates have declined by 0.7 percentage points in Quebec compared to 8.8 points in British Columbia.

B.C.'s low-income rate for total persons and children living on low income, without a poverty plan, is only 2 percentage points above Quebec's rate. The results are similar with the Newfoundland and Labrador poverty strategy enacted in 2006. B.C.'s decline in the rate of total persons living in poverty has been much higher — 1.6 compared to 0.03 percentage points. The rate of children living in low income has also declined more in B.C. — 6.2 percent compared to 0.02 percent.

[1135]

What I'm proud of, with our new Premier, is that we have a lens on everything that's happening now — on families first and a commitment to reducing low income. I'm pleased to be part of the families-first committee and working to help every family in British Columbia for a better life and especially to help low-income families in British Columbia.

S. Simpson: The minister is reading lists again. The bottom line is that we have tens of thousands of people in this province, even more than that, living in poverty. Actually, if you include seniors and people living on the bubble and that, we have hundreds of thousands of people who are living in poverty.

It doesn't matter what rate you use. I'd be the first one to say that you can argue whether market basket measures or LICO before or after tax makes sense or whether we should have a made-in-B.C. measurement for poverty and whether poverty in Vancouver, with housing costs what they are, is a different story than poverty in Cranbrook, with housing costs what they are there, and other costs. The reality is this: we still have way too many people living in poverty.

We have those other provinces that have adopted plans that people can measure. That's what I'm hearing from folks in British Columbia — that people want a way to measure how we're doing. They want a way to know that the government has a plan.

The minister talks about the Premier. Well, the Premier talks about change. Now, we haven't seen much in the way of change, but maybe it'll come. Part of that change has got to be how we deal with our most vulnerable citizens. Part of that change, if it's about families, has to be how we deal with our most vulnerable families. Part of that change, hopefully, has to be that we have ways to measure whether what we're doing is working
[ Page 6822 ]
and whether what we're doing is accomplishing objectives that we have set.

That's about targets, and it's about timelines. It's about setting standards that we reasonably think we can accomplish in a period of time that is fair and then moving ahead and trying to accomplish them and, if we're not successful, doing the analysis to say why it didn't work and what we need to adjust to make it work better — or if we're more successful than we planned, then to determine what we did that in fact was better than what we thought, congratulate ourselves for that success and move to the next step, to bring poverty down another step.

I haven't heard from the minister yet. I have not heard what it is and why the government doesn't believe that it should set targets and timelines that British Columbians can understand and can reasonably expect the government to hit or not hit and explain why they had success or not. Why can't the government set some kind of reasonable targets and timelines for dealing with this question of getting kids and families, and others, out of poverty?

[1140]

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, I want to share the member's concern, in that we in government all have the same concerns about addressing poverty for families in B.C. This government's energy and focus have gone to initiatives that work and that we believe will make a difference.

I've outlined plans in and of themselves before that don't necessarily reduce poverty in British Columbia. We do measure poverty reduction. I have outlined these for the member. We will continue to monitor the progress and report on this. We do not believe in setting artificial targets. We believe in monitoring the number of individuals, families and children in poverty and reducing this.

We are proud of our considerable achievements in reducing poverty to levels not seen for two decades, and we will continue to reduce poverty further.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and his staff for being here.

I have a few questions. Does the minister know what the income assistance rate is for a single mom with two children under the age of 12?

[1145]

Hon. H. Bloy: For a single parent with two children, the support allowance is $375.58 a month, and the shelter allowance is $660 a month, plus additional benefits.

N. Simons: The benefits — what do you mean by benefits?

Hon. H. Bloy: GST credit, which is federal, $63.50; B.C. climate action tax, which is $20.13; B.C. harmonized sales tax credit of $57.50; Canada child tax benefit of $224.66; B.C. family bonus and national child benefit supplement of $328 — for a total income of $1,769.37.

N. Simons: Are any of those deducted from the cheque?

Hon. H. Bloy: None of the benefits are deducted from the cheque.

N. Simons: When was the last time income assistance rates were raised for employables?

Hon. H. Bloy: The rate was increased in 2007.

N. Simons: I know that the minister has a sensitivity to some issues, and I think it's important to talk about poverty in the context of the current impact of poverty. We could talk about rates years from now, but children are living in poverty today, and they're not going to be the ones benefiting from a plan or no plan that sees results or no results five years or ten years down the line.

Does the minister recognize that those who are on income assistance are not eligible for a transit pass?

Hon. H. Bloy: The member across the way is correct. It's only available for people with disabilities at this time.

N. Simons: I'd just like to inform the minister that there are people with children living on income assistance in rural parts of our province who are consequently forced to hitchhike, forced to find unreliable methods of transportation to attend the doctor, to attend the food bank once a week, to attend any event at the school or to get their children involved in programs.

[1150]

Does the minister think it would be a good idea to provide people who are already on the margins of economic viability with transit passes so that they can become active in their community?

[1155]

Hon. H. Bloy: The ministry does not have a bus program for people other than people with disabilities and low-income seniors. We're only one of two provinces that offer a generous bus program issued to approximately 80,000 people a year.

Individuals receiving bus passes that are eligible to receive them are federal old age security and guaranteed income supplement individuals; individuals aged 60 and over who are receiving federal spouses allowance to old age security; immigrants aged 65 and older who meet all the eligibility requirements for the federal income supplement except the ten-year residency requirement; clients aged 60 or older receiving income assistance; clients in
[ Page 6823 ]
receipt of disability assistance under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act; clients with the persons with disabilities designation; those aged 60 or over who are in special care facilities where the minister is paying neither the facility user charge nor the comforts allowance; and First Nations persons with disabilities who live on the reserve and receive assistance from the agency, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, that provides assistance on reserves.

Noting the hour, I ask leave to report progress and sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. 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.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

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

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $605,202,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. S. Bond: I do; just a few brief comments. But let me do my paperwork first.

I'm very pleased today to have the opportunity to present the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Very importantly, I want to recognize members of the staff that are here today.

First of all, our Deputy Solicitor General, Lori Wanamaker. We also have Tara Faganello, who is the executive financial officer, and David Hoadley, who is our chief financial officer. Throughout the course of the day we'll be joined by a number of exceptional members of the team. They are very good at what they do, and certainly as the new Solicitor General, it's been incredibly interesting to learn more about the ministry supported by a fantastic staff. You'll meet many of them throughout the course of the next day or so.

A very diverse ministry and incredibly interesting. Looking at issues like public safety and regulatory programs, we deal with issues like law enforcement, Corrections, crime prevention, victim services, emergency management and a number of other specific areas.

We're also responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, the Liquor Distribution Branch and the Pension Corporation of British Columbia.

As I said earlier, I am extremely impressed with the dedication of the staff in this ministry and their commitment to enhancing public safety in every community across our province. Certainly, there couldn't be a more important ministry from my perspective when you talk about families in the province. Every family deserves the right to live in a safe community, and that's the job that we're working very hard to ensure is the case in British Columbia.

With that, hon. Chair, I conclude some very preliminary remarks, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to questions this morning.

[1010]

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that, Minister. I just want to give you a very brief overview of the order of areas that we're going to go into, which may be helpful so that people may not have to sit here all day long. A very quick look, first of all, at the global numbers for the budget. Then specifically, we're going to go into policing, which will be the next area, and then Corrections, then B.C. Coroners Service, then fire issues, then victim services and then ICBC. I thought that might be helpful.

I believe that a request, as well, from the ministry is that we deal with ICBC at the end of the day today. That will be as long as I am here. The member for Vancouver-Hastings is responsible for gaming. He will be here tomorrow and will ask questions tomorrow in the area of gaming. I'm assuming we're going to finish all these other areas today. That's our plan.

To start with, I'm glad to hear that the minister says that safety is important to families in British Columbia. I would just like to start by confirming that the overall budget for the ministry of $605.202 million is a reduction from $607.425 million last year.
[ Page 6824 ]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct in the fact that numerically there is a reduction. There is a $2.324 million decrease, and that's primarily due to the change in salary benefits.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then. Are you saying that the benefits have gone down that amount — the salary benefits?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. Salary benefits have moved from 24.5 percent to 23 percent.

K. Corrigan: Going into the components of that budget…. I'll just go through these numbers, then, and seek clarification that I've got it right.

Corrections. The restated estimates for 2010-11 were $192.904 million last year, 2010-2011, and for 2011-2012 we're at $190.443 million, with a reduction of $2.4 million for Corrections.

Policing and security programs: from $294.169 million down to $294.202 million, a reduction of $33,000. Victim services and crime prevention: $42.140 million down to $41.857 million, a reduction of $283,000. Emergency management: $26.913 million up to $27.793 million, an increase of $880,000.

Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles: $4.708 million to $4.492 million, a reduction of $216,000. Executive and support services: $12.022 million to $11.413 million, a reduction of $609,000. Emergency Program Act: $14.559 million to $14.478 million, which I'm showing as plus $81,000, but I think it's a reduction. So have I got those numbers correct? I just want to confirm.

Hon. S. Bond: We'd have to go through the list again, but the member was incorrect in that policing and security programs have gone up by $33,000, and the number that the member opposite has in executive and support services is not the same number that we have. In fact, we have $11.897 million in 2010-2011 moving to $11.413 million.

[1015]

K. Corrigan: I'll go back and take a look at those numbers, but we're roughly correct. We'll correct those later. Okay, so those are the numbers.

The first area that I wanted to go into, as I mentioned, was about the RCMP. Every year there are surveys and polls conducted on behalf of the RCMP about the level of public trust in the RCMP. I wanted to talk to you about some of those numbers.

There is a question about whether or not the RCMP is an accountable organization. Across Canada about three-quarters of Canadians think that the RCMP is an accountable organization. In British Columbia that number is 56 percent. In asking about professionalism, in 2006, 94 percent of British Columbians thought that the RCMP demonstrated professionalism in its work, and that was higher than the rest of Canada.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

In 2009 that number dropped to 74 percent. It was lower than the rest of Canada. In 2010 the survey indicates that only 69 percent of people in B.C. believe that the RCMP demonstrates professionalism in its work, as compared to across Canada, with 84 percent.

When faced with the statement "I have confidence in the force's integrity and honesty," in 2006, 91 percent of B.C.'ers agreed with that. In 2010 we were down to 69 percent, which I find really unfortunate. We have a wonderful RCMP detachment in our community of Burnaby which is very responsive to the public and is very well trusted. Obviously, that is not felt across the province.

For nearly all the questions, B.C.'s positive responses were the lowest in the country, with the exception of the Yukon, which consistently showed the poorest responses.

I want to ask the minister why it is that the minister believes that there is such a low level of public trust for the RCMP.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I think the member opposite has to put those statistics in context. There are also other parts of the survey that demonstrate that British Columbia does have significant confidence in the RCMP. In fact, 82 percent of British Columbians said they were satisfied with the RCMP's contributions to public safety. So we have to look at the entire survey.

There is no doubt that a number of very high-profile cases in British Columbia have caused people to ask some serious questions, and I think there's probably no group more concerned about that than the RCMP themselves. I can assure the member opposite that the vast majority of British Columbians understand that the men and women who risk their lives every day to serve us in this province do an exceptional job. I think there's no doubt that high-profile cases impact people's views, and that has been the case in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: Well, given the numbers, and there are certainly very concerning numbers in the ones that I have mentioned here, I want to know what the government is doing to promote renewed confidence in the RCMP.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, the government isn't going to be totally responsible for fixing people's confidence in the RCMP.

[1020]

It's not something that we can mandate. It's not something that we can simply say: "Let's fix this." It's up to all of us, and we are working very collaboratively with
[ Page 6825 ]
police services across the province to look at how we rebuild confidence.

One of the ways we are doing that is we are negotiating an RCMP contract that will look at accountability mechanisms. We're in fact pursuing the concept of an independent investigation office in British Columbia, which at the end of the day, I think, police — whether they're the RCMP or municipal police forces — would agree would certainly help in terms of the issue of investigating any misconduct that potentially takes place. But it's not something government can mandate. We're going to work very carefully and closely together with police services across the province.

Generally, again I need to say that where I live and the people that I live next door to have enormous confidence in the men and women who serve in the Prince George RCMP detachment. The survey does highlight some areas where British Columbia has seen a drop in confidence, but it also highlights some significant areas where people in this province compare very favourably to national outcomes.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister says that this is not a government problem particularly, or it's all of our problem, but there are certainly aspects of this that are government problems. The minister mentioned some high-profile cases, and the heart of the high-profile cases that the minister is surely referring to here has completely to do with government failure, government programs, government lack of oversight being in place.

This government has not acted in cases like the Robert Dziekanski case, which happened four years ago. Over four years ago that Robert Dziekanski died, and there has been a failure by this government to act on that. I would like to go specifically to some of those cases now and ask a few questions about that.

First of all, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association at the end of October of last year said that B.C. has the highest number of jail or police-involved deaths per year of any of the six provinces and territories for which numbers were available. B.C. has had 267 police-involved deaths over the last 15 years — twice as many deaths as Ontario, which has three times our population. Would the minister agree that those numbers are correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Any death in custody is one that is an important consideration. There are investigations that are done into every one of those circumstances. There are different definitions across the country in terms of "death in custody" and what that means and when it begins and how it's counted. The number of RCMP officers in British Columbia…. We have 40 percent of all the RCMP officers in Canada in British Columbia.

[1025]

It's really important to be careful in terms of how we compare statistics. Any death in custody is much more than a statistic. As a result of the recommendations that Justice Braidwood gave to government…. We agreed with the recommendations, particularly related to independent oversight, and we are continuing to put in place the necessary work to create that type of office in the province.

K. Corrigan: Maybe I'll just ask for a little more clarity on the response. Is the minister saying that these numbers are not correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The minister is saying that, in fact, we need to be careful to be assured that they are taken in the correct context. Every death in custody is a serious issue, and we ensure that there is an appropriate investigation and follow-up. I'm simply pointing out that 40 percent of all the RCMP officers in the country are in British Columbia, and we simply need to be careful that the comparisons and the statistics are looked at appropriately.

K. Corrigan: Maybe you can clarify to me why it's relevant that we have 40 percent of the RCMP. My understanding was that the B.C. Civil Liberties study simply looked at the number of police deaths. It didn't matter whether it was RCMP or municipal police forces, so I'm not sure why it would be relevant that 40 percent of the RCMP members are in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the benefit of the study from the civil liberties group in front of me. I understand that there was some discussion about the numbers, and part of the discussion related to the fact that the definition of "death in custody" is different in different parts of Canada. So that, from my perspective — if that is accurate — would be a relevant discussion.

We certainly today don't want to underestimate a death in custody. It is a serious issue that is followed up in terms of a thorough investigation, and if there are consequences and further action, those are also followed up on.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering then — because we're probably not going to agree on this, or we're not going to resolve this at this point — if as a follow-up the minister could commit to providing me with what the minister believes is the number of police-involved deaths in British Columbia over the last 15 years and a definition of what a police-involved death is. I'd be happy to have that at some future point.

Hon. S. Bond: We're happy to do that. Along with that, we will also include a copy of the RCMP media statement that, in fact, commented on their concern about some degree of inaccuracy in the numbers, based most particularly on the definition. Certainly, there was a reaction once that report had been published. I think it would be fair, certainly, to look at both sides of that issue, and we'd be happy to share those numbers.
[ Page 6826 ]

K. Corrigan: Chair, I have an interesting thing to ask about. My understanding is that when we are here in the committee room, it is acceptable to use a BlackBerry; it is not acceptable to be reading from a computer. I'm wondering what we would call what the minister has in front of her, because it looks to me that it's almost like a hybrid.

[1030]

The Chair: My understanding of that is that computers and BlackBerrys are allowable for resource but not to be used while either party is speaking. When they've been recognized by the Chair, they're not to be used.

K. Corrigan: So your understanding is that ministers or members are not to be reading off of….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, I've been called on it before.

The Chair: Excuse me, but the minister did stand up.

Would you like to respond, or are you happy with my ruling?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy with your ruling, Madam Chair.

K. Corrigan: I was very pleased that the minister mentioned a few minutes ago that the ministry is working at looking at the concept of an independent investigation office for policing. I'm a little concerned about that wording. We know that both the Davies Commission in 2009 and the Braidwood Inquiry in 2010 strongly recommended that police stop investigating themselves.

As a result of that, then–Attorney General de Jong announced in June 2010 that government would create an independent, civilian-led body to investigate serious injuries or deaths involving municipal police and RCMP. At that time the Attorney General said that this civilian-led unit would be in place within 12 months, and that would have been, then, June 2011.

It is now May of 2011. I was wondering if the minister could tell me what the progress is and whether or not we're going to have that independent, civilian-led oversight body in place by June of 2011.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, we as a government embraced Justice Braidwood's recommendations and found them to be reasonable and important for the province. The work is currently underway. I fully expect to be able to ensure that the independent investigation office is operating in British Columbia in 2011.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think the people of British Columbia are getting impatient. The people of British Columbia do not know why this has not been in place earlier. The recommendations have gone back as far as Wally Oppal, making the recommendation that we needed to have independent oversight of the RCMP in cases of serious wrongdoing by RCMP or police. That goes back years and years. Mr. Oppal was in government for years, and there was no action on that.

Then we have Robert Dziekanski — whose name I have terrible trouble pronouncing — who died on October 14, 2007. Whatever the investigation and the inquiry into that determined in terms of recommendations, surely that should have been a wake-up call for this government to move forward with recommendations that have been there for years and years.

Again we're being told — probably shortly before an election — that we are going to have this work done at some point in the future. To quote former Justice Thomas Braidwood, who the minister quoted a couple of minutes ago and who conducted the commission into the death of Robert Dziekanski…. He put it best when he just simply said: "I just wish they'd hurry up."

Now we have, in April of 2011 — the work that was promised has not been done; there've been more delays — the tasering of an 11-year-old boy. Again the investigation is not independent. The investigation is done by another police force, which I'm sure was acting responsibly and professionally. But again the people of British Columbia are not comforted by the fact that we have the police investigating themselves.

So I want to ask a few more questions. Why has this government reneged on its commitment to have in place an independent, civilian-led body of police oversight by this summer?

[1035]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is, unfortunately, incorrect. We have not reneged on any commitment. In fact, I've been the minister perhaps six weeks or so, and I've been very much impressed with the work that's been done in terms of putting the framework in place to create the independent investigation office.

One of the key recommendations that Justice Braidwood provided was that the creation of an office of this nature be entrenched in legislation. That actually requires additional work, and it requires the ability to have that legislation brought forward.

So there is work being done. The independent investigation office will be operating in British Columbia, and in no way has this government moved away from that commitment.

K. Corrigan: Well, the Attorney General, in 2010, said that it would be 12 months — that it would be in place within 12 months and that there would be a civilian-led unit by June of 2011. It is now May of 2011. June of 2011 is long overdue, and we have yet another delay.
[ Page 6827 ]

The minister has just pointed out that there needs to be legislation, so I suspect what the minister is saying is that because this Legislature has not sat for the last year with the exception of a few weeks, there has been no opportunity to put that legislation together. I would put it back squarely on the government. Again, this is the irresponsible government that is unable to do the work that the minister says needs to be done because of the fact that this Legislature has not sat.

Hon. S. Bond: We intend to move forward with an independent investigation office in British Columbia. I had the pleasure of meeting with Justice Braidwood very recently, and in fact, he was not only impressed but pleased with the status of the work that has been done.

I can assure the member opposite that we intend to move forward with this office. We recognize the importance, and that's why we embraced the recommendations that were provided to us. There has not in any way been a diminishment of the commitment we have to providing an independent investigation office in British Columbia.

The Chair: Just a reminder for the clarification of members. Discussing legislation or the need for legislation is not the purview of the Committee of Supply.

K. Corrigan: I won't discuss legislation anymore. Thank you for that reminder. Still, every once in a while, having been here almost two years, I get reminded of things that I was either not aware of or forgot, so I thank you for that reminder.

I do have some more questions, though, about the proposed independent investigation office. Will the new independent investigation office have authority to investigate complaints and incidents involving serious harm or death against all police officers in British Columbia — i.e., both municipal officers and the RCMP?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, we obviously intend to entrench the independent office in legislation, so I'm going to be very careful in my comments about what that might look like. I can assure the member opposite that we intend to honour the recommendations and meet the expectations that were laid out in Justice Braidwood's report.

K. Corrigan: Can you just remind me, then, because I don't have the report in front of me: did Justice Braidwood recommend that this body have oversight over both municipal officers and the RCMP?

[1040]

Hon. S. Bond: While Justice Braidwood didn't explicitly ask for that, what he did recommend was that a conversation take place with the federal government, because there are obviously issues related to jurisdiction. That conversation has taken place, but I think it is absolutely clear that his intent in those recommendations would have been for the IIO to actually have jurisdiction over both municipal and the RCMP.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. I'm going to assume that the answer, then, to the question about whether or not the IIO…. I'm happy to call it that and not say it out every time. It will have authority to investigate complaints related to both municipal officers and the Mounties. Is that a fair assumption to make, Minister?

The Chair: Again, if this is a question about what legislation might reflect, I think we're on a fine line here, because we're really not supposed to be talking about and discussing pending legislation.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Chair, and….

The Chair: Is that what you're asking?

K. Corrigan: I'm not asking about legislation. I'm asking what the ministry plans are. We have a budget before us for what the ministry plans to do. We've had some public comments about what the ministry plans to do. I'd like to ask the minister what the plans are, not what the legislation is going to contain.

The Chair: That's fine. I was just asking for clarification.

K. Corrigan: I'm not concerned about what the legislation is — simply what the plans are.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as I mentioned, I think the intent that Justice Braidwood had was that there be a conversation with the federal government about any jurisdictional issues related to independent oversight of both the municipal and RCMP police services. That conversation has taken place, and that certainly was the intent of the recommendations. We intend to respond to each of the recommendations that Justice Braidwood gave to the government.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister. What consultation is being conducted with regard to the structure, the composition? What is this IIO going to look like?

Hon. S. Bond: Justice Braidwood actually provided 19 recommendations. The IIO is obviously an important part of them, but there are 19 recommendations. Work has gone on. In fact, there's been a committee in place that has included a large group of stakeholders, for example, the police obviously, mental health services, Civil Liberties, the Crown. So there's been a very collabora-
[ Page 6828 ]
tive working committee that has actually contemplated the 19 recommendations.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister. It's interesting. I haven't seen anything publicly. Is there any public reporting out of the discussions that are happening with these various stakeholders?

Hon. S. Bond: No, this is a working committee. In fact, part of their job is to discuss what potential legislation might look like, as Justice Braidwood recommended. It's also looking at policy development. I'm told that it's been a very productive working group. Again, they are working to look at the implementation of 19 recommendations, not simply the IIO.

K. Corrigan: When will the work of the committee, this group, be made public — and in what form?

[1045]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as we work through the development of the policy issues, we will see them implemented in British Columbia. In fact, we have sign-off from the committee, the very broad-based committee that have been working on those recommendations and some of the standards, for example.

They certainly come as a result of Justice Braidwood's first report, the recommendations. There are a number of policy issues related to the use of tasers and a number of other kinds of issues. The policies are being developed. They will be turned into regulation and be brought into force.

K. Corrigan: I believe that one of the recommendations made by Braidwood was that the government report on the extent to which those recommendations had been implemented two years following the release of the report. I'm wondering if the government will commit to publicly reporting on the progress of the recommendations and the extent to which they've been meaningfully implemented as per that recommendation. I believe the deadline for that would be May of 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the committee and the ministry have done a lot of work because we recognize the importance of moving forward with the recommendations. We have every intent to be very public about the independent investigation office, and we certainly will include an update as the policies are defined and put into place. We're happy to report publicly about the progress. We said we were going to take the recommendations seriously, we were going to implement them, and that's exactly what we're doing.

K. Corrigan: The recommendation from Braidwood was that the government report on the extent to which recommendations have been implemented two years following the release of the report. That would be May 2012.

Is the minister committing to that public reporting on the progress that has been made on all of the 19 recommendations by May 2012?

Hon. S. Bond: As soon as I have confirmation that all of the recommendations have been dealt with, we will be making that report public. Our intended target date is early June. So while Justice Braidwood suggested May, we will be…. As a result of transition, there have been some slight delays in us moving forward with information to the new minister, but in fact, we intend to make a report public in June of 2012.

[1050]

K. Corrigan: Minister, you spoke about being responsive to all of the Braidwood recommendations. Can I take it from that that what government is planning is an oversight body similar to the structure that was recommended by the Braidwood report?

Hon. S. Bond: We received the recommendations from Justice Braidwood. As I said to the member opposite, I had the pleasure of meeting with him very recently to give him a status update. It is our intent to begin a civilian-led independent investigation office in British Columbia. That was the intent of the recommendations provided to the government.

K. Corrigan: Braidwood recommended a model. I haven't read the report for a while, to be honest, but I do recall that he recommended a model that had a mix of civilians and officers in it — former police officers who haven't served in B.C. in the last five years, civilian investigators — for the first five years and after that a purely civilian unit. I'm just trying to get a sense of what this will look like.

I'm not sure how much the minister can give to me today, but I'd be interested in finding out more about that structure. I'm also interested in who will have oversight over that body.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I need to remind the member opposite that I am in the process of moving forward with one of the key requirements of Justice Braidwood's report, and I look forward to entrenching the independent investigation office in legislation. I can assure that you we have paid very close attention to the model and the work that Justice Braidwood presented to us, and we will certainly be honouring the recommendations that he made.

K. Corrigan: We are now in the 2011 budget year, and the minister, I believe, said that this body would be in
[ Page 6829 ]
place by the end of 2011. I'm assuming, then, that there are budget allocations in place for the establishment and the beginning of the operation of this body. I'm wondering what the budget is for this body, both start-up and then the expected operations of this independent police investigation office.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we are not able to specifically target today when we will begin to hire the staff, the people responsible for operating the IIO. We are continuing to work out those budget details. The first and most important priority is ensuring that the work is done to create the legislative framework necessary.

I don't have a targeted date of when staff would begin to be hired, but those budget details are being worked out. Once we have the specifics, we will certainly have the budget in place to manage.

[1055]

K. Corrigan: Okay, so the minister said that the office would be in place. I assume from that that it would be operating by the end of the year — the end of 2011. It would be up and running with staff hired and in a position to provide the oversight that it will be tasked to do. Is that correct, that it will be up and running by the end of 2011?

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely. The issue is that we do not have a specific start date. As one could imagine with beginning an organization of this significance and magnitude, there will be issues in terms of how we recruit, how we put staff in place, but the intent is to move forward with the IIO and have it operating in 2011.

K. Corrigan: So the intent is to have it operating in 2011, but we don't know how much it's going to cost, and we don't have a budget for it. Since the commitment was made over a year ago that it would be ready, that it would be up and running by June of 2011, I'm wondering how it's possible for us not to have some idea of what the budget is going to be and not to have planned for it in the budget of the ministry in the most recent budget that was just passed.

Hon. S. Bond: It has taken a great deal of work to actually contemplate the model for the province of British Columbia. The great news is that we're moving forward with an independent investigation office. The intent is to move it forward in 2011. As we identify most specifically the number of people — the number of investigators, etc. — attached to that model, the budget and the necessary operating funds will be built around the final framework that's put in place for the office.

K. Corrigan: Well, it sounds to me like what has actually happened here, then, is that the government has been dragging its feet. It hasn't done any real work until, perhaps, the last few weeks. There has been no planning. There's no idea what this is going to look like, despite the fact that this government made a promise a year ago that it would be in place by June of 2011.

Now we're finding out that we're looking at what it's going to look like. We are planning to see what the staff are. We don't know what the budget is going to be for it. We're not sure what the form of it is going to be. Essentially, what the minister is saying is that the work is starting now, that it's in progress. After four years — four years after Robert Dziekanski's death — we have a promise that it's going to happen really soon.

Hon. S. Bond: I will be very happy, very shortly, to be able to take the transcript of the comments of the member opposite when we stand and deliver an independent investigation office for British Columbia. This government took those recommendations extremely seriously, and to imply to anyone in British Columbia that no work has been done is absolutely inaccurate and very unfortunate on the part of the member opposite.

The team of people that have worked in a dedicated way for the past year to put the framework in place has done an exceptional job, and at the end of the day, British Columbia will have a model which will far exceed the investigative units that are in place in Alberta and in Ontario. I look forward to reviewing the transcript of these remarks with the member opposite at some point in the very near future.

K. Corrigan: Well, I look forward to it, as well, because the people of British Columbia have been waiting for literally years for oversight, and if this had been done earlier, if we'd had oversight earlier and the end of police investigating themselves earlier, we could have avoided some further tragedies and unfortunate incidents. I'm very pleased to hear that this is going to be happening very, very soon and that we can look forward to that being in place by the end of the year. So I'll see it when I believe it.

I'm going to move on. No, I want to ask another question about this, related to the RCMP contract negotiations.

[1100]

Has the government used the opportunity of the current contract renewal negotiations between the province and the RCMP at all to pressure or discuss the creation of this civilian-led independent investigation office to ensure police accountability?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there have been very productive conversations with the federal government about the idea of independent investigation. We've already seen movement on the policy front by the federal government. We fully expect that the creation of the independent in-
[ Page 6830 ]
vestigation office in British Columbia will be followed by legislation by the federal government that would actually give jurisdiction for those independent investigations to take place.

We've had a very collaborative discussion about independent investigation. It didn't necessarily all take place in the context of renegotiating the RCMP contract. In fact, it was a very productive sidebar discussion that started, probably, before we began the discussions around the contract.

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to hear that. I'm pleased to hear that it looks like we will have a body at some point that will oversee both the RCMP and the municipal police forces in terms of independent investigation of the police. I'm pleased to hear that.

I have a couple more questions with regard to tasering policies regarding children. Can the minister please let us know what action has been taken or is going to be taken to develop guidelines regulating the deployment of Tasers against children?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite can imagine, I'm not an expert in the thresholds in terms of the use of force. But I am advised, certainly in the work that I've read over the last number of weeks in particular, that the issue is not about age.

Justice Braidwood contemplated the question of when a Taser might be appropriate and the threshold at which it may appropriately be used, and the issue is related to the circumstances. He made the observation or the suggestion that, in fact, the threshold should be determined by whether or not the person, regardless of their age, has the potential to cause harm to someone else or themselves.

[1105]

So as difficult as it might seem for us to contemplate whether or not there is appropriate use of a Taser in the case of children, the advice that Justice Braidwood provided is that age is not the determining factor. In fact, it is more related to the circumstances and the potential outcome of harm to someone else or harm to that individual.

K. Corrigan: Well, although Braidwood did not say that it was necessarily related to age, I believe that there were comments made about it being related to size and, because of that, they could be at an increased risk from Tasers. I would be in complete agreement with the minister. I am not an expert on Tasers either and don't profess to be.

However, safety of both police officers and of children aside, there has been huge public indignation about the use of Tasers on somebody that's 11 years old, apart from what the physical effects could be, and, I believe, rightly so. So, again, I'm going to ask the minister: is any action being taken to develop guidelines regulating the deployment of Tasers against children?

Hon. S. Bond: I think I want to begin by just making a comment about the fact that the member opposite refers to an incident that involves an 11-year-old. That circumstance is currently under investigation, and for us to make assumptions about what happened there without gathering all of the facts first is inappropriate. We have no idea.

As upsetting as it is for everyone — the concept of an 11-year-old being tasered — there is a process underway. It involves the West Vancouver police department, who are doing the job we would expect them to do, and that's actually to get the facts before we make assumptions about what happened there. That work is underway.

We are not developing at this point guidelines related to age because, once again, I'm advised that when advice is provided about the use of a Taser, the issue is less related to their age, the individual's age, than it is to the circumstances. The threshold is imminent harm to someone else or to themselves. That guides the principle of whether or not a Taser should be utilized, not the age of the person involved.

I'm very concerned that we're making assumptions about what happened in the case of an 11-year-old when that is an active police investigation.

K. Corrigan: I'm not suggesting that the minister is saying that it's okay to Taser an 11-year-old. Is the minister saying that it is okay to Taser an 11-year-old if there is imminent harm, that there's a belief that there's imminent harm to either that child or someone else? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, as much as we would like to focus this discussion on an 11-year-old that is currently, the situation, under investigation, what I've said repeatedly is that the expert advice we've been given is that there is a requirement to contemplate the circumstances in any use of a Taser in British Columbia.

The test is the threshold that says that if the person, the individual involved, regardless of their age, is potentially causing imminent harm to someone else or to themselves, then that is the threshold for the use of a Taser. That is the expert advice, and the comment that was provided…. I shouldn't quote that because I don't have Justice Braidwood's words in front of me, but it's certainly the intent, I'm informed, of the comments he made.

[1110]

K. Corrigan: What the minister is saying, then, is that the appropriateness of using a Taser uses the same criteria whether or not it is an adult or an 11-year-old child.

Hon. S. Bond: As I've said to the member opposite, experts tell us that what is important is whether or not
[ Page 6831 ]
the individual has met the threshold of causing imminent harm to themselves or to someone else.

The member opposite is correct not to suggest that the minister is saying anything about the tasering of an 11-year-old, as much as it would be tempting for all of us to make those comments. I actually believe there's a process underway, and the most important thing we need to do is actually get the facts before we make any assumptions.

K. Corrigan: Just a final question on this particular point then. The minister seems to be saying that the test for both adults and children is that the Taser would not be used unless there was imminent harm to either another person or themselves when a Taser is used, and that test would be the same whether or not it's an adult or a child.

Hon. S. Bond: Hopefully for the final time, age is not the defining factor. As difficult as that sounds, the expert advice tells us that the key and critical threshold is whether the individual involved in an unfortunate circumstance like that is at risk themselves or they are potentially causing imminent harm to someone else.

K. Corrigan: My understanding is that it was three days before the West Vancouver police arrived on the scene in Prince George to investigate fellow police officers regarding the incident of the tasering of the 11-year-old in Prince George.

Would the minister agree that this again highlights how critical it is to put in place independent investigation of the police as quickly as possible?

Hon. S. Bond: The decision to put an independent investigation office in place in British Columbia long preceded the event that is currently under police investigation. The member opposite could only imagine that it would be completely inappropriate for the Solicitor General of British Columbia to make a comment about an ongoing police investigation.

K. Corrigan: One of the things that I know from many, many years ago when I used to practice law was that members of the criminal defence bar were very concerned about the fact, when there is a serious incident involving police where the average citizen, a non-police officer, if they were being investigated or charged in a serious incident — say, murder; I mean, that would be the extreme — that the processes would be that immediately that individual would be removed, would not have a chance to speak to other potential witnesses or anyone else. They would probably be put in custody so they wouldn't have a chance to collaborate and coordinate their stories with anybody else.

Is it fair to assume that when this new independent investigation office comes into being that one of the features of that office and the staff that are involved in it is that if police are allegedly involved in a serious incident, they will be treated the same way as the average citizen in terms of investigation in order to protect the integrity of the evidence?

[1115]

Given that we now have a recommendation of a charge of perjury against four officers who were involved in the Robert Dziekanski death, part of that was the fact — or a large part of that, I'm going to assume — that those officers had a chance to get together and talk about what had happened and, according to Braidwood, fabricated their evidence.

The Chair: Member, again, just for clarification, I want to remind you that we're discussing Vote 38. I just want to make sure that questions are relevant to the vote.

Hon. S. Bond: Being mindful of the Chair's direction, I also need to remind the member opposite that we are planning to entrench the IIO in future legislation, so I'm not going to comment on the IIO specifically.

Having said that, there are standards in place for investigations related to alleged police misconduct or a number of processes. In fact, we have Police Complaint Commissioners. We have other police forces that take care of investigations. But again, I'm going to remind the member opposite that the Solicitor General doesn't have the luxury of assuming anything when it comes to police investigations in British Columbia. I'm not going to make comment about a number of the comments that the member opposite made.

K. Corrigan: In terms of the relevance to the vote, this new independent office will be funded by this ministry, I assume. It is a budget item, and I'm asking questions about what the form and the structure of that publicly funded office is going to look like. My understanding is that that would be perfectly relevant to the discussions we're having about the budget today.

The minister has said that she will not comment. The minister will not comment on what that's going to look like. In terms of the immediate investigation, I would just point out that the police complaint commission is an after-the-fact commission — a complaint after the fact.

What I was alluding to was the importance of having in place a process wherein if there are allegations of serious police wrongdoing that results in injury or death, it's very important that the processes be seen to be transparent and credible. That's why I was referring to the importance of those kinds of structures in place to make sure that investigations ensure that a repeat of what has been proven to have happened, certainly as in the Braidwood report — that there was some discussion and aligning of stories — is not possible under this new structure.
[ Page 6832 ]

That's not really a question. If the minister doesn't want to answer, I am happy to move on to another matter at this point — unless the minister wants to get up and answer that one.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's not that the minister doesn't want to answer; it's that there really wasn't a question. Not only that, as I understand it — and I was just checking for advice — I think there's been a recommendation to charge. I don't think that the officers have actually been found guilty of perjury. To stand in this place and make those assumptions, certainly from the Solicitor General, would be incredibly inappropriate. I think we need to recognize that there's a recommendation to charge, and there is due process.

K. Corrigan: I am certainly not suggesting anything about the perjury charges that have now been laid. There have been perjury charges laid against the four officers — a recommendation for perjury charges. Sorry. I'm not talking about that.

[1120]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I'm talking about the comments that Thomas Braidwood made in the recommendations in his report. If I am mistaken, then I would truly apologize. But I do believe that Thomas Braidwood did suggest that there was discussion among the officers and that it didn't line up with what the tape that was taken by the civilian said happened.

As far as that goes, I'm not prejudging what's going to happen if there are perjury charges and what will happen in that case — not at all.

I wanted to move on to a few questions about PRIME-BC, PRIME being the police records information management environment. This is the database that came about, I guess, in 2003.

Then–Solicitor General Rich Coleman introduced legislation that "all police forces in the province use a common information system to enhance public safety and improve law enforcement across the province." This database, this records management system, "connects every police department and RCMP detachment throughout the province and provides access to information about criminals and crimes instantly to all police officers."

Recently the Civil Liberties Association of British Columbia announced, I think through freedom-of-information requests, that PRIME-BC now has 4.4 million master name records on its database — this database that was intended to be a tool to track career criminals, serial criminals and sex offenders. I think that's how it was originally sold. There are now 4.4 million names there, which would exceed the around 3.8 million British Columbians over the age of 15. Would that number be correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The number that I have been given that is on the PRIME system is 4.452 million master name entries.

K. Corrigan: Well, I guess that'd be pretty close to 4.4 million. Thank you for that.

Does the minister think it is appropriate to have 4.4 million names on a database that is supposed to be providing information and tracking individuals connected to crime?

Hon. S. Bond: First, I think we have to look at what a database means and who might be on it. First of all, there are a large number of duplicates on the system, and we've been very clear about that. Whenever there is a crime reported, this is a database that is a tool to help police officers in British Columbia make sure that we're cracking down on criminals and crime.

If you think about that, if there's a crime reported, there is a complaint. That would be one name. There is a witness. There are, potentially, registered-vehicle owners or drivers. It is a records management system. So dependent upon the number of incidents in a province, if you attach witnesses and suspects and complainants….

It's called data management for a reason. It has records management abilities so that police officers can do their job effectively in British Columbia.

The Chair: Member.

K. Corrigan: Why, thank you, Chair. We have a change there.

So this is not a criminal database; this is a records management database with 4.4 million names on it. If I were to be a witness to a crime, would I be on the database?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, if you were a witness to a crime that was reported, you may be on that database.

[1125]

K. Corrigan: There was reference to something called negative contact. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what that means.

Hon. S. Bond: I do want to recognize that I have Kevin Begg with me, who will forget more about policing than I will ever know in my entire life. I'm very grateful that he's here today and for the wonderful job he's done. Certainly, in my transition I have appreciated it very much.

Negative contact is…. For example, if you are a suspect in a criminal investigation, that would be considered a negative contact. If you are a witness or if you
[ Page 6833 ]
are a complainant, you would not be a negative contact; you would be a contact as part of that database. However, if you are the suspect in a criminal investigation, that would be a negative contact.

K. Corrigan: Okay, so some of the specific examples that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association raised as those that were defined as having negative police contact would be someone arguing with a paramedic, renting a room in a shared home where a roommate was arrested, being caught drinking as an 18-year-old in a park and being named in a 911 complaint about harassing phone calls that were never even investigated.

Is B.C. Civil Liberties correct that those complaints or those types of complaints would be included in what is defined as negative police contact?

[1130]

Hon. S. Bond: We've had a wonderful briefing on negative contact. What I'm able to share with the member opposite is that on the database there is no box that says: "This is a negative contact." There isn't a column that says that if you did this or you did that, you're a negative contact. That doesn't come into play in terms of the PRIME database.

In terms of the specific cases or examples that the member opposite provided, we have no way of suggesting to the member opposite that that may or may not have been a negative contact. The only time the issue of a negative contact comes into play is if a criminal records check is done. But the database itself does not contain a column that says you are a negative or a positive contact.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for the clarification, Minister. So it makes sense that it would be in a criminal records check. I guess more germane, then, would be this question: would those specific instances that I talked about be examples of information that would be on the database?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we are unable to speculate about examples for which we have no facts.

What happens is that a police officer goes to an incident or is called or appears at a particular scene. At the end of that they actually type a report. He or she types a report, and the report is where the data is gleaned from that goes into the database. So if there was a complainant, a witness, a suspect, those would then be entered into the PRIME database.

It's impossible for us to speculate on the list that was provided when we have absolutely no idea what the rest of the circumstances might have been or even where those names came from.

K. Corrigan: Well, those cases, according to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, are all individuals who said that they had a criminal records check done and were all surprised to find that that box, which is on the criminal records checklist, was ticked off as negative police contact. The police contact was related to those situations that I talked about. What I guess I'm trying to get at, then, is a clarification.

When there is some kind, any kind, of police contact that is reported in any way or goes into a report, which could conceivably include being caught drinking as an 18-year-old in a park, then it would go into — I'm trying to understand how this database works — the database and would remain there whether or not there were any criminal charges, any charges of any kind, any follow-up or even an investigation. That data would then go into the database, and there it would remain for all to see that can access that database.

[1135]

Hon. S. Bond: Where to begin? Names are kept in the database according to a records-keeping protocol. Obviously, probably, if you've committed murder, you're going to be on the records management system for the rest of your life. I think that the general public would expect and assume that person is there.

For lesser issues there would be a protocol in place, and there would be varying amounts of time where the name would stay on and eventually would be taken off. It might be two years or whatever it is, depending upon the specific case.

This is a data management system. I should point out, though, and it's really important to note this, that there is very controlled access to this database. The general public, or I as an individual, can't go and ask to see the record of another person. The only person who can check the database about their own status is the individual themselves. It's not that it has broad application for the public. It is a tool for law enforcement.

In fact ironically, as we're thinking through the question and trying to provide as much information as possible, the beginning of the discussion in this House was about holding police accountable. This is one of the best tools possible to actually do that. For every incident they're involved in, they are required to report that data into a system. It is not only data management for the public in terms of giving police the tools they need, but it also is an accountability mechanism for police in the province.

K. Corrigan: You know, it's interesting. Something happened very recently, speaking of accountability of police. It's nothing to do with provincial, just a demonstration of what could possibly happen.

In the most recent federal election, in the closing days of that campaign, information was leaked by the police from, I believe — I don't know if it's similar to PRIME-BC — a database, I assume, that was somewhat similar, in Ontario. It was very damaging information
[ Page 6834 ]
related to one of the leaders, the NDP leader, which was misconstrued and so on, publicly, and misused. The reality was that this was accessed by the police. My understanding is that it was accessed by the police.

[1140]

I think it does concern people that this database is being used in a way that we have 4.4 million names when this is supposed to be related to criminality. When we have 4.4 million master name records, maybe with some repeats, it can include everything that results from contact with the police, either in a positive or a negative sense. I think that there are appropriate concerns.

I'm pleased to hear that people are removed. They're removed from that database, and I'm pleased to hear that. I'd be interested in seeing and finding out what the protocols are. I don't want to go into a great discussion of it, but I would be interested in seeing what the protocols are and what the practice is in terms of removing people after a certain period of time. Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate to have somebody on there for years who has a minor report that may not even have been investigated.

I wanted to ask a little bit about the oversight of PRIME-BC and the costs of PRIME-BC. My understanding is that the Solicitor General is responsible for approving levies and improving the standards and regulation as required to support the operation of PRIME-BC and that there is then a prime, core corp. board of directors that ratifies the budgets, levies and strategic plans and directs the affairs of PRIMECorp. Is that correct? Have I got that structure correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes.

K. Corrigan: Well, that was as short as an answer could be. Thank you.

Where does the board of directors come from? Where does that come from? Are the board directors appointed by the province?

Hon. S. Bond: We're going to ask the member opposite's indulgence as we get the details. I don't want to be inaccurate, so we're just getting the right person to make sure we have specifics for the member opposite.

K. Corrigan: Thank you. Maybe while that is happening…. And I'd be happy to get that information this afternoon, because my understanding is that we're going to break fairly quickly. I will ask one more question, and maybe we can wait. It would be a good time to break if I asked the question, and then we can get the information for that as well.

It's a fairly lengthy question. When PRIME-BC originally was started up, the charge to the individual municipalities was $500 per officer, per municipality. So for the city of Richmond, for example, in the first year the cost was $105,000, and then it doubled to $211,000. For the city of Burnaby, the cost at $500 per officer with 300 officers was $150,000 per year. Then the next year it was simply…. They were informed that the cost was going to double, so the cost went from approximately $150,000 per year to $300,000 for the city of Burnaby.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain how it is that the cost of PRIME-BC went up so much, doubled in one year, and whether or not the municipalities when they signed on — they didn't really sign on; they had to pay the money — were aware that that kind of increase, doubling, was going to happen.

[1145]

The Chair: Noting the hour.

Hon. S. Bond: Very quickly then, there was an initial fee of $500. It was a phase-in, an interim fee. It was maintained at that $500, but I am told that there certainly was discussion, or at least implication, to the municipalities that it was an interim fee. The original projection had been $1,000 per officer.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175