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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 6

[ Page 6835 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2011

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: I have two introductions today. I am pleased to introduce to this House Hannah Wylie, who recently graduated in political science from Carleton University and served as a chief page in the Senate. That would be fascinating. Hannah will be staying in Victoria this summer and is interested in applying for a job that could utilize her political skills. Would the House please give her a warm British Columbia welcome.

I also have the pleasure this afternoon of introducing a group of Western Washington University students who are visiting from Bellingham. They're here today to learn about our Canadian system of governance as part of their fourth-year political science course entitled the politics of Canada. As the university celebrates its 40th anniversary of the Center for Canadian-American Studies, it is fitting that these students take a day to learn firsthand in British Columbia how parliamentary democracy works. They are accompanied by their professor, Dr. Butch Kamena, and I'd ask the House to please make them feel warm in British Columbia.

C. James: I have four guests in the gallery today — well, five guests, one very small guest.

Mr. Speaker: No grandchildren?

C. James: No grandchildren to introduce today from me.

We have two guests visiting us from Japan: Mr. Shigemi Harada, who is a local village councillor in Japan; and his wife, Michiko Harada. They're here in Victoria to visit their daughter Mami and their son-in-law James Harada-Down and their brand-new grandson, Biko, who was born on April 20. So would the House please make them very welcome.

[1335]

L. Popham: I have a gaggle of students up in the gallery, and they are from South Island Distance Education School, otherwise known as SIDES. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I have a cornucopia of guests from the Comox Valley. I had the good people from Probus come to the Legislature today, and I was able to give them a tour. I'd like to say welcome to Heather Philip, who organized the event; Sharon Hysert; Dr. Betty Donaldson; Ethel Homberg, Laura and Nelson Cheyne; David and Beverley Pendlebury; Cynthia Conway, who came here from England; Elsie Marks; Ron and Pat Richardson; Bill and Bev Lambeth. I'd like to have the House wish them welcome.

P. Pimm: Well, I only have one guest to introduce today, but it's the most important guest in my life. Joining us today in the gallery is my wife, Jody. I'd like the House to help me make her welcome.

Tributes

SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

D. Hayer: The Tynehead Hatchery, which is operated by the Serpentine Enhancement Society, held its open house on May 8. It was attended by hundreds and hundreds of community members of all ages, from children to students to seniors to many of our pioneers, on Mother's Day.

The society was helping the community to release thousands of salmon into Surrey's Serpentine River. Some of the volunteers who helped with that included Glenn Wright, Ebb Budgell, Julie Budgell, Bruce Easton, Chris Hamming, Dave Woods, Carol Wright, Frank Marshalock, Laura Hagar-Gaube, Cathryn Kyle and founder Emil Quinn, who started the foundation with his own money.

I would ask all in the House to recognize all these great volunteers, who do a great job for our community.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: I am very delighted to introduce two very important people from my community. I rarely get guests, so I get very excited when they come to visit in this Legislature. We have Terry Hunter and his son Montana Hunter visiting us today.

Terry, of course, people will know. He's one of the key movers and shakers in the artistic community. He is very much involved with the Vancouver Moving Theatre and of course puts on the best festival in the city of Vancouver, called the Heart of the City Festival, in the Downtown Eastside.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I had the honour of having lunch today with the Minister of Finance and two constituents from his riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Wayne and Arlene Groome are here this afternoon, and I'd like to make them welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I am very excited to welcome students from King George Secondary School from
[ Page 6836 ]
Vancouver–West End, their teacher Sherry Preston and her mother, Melanie Preston. I had the great privilege of working with both of them in a circus — not the Legislature but a circus.

Would everybody please make them feel very welcome. They will be joining us shortly.

S. Simpson: Joining in with my colleague the member for Vancouver–West End, I particularly want to extend a welcome to my constituency assistant Rachel Garrick, whose son is a student at King George and is here with us. Hope you'll make Michael welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

HEALTH CARE AUXILIARIES

V. Huntington: May 10 is proclaimed Health Care Auxiliary Day. It is the day we recognize the ongoing contributions made by the British Columbia Association of Health Care Auxiliaries to improving the quality of health care available to all British Columbians.

Every year B.C. hospital auxiliaries dedicate thousands of hours to upholding the time-honoured tradition of service to patients and families. Without compensation or complaint, auxiliary members work tirelessly to benefit our hospitals and communities. Auxiliary members provide many valuable hospital services, including the roving library, information and way-finding programs, lifeline services and music therapy.

They also make major financial contributions to our hospitals, regularly providing million-dollar pledges for program and hospital improvements. Funding these contributions is not easy, and auxiliary members are found running thrift stores, gift shops, lotto booths, cafés and pledge drives across the province.

[1340]

Keeping our hospitals equipped is an ongoing task, and our auxiliaries give precious time and money, providing the comfort items and medical equipment needed by patients and their families. These dedicated efforts are warmly received by families, patients, staff and physicians alike.

On a personal note, I am pleased to announce today that my local Delta Hospital Auxiliary Society is unveiling their latest contribution to Delta Hospital — a $700,000 digital mammography unit. This comes on the heels of a recent $1 million contribution toward the redevelopment of the emergency room. On top of this and so much more, the Delta Auxiliary provides eight $1,000 bursaries each year to local medical students.

On this Health Care Auxiliary Day, join me in thanking our valued partners by recognizing them and honouring them for their timeless commitment to health care in B.C.

LIONS GATE HOSPITAL FOUNDATION
FUNDRAISING FOR MENTAL
HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS FACILITY

J. McIntyre: On the heels of Mental Health Week, I rise to pay tribute to President Judy Savage and the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation as they officially embark on their largest-ever capital campaign to raise $25.5 million towards a new mental health and addictions facility that will be adjacent to Lions Gate Hospital and which will also include dedicated teaching space for the UBC Faculty of Medicine and, at long last, a nine-bay permanent home for the B.C. Ambulance Service in North Vancouver.

After five years of planning, the new four-storey, 26-bed facility will replace an antiquated, dilapidated 1929 structure with state-of-the-art integrated treatment, providing both in- and out-patient care. Now that the foundation has completed its campaign, ably led by Joanne Houssian, for the much-needed and beautifully designed North Shore Hospice, this volunteer organization is committed to raising additional funds from our generous community under campaign chair Clark Quintin's leadership. The centre will serve the one in four North Shore residents that will be affected by some form of mental illness or addictions or both, many of whom typically do not seek care or are afraid to ask for help.

Through the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation's dedicated efforts, we will soon have the opportunity to reduce the stigma associated with mental health and addictions and begin to better care for our families, our friends and colleagues, with compassion, in a safe, bright, caring environment.

Construction on the new centre is expected to be underway in summer 2011, with completion scheduled for the end of 2013. I'm hoping that all members of the House will join me in thanking Judy and the board of Lions Gate Hospital Foundation for their ongoing commitment to enhancing the quality of life and inspiring hope for all of us on the North Shore.

PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES

D. Routley: As we face the unavoidable and immediate changes that climate change brings to our lives, water is an obvious focus. We think of sea level increases. In fact, yesterday, May 9, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations released technical reports to update B.C.'s guidelines for sea dike design and management of coastal flood hazard land use to include consideration of sea level rise.

However, we less frequently think of the implications for our groundwater resource. In Canada we possess 7 percent of the world's total renewable fresh water supply. In B.C. groundwater provides 23 percent of our population with their drinking water. Groundwater provides 9
[ Page 6837 ]
percent of the total water consumption in our province. In B.C. groundwater consumption accounts for 25 percent of the total groundwater use in Canada.

In the mid–Vancouver Island region we occupy and draw from very low producing aquifers, with low permeability and low porosity. That means this type of rock has a very limited ability to store and produce water and that when water is removed from this type of aquifer, it can take a long time to recharge or refill.

As we see reduced flows in our rivers and reduced storage in our lakes and snowpacks, partially caused by the effects of climate change, we also see increased failures of wells and water shortages. Our groundwater faces many threats — on the demand side or use side, increased residential development and industrial use; on the supply side, reduced flows, snowpacks and the effects of climate change.

[1345]

It is our responsibility, as citizens and at all levels of government, to make sound and responsible decisions about our water, reduce our consumption and create sustainable policies that recognize the increased threats facing this most essential of natural resources.

RICHMOND YACHT CLUB

R. Howard: Many groups make my city of Richmond such a wonderful place to live. One of them is the Richmond Yacht Club, which just held its annual sail-past ceremony on Saturday.

Growing up in Richmond, you're certainly taught to respect the river and the ocean, and for many Richmond residents, boating is a passion, making the Richmond Yacht Club an important part of many people's lives. The yacht club was chartered in 1963 and in 1975 moved to its current location on the Middle Arm of the Fraser River.

The yacht club has always been family-oriented. My family are also members. Hi to Mom and Mel. I am pleased to say it is also community-oriented, holding events for the greater community to enjoy and making contributions to important local charities.

In fact, another major event they hold every December is the Parade of Lights, where large crowds brave the weather and gather along the river to watch the festive parade. The kids get to witness Santa's arrival, and donations are collected for the Richmond Food Bank.

The Parade of Lights, Santa's breakfast, the annual sail-past, the dragon boat association, Abreast in a Boat, power squadron and radio licensing courses and the year-round dedication to encourage and develop passion for boating make this organization an important Richmond institution.

Thank you to the hard-working community-minded board, better known as the Bridge — Commodore Robert Poburko and Bridge members Mary Ellen Bullock, Brian Morris, Dick Reitenbach, Garrett Weir, Steve Triance and Greg Halsey-Brandt. I invite all members of the House to congratulate the Richmond Yacht Club on another successful year.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
AND FIRST RESPONDERS

B. Simpson: Every year the Professional Fire Fighters Association conducts its information lobby with MLAs. That always reminds me how much of our province is protected and served by volunteer firefighters and first responders. These volunteers lead busy professional and work lives, have family and other community obligations, and yet they make the time to train, practise and provide critical services to many communities in our province.

The entire riding of Cariboo North is served by these volunteers, and I enjoy every opportunity I'm given to attend their annual recognition dinners and let them know directly how much their extra efforts and community-mindedness are appreciated. Volunteer firefighters and first responders literally provide neighbour-to-neighbour protection, care and comfort on shoestring budgets out of the goodness of their hearts and their deep sense of commitment to their community.

They also have to be consummate fundraisers to ensure they have the equipment and training they need to provide the professional level of service people have come to expect from them and that they want to continue to provide.

This year my office worked with the Ministry of Health and the Solicitor General's office to ensure that first responders would not have to add to their fundraising burden the cost to replace consumable first-aid supplies when they attended the scene of an accident or emergency health call.

The first responders in Cariboo North appreciate the government's decision to continue to have B.C. Ambulance replenish their supplies on an as-used basis. It means their fundraising efforts can continue to go to maintaining or enhancing the level of service they provide to their communities.

Volunteer firefighters and first responders are a critical part of B.C.'s public safety infrastructure, so government has a special obligation to ensure ongoing dialogue and consultation with them before legislative or regulatory changes are made that could impact their ability to provide professional services.

I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing the valuable contribution volunteer firefighters and first responders make to British Columbia.

EXPERIENCE THE FRASER PROJECT

M. Dalton: I am pleased to inform my colleagues of a great project that represents a true collaboration
[ Page 6838 ]
between the province of British Columbia, the Fraser Valley regional district, Metro Vancouver and a number of other key partners, including the federal government and local First Nations.

The Experience the Fraser project or ETF has been developed to celebrate heritage and enhance recreation outdoor opportunities along one of British Columbia's most picturesque natural assets, the Fraser River. ETF will showcase the lower Fraser River corridor and promote the region as one of the world's great river destinations. It will connect both residents and visitors to the many waterfront communities and natural features along the river.

[1350]

With over 160 kilometres of recreation and cultural heritage amenities stretching from Hope to the Salish Sea, Experience the Fraser will join existing trails and infrastructure, including the Trans Canada Trail, with exciting new opportunities that will enhance active recreation, cultural appreciation and tourism.

Experience the Fraser has gathered a great deal of momentum in recent months, and the first of many on-the-ground demonstration projects has been well received by the public. One such project involves a new Trans Canada Trail segment in Langley that will help connect the Golden Ears Bridge to Fort Langley. Yet another project, the B.C. Spirit Squares initiative in Mission, has created a new waterfront gathering place and trail segments that provides a spectacular river view of Mount Baker.

ETF will continue to add trails and features along the Fraser River, with strong support of project partners. I encourage my colleagues here today and all British Columbians to get out one day soon to experience the Fraser.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

A. Dix: My question is to the Attorney General. Two weeks ago in Victoria two courtrooms were closed. Last week in Kelowna two more were closed. Eight families seeking justice were denied because, in that case, there were no sheriffs. In Kelowna, Judge Cartwright didn't pull any punches. She said: "It's ridiculous to run courtrooms this way." Does the Attorney General agree with Judge Cartwright?

Hon. B. Penner: We do take safety and security in the courthouses seriously, and that's always the paramount concern. Obviously, the judge didn't feel comfortable proceeding in the absence of a sheriff. On any given day there could be fluctuations in the caseload, or there can be increased rates of absenteeism with the sheriff services. But overall, we work hard to provide the sheriffs that are required for the courts to operate in a safe manner, and that remains our number one priority.

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

A. Dix: Well, everybody in the justice system knows there are not enough sheriffs and there are not enough judges. Everybody knows that. The government has failed and left us behind in this regard, and there are real costs to families as a result, and to all of us, when justice is denied. There are 2,000 cases pending in the criminal justice system. So I wanted to ask the Attorney General whether he recognizes those costs involved in his inaction in dealing with those problems and what steps he is going to take to address the situation.

Hon. B. Penner: Another day and another commitment from the opposition to spend yet more tax dollars at the very same time they're leading a campaign that will take $3 billion away from government revenues. It's another clear example of NDP hypocrisy.

As the Leader of the Opposition is leading a campaign that will deprive government revenues of $3 billion in tax revenue over the next couple of years, every single day he turns around in here, in this chamber, and says to government: "Just spend more tax money." It's just like the 1990s — tax, borrow and spend. That's the legacy of the NDP under the former chief of staff to the Premier and now Leader of the Opposition.

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

A. Dix: I know that the Attorney General was campaigning. I know he's all non-partisan as Attorney General now, but he was campaigning at the time. He and his colleagues said the deficit at that time, the deficit at the time of the last election, was $495 million. They missed — oops — by $3 billion.

Now they're trying to justify misleading people on the HST on the basis of their incompetence in managing public finances. But the people are paying the price here for what the president of the Crown Counsel Association calls "a systematic stripping of the criminal justice system." That's what the president of the Crown Counsel Association calls it.

[1355]

Does he not think there's a price when we lose criminal cases in the courts? Does he not think there's a price when justice is denied? Will he not recognize that there's a crisis in the courts and do something about it?

Hon. B. Penner: Staff in the Ministry of Attorney General work hard every day to deliver top value for every dollar spent, something the NDP doesn't appreciate, but it's true. Every single day in this House I listen
[ Page 6839 ]
to individual members on the other side say: "Just spend more money." They never answer the question: "Where is that money supposed to come from?"

Record spending in the Ministry of Health. Record spending in the Ministry of Education. Increased funding for Advanced Education. Every single day, though, the NDP's answer is: "Just spend more." Meanwhile they're campaigning against the tax measure that's bringing more revenue to the province and is stronger for the economy. That is more NDP math, and it just doesn't add up.

L. Krog: I think I heard the Attorney General just tell this House that he doesn't think justice is worth a dollar or two in British Columbia. I think I heard him say that justice doesn't matter in British Columbia. In 2010….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

L. Krog: In September 2010 his predecessor received a report, Justice Delayed. It condemned the lack of judicial resources. The report was posted on the Provincial Court website in December — 17 judges short across the province.

The Attorney General and his predecessor have had nearly eight months to remedy the situation. What is he going to do? Is he going to announce the appointment of the needed Provincial Court judges today — yes or no?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated to the member when he last asked me this question about two weeks ago, we have appointed nine new judges in the past year. However, it does not come without a cost, which is something the NDP opposition always wants to overlook.

The cost of hiring and equipping a judge is not just the average salary of $231,000 plus pension benefits and other benefits. In order to equip the judges properly so that they can function, the total cost to the Ministry of Attorney General is about $1.4 million to $1.6 million for each additional judicial appointment.

From which ministry, sir, would you suggest we take the money so that we can hire more judges? Are you suggesting money from the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Advanced Education?

We have a budget that we're working to live within. Like all British Columbians, we have a budget we're trying to stay within. It really rings hollow for members of the opposition who, every single day, say that record spending in health and education is not enough. If those budgets keep going up, it obviously puts pressure on the rest of government, unless their answer is just to borrow and tax some more.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, that's a remarkable response from the Attorney General in a government that was happily writing off $6 million in legal fees for Liberal insiders.

You know, hon. Speaker, the government has been proud of its record on prosecuting drunk drivers. Well, I want to tell this House that in a brown envelope I got four cases out of my city alone, Nanaimo — drunk-driving cases dismissed because of delays in our judicial system. If the Attorney General thinks that's the appropriate way to handle justice in British Columbia, perhaps he should step aside and let someone into his position who can go to cabinet and get the resources that are necessary.

[1400]

It is absolutely unprecedented in this province to hear judges speaking out in case after case after case, talking about the lack of resources to prosecute the criminals, to let families have their cases heard, to let people with small claims issues be dealt with in the courts appropriately.

This Attorney General had better step up to the plate and solve this problem. What's he going to do today? Is he going to fill the vacancies — again, yes or no?

Hon. B. Penner: We've heard, yet again, the NDP's answer to everything is to just spend more money, and taxes and deficit be damned. Well, there is an alternative approach. It's to live within a budget and look for other ways to address delays in the justice system, other than just always spending more money that comes at the expense of taxpayers.

The member raises impaired driving. Under our government, we've increased the penalties for driving .05 or more. In the first few months, several thousand cases fewer have been approved to go to court because we're dealing with them quicker on the roadside.

The proof is in the pudding. Not only are we saving thousands of cases from clogging the courts; we're saving lives with a 40 percent decrease in fatalities in the first three months that the policy was in place. That doesn't cost taxpayers any more money.

J. Horgan: Shortage of prosecutors, shortage of judges, shortage of sheriffs. No shortage of public money to pay off convicted criminals' legal bills.

Will the minister stand in his place as the minister responsible for the judicial system in British Columbia and give the people of British Columbia some answers about how he's going to fix it, not yesterday but today and tomorrow?
[ Page 6840 ]

Hon. B. Penner: As I was already elaborating in my last answer, we have already…. Our government has introduced new legislation to add additional penalties for over .05, and that's having an effect. Within the first few months more than 2,500 fewer cases ended up going into the court system because they were being dealt with at the roadside, and that will save time and money in the justice system.

But most importantly, it's saving lives. Early evidence indicates a 40 percent decrease in fatality rates due to drinking and driving.

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. There is more that can be done. It still strikes me as unacceptable that the average criminal case has seven pretrial appearances before the trial ever starts. So right here in Victoria we have launched a pilot program to try and work with all members of the justice system — the lawyers, the prosecutors and the judiciary — to reduce the number of pretrial appearances so cases can happen sooner and we spend less money.

CONTRACT PROCESS FOR CASINO PROJECT
ON LANDS ADJACENT TO B.C. PLACE

S. Chandra Herbert: Questions have been raised about the B.C. Liberals' decision to push for a mega-casino next to B.C. Place. Last week in estimates the minister responsible for PavCo told this House that before the request for expressions of interest and the request for proposals were issued for the site next to B.C. Place…. He said: "There was no discussion of specifically what might go on that site, whether it be a casino or something of another nature."

He continued: "Once the request for expression of interest and then the request for proposals took place, Paragon became the likely proponent. The casino became a feature of it, and at that point in time, then, PavCo would at times have talked about the casino development."

That request for proposals was issued in April 2009 and awarded to Paragon weeks later. However, a package released through a freedom-of-information request includes an August 2008 issues document from the PavCo-sponsored city of Vancouver committee in charge of planning for the area, which directly contradicts the minister's statement.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: It refers to a PavCo proposal for the site that "allows for a very large floor plate filling in almost the entire infill site to the west of the stadium. This is to allow for the very large floor plate of the casino."

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, please, Member.

S. Chandra Herbert: Why was B.C. PavCo working with Paragon on the casino plan at least nine months before the expression of interest and the RFP were issued?

[1405]

Hon. P. Bell: There's nothing inconsistent between the information that was released to the opposition as a result of a freedom-of-information request and my comments last week. In fact, what I said was that there were a variety of options discussed during the early years of PavCo's engagement with the city. There was not a specific focus on a casino or any other specific form of development but that all were under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: The documents are clear. The PavCo-sponsored committee was planning for a casino on the site next to B.C. Place in August 2008. The RFP for that site was only put out in April 2009. The minister's statements do not stand up.

We said the deal with Paragon and the B.C. Liberal insider T. Richard Turner stunk at the time, and it stinks even worse today. Why did the B.C. Liberals go ahead with a sham RFP process when the documents show that PavCo was already planning to place a large casino right next to B.C. Place Stadium?

Hon. P. Bell: This site was always conceived of by both the city of Vancouver as well as the province of British Columbia as an entertainment district. That's exactly what will be developed on the site. The city recently approved the move of the Edgewater Casino, if that is deemed to be suitable by the proponent, to this particular site. We want to create a vibrant entertainment district, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

S. Simpson: In March 2009, at exactly the same time the request for expressions of interest was being issued, the Vancouver assistant director of planning said in an e-mail: "PavCo indicated to us last year that they were talking to the casino folks about locating on the stadium site. They were planning the base of their western building to accommodate the large floor plate."

Clearly, the city knew that PavCo and the casino were talking well before the expressions of interest ever came out. How come the minister didn't know that, and if he did know it, will he withdraw the comments he made in this House last week through estimates?

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, you know, one would think that any Crown corporation that is designated as developing an entertainment district would be considering all of its options. The fact that PavCo would consider that does not in any way reflect that they were not considering many other options for the site and making
[ Page 6841 ]
sure that we were properly prepared going into both the request-for-proposal process as well as the discussions with the city of Vancouver.

What is important, I think, is the fact that the city of Vancouver — the mayor, Mayor Robertson — and I are communicating on a regular basis to determine what the right proposal will be for this site. I'm confident that we're going to have a proposal that will meet the needs of both the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, you would think that the B.C. Liberal government would have learned. We've seen this movie before. The B.C. Rail scandal was all about fixing the deal for CN under an illusion of an open process. Now we see a situation where a deal gets fixed for the casino. It's the same process. You'd think the government would have learned its lesson.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: Does the minister agree that this process is flawed, and will he investigate?

Hon. P. Bell: I know that business skills on the opposite side of the House are somewhat limited. You would think that it would be appropriate, when you have some of the most valuable property in the city of Vancouver in the province of British Columbia, to pursue all of the options. In fact, from what I can tell, the only business skills that the opposition members have are when they show up to their party offices with brown paper bags full of $10 bills.

[1410]

FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION ON
ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

S. Fraser: Premier Clark appointed a new Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. My question is to that minister. More than 80 First Nations in the north and along the coast are saying no to the Enbridge tar sands pipeline and the associated supertanker traffic on the coast. Will the minister be respecting that resounding decision?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the members opposite opposed any investment in northwestern or northeastern British Columbia — whether we would invest in any jobs that would create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue to help pay for health care and education.

To the members opposite: as these particular processes come through, they will engage with First Nations and are, and they will work through the processes with them. I'll tell the member that on one of the actual pipelines that are involved, 16 of the 17 First Nations have already signed on in support of the one particular pipeline. So the member should remember that we will do the work with First Nations, as we always have and will continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I guess Premier Clark appointed a new Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

This comes from the minister that last week demonstrated he doesn't even know the difference between tar sands bitumen and liquid natural gas. The bitumen, that tar sands stuff, is black and gooey and will ruin ecosystems. Natural gas is lighter than air at atmospheric temperature. Since he doesn't seem to know that file, I don't think it bodes a lot of confidence in the new file of Aboriginal Relations.

In order to respect the new relationship, this government must — and I'm going to quote to the minister responsible — "ensure that lands and resources are managed in accordance with First Nations laws, knowledge and values." Enbridge is responsible for over 700 spills in their operations in the last decade. First Nations have said no. That's no to oil spill industry and yes to a living environment and healthy, thriving fisheries.

To the minister responsible: are she and the B.C. Liberal Premier willing to force a tar sands pipeline on northern and coastal First Nations, even in the face of overwhelming First Nation opposition?

Hon. R. Coleman: We do know the difference, hon. Member, between oil and natural gas. Both of them are natural resources in British Columbia that are actually paying for education and health care and social programs.

I know you live in a little cocoon out there, hon. Member, but every month tankers come into the Port of Vancouver and deliver oil and gasoline to British Columbia so we can run our economy. Are you going to go out and stop that too, hon. Member?

We have an environmental review process in Canada and in British Columbia better than anywhere else in the world. We'll stand behind that. We'll stand behind our consultations. We'll try and create jobs and investment in British Columbia so we can pay for all the things that you people want, like health care and education and social programs for the people of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT PREPAREDNESS
FOR OIL SPILLS

R. Fleming: This morning Ministry of Environment officials are telling the media that it will take years for
[ Page 6842 ]
the Goldstream River to be free of gas and diesel residue from a recent accident. The gas truck just spilled over 250 barrels of gasoline into the Goldstream River, while the latest pipeline rupture in Alberta spilled almost 28,000 barrels of heavy crude into Alberta's environment.

To the Minister of Environment: if 250 barrels of gasoline devastate a river in this community, can he tell the House what a spill of 28,000 barrels of heavy crude would do in the environment of British Columbia?

[1415]

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, we regret that gasoline spilled into the Goldstream River. We're working very hard with a multi-agency team, including First Nations. I visited the site myself and was very pleased with the response of our ministry and the First Nations as well as the federal agencies.

We're committed to making sure that the persons responsible for these types of events are fully held accountable and pay for all of the costs. We're quite confident that the processes we have put in place will in fact lead to total rehabilitation of that river. We're very confident in our environmental assessment office and the risk assessment for the major projects that come through to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: As the Minister of Environment knows, the proposed Enbridge tar sands pipeline would cross hundreds of streams and rivers in British Columbia. This is a pipeline that would contain and carry 525,000 barrels of crude per day. The associated crude oil supertanker traffic would put the entire coast, including the pristine Great Bear rain forest, at risk of a catastrophic spill.

Again to the Environment Minister: how can British Columbians trust the B.C. Liberals to protect B.C. coastal communities and the tens of thousands of jobs, the thousands of small businesses that rely on a clean marine environment? Or will this government continue to take risks with the environment that British Columbians, in poll after poll, overwhelmingly reject?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it is the case that British Columbia has a very robust, well-respected environmental assessment process. The member opposite is already prejudging the outcome. I thought the reason that we had proper institutions in this province, in this country, was to allow everyone to have a fair process.

The environmental assessment process is robust. We will consider all of the potential effects of any project that comes before us.

Last time I checked, that member opposite still owned a car and appreciated having the natural resources of this great country enable us to have the lifestyle. But it has to be in balance with our environment. We will make sure that our environment is well protected here in British Columbia.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ELIMINATION ON RESTAURANT INDUSTRY

B. Ralston: British Columbians have learned the hard way that they can't trust anything the B.C. Liberal government says about the HST. Yesterday the Minister of Finance threatened that a rejection of the HST in the referendum would still result in higher meal costs for British Columbians and continued pain for the restaurant and food service industry. So I'd like to offer the minister the opportunity to clarify his comments.

Will the Finance Minister confirm that when the HST is defeated, a return to the PST will mean that the additional 7 percent HST tax on restaurant meals will be gone?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'm not sure what he refers to. I made no such commitment whatsoever. What I did say is that it would be irresponsible to make any commitment — good, bad or indifferent — until such time as we know what the results of the referendum are and until such time as we have a conversation with British Columbians on how best to deal with the impacts, good or bad, with respect to the referendum.

But I am, as I've mentioned before, quite interested in understanding — as I sat here today and listened to yet more requests from the NDP to spend more money in virtually every ministry — how they are going to square their rather aggressive and ambitious spending program against the fact that they're campaigning for the restoration of the provincial sales tax, which in fact, as we know from the independent panel report, will deprive the province of British Columbia in a two-year period alone of almost $3 billion in revenue.

I'm very interested in hearing from the NDP Finance critic how they intend to square that circle.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

B. Ralston: Well, the restaurant and food service industry — those who work in it, those hundreds of thousands of people who work in that industry — has a right to know the answer to this question. The referendum question that's going before the public — and it is binding upon the government — is simple: are you in favour of extinguishing the HST and reinstating the PST in conjunction with the GST — yes or no?

To the minister again: if the people of British Columbia choose to reject the HST, will they get the original PST,
[ Page 6843 ]
or will they be getting a poison pill PST concocted by this minister?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've been very clear that we will honour and obey the direction the public makes, whatever that decision is, with respect to the decision over whether to stay with the harmonized sales tax or go back to the NDP's preferred option, which is the PST plus the GST.

I do think, though, that the public will also be interested in hearing about the NDP's proposition. The Leader of the Opposition has said he's actually going to campaign for an option which will see British Columbia move, under the NDP's preferred option, to a retail sales tax — something that nowhere in the world, no jurisdiction, has done in 35 years.

It is fascinating that part of that Leader of the Opposition's what I call the tax trifecta of economic destruction includes going back on a retail sales tax where almost nowhere else in the world is going. I'm happy to see that debate unfold. I am really looking forward to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition how he intends to dramatically increase spending in every ministry of government while at the same time campaigning for an option that the independent panel, of which they are fond of quoting, has pointed out very clearly will cost the government coffers, over the next couple of years, almost $3 billion. I'm very interested in seeing that answer from the NDP.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I was busy for a moment there. In this House we will be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development, and in Committee A we will be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1425]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

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

J. Kwan: Just prior to the break my colleague the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast was asking the minister about some of the rates and some of the exemption-related matters.

I'd like to first ask the minister a quick question. Child tax benefit — that would be the Canada child tax benefit. Are those dollars deducted dollar for dollar for those who are on income assistance, or are they exempt?

[1430]

Hon. H. Bloy: In response to the member's question this morning regarding part-time employees, the number of part-time employees is 137.

In response to the member's question, the federal child tax benefit is exempt from income tax rates.

J. Kwan: What the minister, I think, meant to say is that it is exempt from income assistance, so it's not clawed back dollar for dollar.

In that instance, could the minister explain to me why recipients who receive retroactive payment on the Canada child tax benefit get those dollars clawed back? In other words, sometimes the federal government makes mistakes, and those income assistance recipients receive their Canada child tax benefit in a lump sum in a delayed manner, not through any fault of their own. They're entitled to that money, and had they received that money in a timely fashion on a month-by-month basis in the designated time they were supposed to receive it, those dollars would not be clawed back.

But in the instance where those moneys arrive late from the federal government in a lump sum, those dollars are then clawed back by the ministry. Why is that? Why that penalty against families and their children? And if that policy is bad — and I would assume that the minister would admit that's a bad policy — will he then commit today to eliminating that clawback so that those families who should be receiving those dollars would get every cent of it as they deserve?

[1435]

Hon. H. Bloy: Retroactive child benefit supplement payments are treated as unearned income and deducted from income assistance, as they are not for the child's current monthly support needs.

J. Kwan: But surely the minister understands the illogicalness of this — right? Had the money arrived on time for that month for that family, they would have been able to keep every single cent of that child tax benefit from the federal government. But because of a mistake from another entity — namely, the federal government — the family receives that money late. They then receive the money in a lump sum, and when that happens, they get those moneys reduced from their income assistance cheques. That makes no sense.

That's literally taking money out of the hands of children. There's no other way to describe it, Madam Chair.
[ Page 6844 ]
That is a policy question. I know what the minister's policy says and what his briefing book says, and I know what his staff is going to tell him. It's a policy that has been put in place that is plain wrong.

What I'm asking for today is political leadership from this minister and for this government, who say that they want to support and put families first. So I ask the minister to please not consult with your staff, because they cannot give you that answer. They are not authorized to give you that answer.

The answer can only come from the politician. That would be the minister, in this instance, and I'm asking the minister: does he believe that those dollars should be clawed back when they are retroactively paid to the families? This would be the Canada child tax benefit received by a family in a lump sum because of an error from the federal government. Yes or no?

If he believes that family is first, then I would expect that his answer would be, "No, they should not be clawed back," and that he'll do everything he can to fix that problem and tell the Premier that it is a wrong policy and that they will in fact immediately eradicate that. That would be the answer I'd be expecting from a minister who will advocate on behalf of children and who believes in the policy of putting families first.

[1440]

Hon. H. Bloy: When an income assistance recipient is not receiving child tax benefits, the ministry provides a top-up. Assistance is provided to meet needs in the current month, and that's why when a retroactive benefit is received, it is declared as income.

J. Kwan: The situation, of course, is this. When the minister talks about a top-up, it's not an automatic top-up. People don't get an addition in their support portion because they didn't get their child tax benefit. They go to the ministry to ask for further assistance, and sometimes they get it, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they have to pay it back.

Well, I'm asking for a basic policy change. Anybody with a reasonable sense would agree with me, and that is to say that the Canada child tax benefit that is given to every single family that is eligible, including those on income assistance, should be staying with those families without a clawback.

The minister has told us that the policy is such that if you should receive that money on time, then you would not receive a clawback. Those families and those children get to keep that money to support them. But if for some reason the federal government makes a mistake and you somehow receive that money late, if somehow there is a delay for you to receive that money and it accumulates over a period of time….

[1445]

In the instance of a constituent of mine, for over six months they did not get their child tax benefit. For those six months they ran around, they maxed out their credit card, they borrowed money, and they went into debt to try to survive. Then finally, the federal government sorted out the problem and sent them a cheque in a lump sum. Guess what. Dollar for dollar, that money was deducted from that family. They can't even use that money to pay off the debt that they owe, the interest that they have to pay as a result of racking up the credit card. That's what I'm asking for — a policy change.

I'm not interested for the minister to make up some reason why it's okay to do that, because it's not okay. If the minister believes and this government believes in family first, they would allow those families to keep that money, the child tax benefit from the federal government, which they would have been entitled to keep had the money arrived on time. I ask the minister to show leadership, but he's not been able to do that.

Let me try another area, Madam Chair — dollar-for-dollar cut to child support payments. This has been a policy that was brought on by the B.C. Liberal government back in 2002. They eliminated any child support payment exemptions for any parent on income assistance, which disproportionately impacts women.

Child maintenance payments are meant to directly support children in single families. This policy directly impacts the supports for children in vulnerable families. Dollar-for-dollar cut of child support payments for families just keeps children, frankly, in poverty. Is it any wonder that we have the highest child poverty rate in the country year after year?

In the first two years it was implemented, the loss of the child maintenance exemption affected on average 6,104 families each month, and the government clawed back $14.6 million in spousal support from single mothers. The elimination of child support exemption is one of the reasons, as I said, that's impacting children who are living in poverty today.

Along with the cut in family maintenance in 2002, the B.C. Liberal government — and the minister will know because he was here during that time — has also eliminated earnings exemption. Anyone without a PW or PPMB designation — so for people on income assistance but not on disability — 100 percent of their earned income is clawed back, serving as a deterrent for them to re-enter the workforce.

Since 2002 the loss of the $200-per-month flat-rate earnings exemption and the $100-per-month child maintenance exemption represents a $300 loss in income for these families. In the first two years since that policy was implemented, the government clawed back a total of $35.8 million from working welfare recipients over that two years, taking money directly from families and children who are in greatest need.

I'm asking again for the minister to take political leadership. If he truly believes in what the Premier says — that they would put families first — will he ask the
[ Page 6845 ]
Premier today to change that policy? She was part of the decision-makers around this table back in 2002 when she was Deputy Premier.

If she believes in putting families first, will this minister say to the Premier today to change that policy and allow single parents, single moms, to keep their child maintenance support money when they're on income assistance? And will they reintroduce earnings exemption once again for working families who are on income assistance? Will he commit that today? I just need a simple yes or no. To the minister: will you talk to the Premier and make that commitment?

[1450-1455]

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, earning exemptions were reformed in 2002. They were increased to $500 a month for persons with a disability, but they'll stay on the caseload much longer and combine their benefits with work experience. Earnings exemptions were eliminated for expected-to-work clients based on research that they created a disincentive for those employable clients to return to work.

It's proven since 2002 that the caseload has gone down. Ministry research on these clients who returned to work has shown they are earning more money off of income assistance year over year than they would have on income assistance.

That's one of two answers. Government supports families and single-parent homes to secure maintenance support agreements. Income assistance is there for the families who need to draw upon it, and maintenance amounts are considered to determine the income that the person can exist on.

J. Kwan: On that last answer on child maintenance, I know that is the policy. What I'm saying is that the policy is wrong. Child maintenance money should be money that should be given to the families to support the child. That is why it's called child maintenance.

I have a single mom in my riding, Ms. Lenlen Castro, who fled a violent relationship so that her young daughter could have a fresh start and a safe start. She pursued the maintenance dollars, thinking that those dollars would be there to support her new baby girl. Not so. The money would have been clawed back dollar for dollar.

[1500]

Imagine if you were a single parent fleeing a violent relationship, and in spite of that, you went to pursue the maintenance dollars — as the ministry social workers asked her to do. She did exactly that, putting herself potentially at risk because she wanted additional support for her family, and she couldn't get it. She spoke publicly about this. Why? Because she wants the policy changed not only for herself but for other mothers and children and single parents in British Columbia in her similar situation.

I know what the policy is, and I'm telling the minister that the policy is wrong. If the minister and this government believe that family should come first, then the most vulnerable families should get the support, and that policy should change. All that I was asking this minister was whether or not he would commit to talk to the Premier — because she says she's changed — to see if she will then bring in a policy revision related to these matters.

Finally, I know we're out of time. I asked, like, three or four questions. It's taken about half an hour there, and I'm just going to ask the minister this question. I don't need him to consult with his staff and for them to write out an answer. I simply just need a yes or a no.

He says there's research somewhere to show that in fact the income assistance rate had gone down and that that is directly linked to earnings exemption — that the elimination of earnings exemption somehow is good for income assistance recipients, that somehow it propels them to go and get work and get off of income assistance.

I challenge the minister, then — not today but at a later time — to table the documentation to back up that claim. I'd love to see it, because I don't believe it.

Hon. H. Bloy: For the member across the way, there are three research reports on the ministry's website: the longitudinal administrative database report showing outcomes of clients leaving income assistance. They're on the website, but my staff will also forward you a copy of the research.

S. Simpson: I want to talk a little bit about welfare rates at this point. The minister will know that the last rate increase, the only one during the term of this government, was in 2007. That, of course, came after the government had put in the only rate cut, in 2002, to cut rates. The rates were increased in 2007.

[1505]

The problem is that in every category, with the exception of singles between 18 and 54, when you factor in inflation, people were worse off with the 2007 rate than they were in 2001 — heading up to a single parent with two children being about $330 worse off per month than she was before.

The results of this, as we all know, are things like record use of food banks — almost 95,000 people in March 2010, a 5 percent increase in the use of food banks. Of those who use food banks, 44 percent of them are people who are collecting a welfare cheque and have to use a food bank in order to feed their families and make it work.

My question to the minister is: does the minister believe that the welfare rates currently in place in British Columbia are sufficient to meet the basic needs of a family?

[1510]
[ Page 6846 ]

Hon. H. Bloy: In British Columbia our income assistance is there to provide assistance to those who are most in need, and our rates are comparable to other provinces. We recognize that it is a challenge to live on income assistance.

People often do not know what the various supports available to low-income households are. For instance, a two-parent family of four on income assistance receives a host of provincial and federal benefits that in fact bring their monthly income to about $1,800 per month and $2,025, if their children are under the age of six, to sufficiently meet the monthly cost of a nutritional diet based on Canada's Guidelines for Healthy Eating as well as shelter and other expenses.

S. Simpson: Well, what we know is that in 2009 the Dietitians of Canada released a report called The Cost of Eating in B.C. In that report they outlined how low-income British Columbians can't afford healthy food in British Columbia. Key findings included that they determined the monthly cost for a nutritious food basket for a family of four is about $872. A family of four on income assistance would need more than 100 percent of their total income for shelter and food only, so they don't get to eat that food.

What we also know is that the body that was put in place by the previous Premier, by Premier Campbell, to measure success and progress in this province has released a damning report of this government's performance when it comes to low income.

In 2001 the government set up the B.C. Progress Board. The board set a goal of improving social conditions in B.C., setting a target of being first or second in Canada for having the smallest percentage of families and unattached individuals living below the low-income cutoff by 2010, measured by the percentage of individuals and families below Stats Canada's low-income cutoff. That was the measure that was set in 2001.

What we know is that in their tenth annual report the Progress Board reported that British Columbia ranks sixth out of the ten provinces when it comes to the social condition. The report went on to say that for ten straight years — and this is the Progress Board, a government-appointed body, measuring this — in fact, B.C. has had the highest number of people with incomes below the low-income cutoff or what used to be called the poverty line — the highest number. It also showed that the incidence of long-term unemployment in B.C. has been worse than the national average since 2006.

We have income rates, welfare rates that have gone down, essentially, when you factor in inflation. We have a progress board set up by the government and Premier Campbell that says: "You've failed miserably in meeting the standards around social conditions." You have the Dietitians of Canada saying that people on welfare can't afford to eat healthy and feed their children, and you have record use of food banks.

My question is to the minister. Again, does the minister believe that welfare rates are sufficient to meet the basic needs of people in British Columbia who unfortunately find themselves on income assistance? If he does, he can say yes. If he doesn't believe it's sufficient, what is he prepared to do about it as minister?

[1515]

Hon. H. Bloy: Some of this we had discussed this morning, but income assistance is just one part of a package of services available to support low-income families. The province supplies a suite of services in addition to income and taxation and benefits that would be available from the tax system.

Some of those are: the B.C. climate action tax credit, the B.C. harmonized sales tax credit, the Canada child tax benefit, the B.C. Family Bonus, national child benefit supplement, universal child care benefits. For the member across, the percentage of the population living below the low-income cutoff has reduced dramatically since the year 2000 from 15.1 percent to 11.4 percent.

S. Simpson: The minister might know that that percentage, at just over 11 percent, the National Council of Welfare would tell us is the worst rate in the country.

[1520]

It doesn't answer my question, though. My question to the minister is: does he believe that current welfare rates are sufficient to meet the needs of families? If he does, he can stand up and say yes, he believes that they're sufficient. If he doesn't believe that they're sufficient to meet the needs of families, then my question is: what actions is he contemplating taking to deal with them?

Hon. H. Bloy: To answer your question, Member, B.C., along with all other provinces, considers welfare rates as only a portion of the support that families need. Other supports include benefits in the tax system and other services for low-income families.

S. Simpson: The minister continues to not answer the question. The reality is this. The National Council of Welfare — again, an independent body that looks at these things — has looked at what's gone on in British Columbia. And what have they discovered? They have discovered that since the peak year for social assistance, which was 1994, we have seen, in real dollars adjusted for inflation, that in every category people are worse off today than they were then.

Single employables income since 2009 is down about $1,300; a single person with disability, down more than $1,360; a lone parent with child, down $1,338; a couple with children between ten and 15 are down more than $2,600. In every one of those cases of the four categories they looked at, we've seen people worse off today in
[ Page 6847 ]
real dollars than they were in 1994. The welfare rates are not sufficient.

[1525]

Now, you can increase welfare rates. That's one way to deal with these issues. Another way to deal with these issues is to look at exemptions that allow people who have capacity to do it to be able to earn other income. The problem is that British Columbia is probably the worst province in the country when it comes to earnings exemptions and what is allowed under earnings exemptions.

I would again talk about the National Council of Welfare. One of things they've stated in the research that they've done is that probably the most effective tool to break the trap of welfare is earnings exemptions, which allow people who have the wherewithal to get ahead. But as my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant pointed out, we don't seem to have that opportunity any longer in British Columbia.

One of the things they do in Manitoba is that they have a system, what they call now the new liquid asset policy, which allows people up to $4,000 per person or $16,000 a family, I believe it is, of assets that they can bring into their family, of exemptions that they can claim, which allows them to look for opportunities to move ahead. Yet we're not seeing any of that in British Columbia.

Could the minister tell us why the government of British Columbia offers such a limited scope of earnings exemptions when every other province, with the exception of Alberta, essentially allows some kind of income exemptions in pretty much every category? In British Columbia that's not the case at all. The exemptions are very limited. Why has British Columbia chosen to have such a narrow view on earnings and income exemptions when we know from the research that it opens doors to create opportunities for people to break that cycle of poverty?

[1530]

Hon. H. Bloy: As the member knows, we did visit this topic with the previous member that was up. For employable clients, the evidence is clear that earnings exemptions encourage people to combine part-time employment with income assistance. Instead of helping employable clients become independent, earnings exemptions increase dependency, making it harder for people to leave income assistance.

The ministry has been successful in transitioning expected-to-work clients to employment and financial independence. Studies using tax data have shown that over 80 percent of British Columbian expected-to-work clients who moved off income assistance have gone on to employment and are better off working. Ministry research has shown that clients who leave assistance for employment have had higher average incomes and lower rates of poverty, and their incomes have tended to increase in subsequent years if they stay off the income assistance.

Earnings exemptions are provided to clients that face serious barriers to employment, who are in most cases unable to work full-time and to become financially independent. Earning exemptions are intended to help these clients participate in the workforce according to their abilities.

S. Simpson: Frankly, the minister is just simply wrong. Earnings exemptions are an effective tool. Income exemptions are an effective tool. They have consistently proven to be an effective tool to break the poverty cycle, and the minister is simply wrong when he says anything different. The reality is this: finding opportunities for people to break that cycle becomes critical.

I'm going to move a little bit to another area that relates somewhat to this. I might have to do a little combining here, so I'm going to bounce a little bit between PWD and income assistance. Maybe this is a connected area.

The minister will know about the program, the community volunteer supplement that's available to people — PWD and persons with multiple barriers. This is a supplement that allows people to volunteer for recognized organizations to be able to make an additional $100. What we know is that there's a long waiting list of people to be able to get on to those programs. It's a program that's simply not meeting their needs.

I have two questions. The first question is: how long is the waiting list for people for the community volunteer supplement program?

Is the government and the minister looking at all at providing some additional resources to allow those people — the people the minister just spoke about, largely people with disabilities — to be able to participate in the community, and to be able to supplement what is a pretty modest or meagre income to start with, by being involved in a program that the government has but won't adequately fund to allow people to take advantage of it?

[1535]

Hon. H. Bloy: As an avid volunteer myself, I understand the positive impacts on someone's life of volunteering, and we are pleased with the appeal of this program. We are proud to have the most generous and extensive community volunteer program in Canada. B.C.'s commitment far outpaces any other province. The $5.3 million budget for 5,000 persons with disabilities far exceeds the half a million dollars for Manitoba, the only other province that has a community volunteer supplement.

In the budget of 2007 we increased this program by $3 million and now have a longer wait-list than before, and
[ Page 6848 ]
we are exploring options to address this problem. The current wait-list is 7,000 clients.

S. Simpson: How long is the wait-list for people wanting to get into the volunteer program?

Hon. H. Bloy: As I just said, the wait-list is currently 7,000 clients.

S. Simpson: So how long does that mean that somebody is likely to be waiting, and is there any intention on the part of the government to improve the program if it's obviously successful? People are using it. People are looking to engage in it. Is there any intention to add enough money to reduce that list by some amount, and if so, could the minister tell us about it?

Hon. H. Bloy: As I previously said, we are pleased at how successful this program is, and we are looking at options to address this.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what "options" means and what he's considering?

[1540]

Hon. H. Bloy: Staff in the ministry are looking at the trend rates for the program in order to consider how best to maximize the program's current scope. This includes considering case studies, considering client outcomes and how best to support clients.

S. Simpson: I just want to deal with a couple of questions that relate to the wait-lists for people on assistance at the moment.

What we know in relation to that is that I know the ministry has allocated an increase of about $65 million for income assistance over three years, largely to deal with the dramatic increases in the welfare rolls. About 3,000 people, I believe, is what was underestimated this year and the coming year. We know there are significant increases, looking at numbers over 107,000 people on assistance in '08, 123,000 in '09, almost 133,000 in 2010.

Could the minister tell us — because I know there've been some problems with delays in processing people: does the problem continue to exist in terms of processing people and getting intake done for people on assistance? If so, what's being done to address it?

[1545]

Hon. H. Bloy: The member is right. There have been demands placed on our staff to be able to meet the challenge. We have diversified our service channels to provide services on the phone and also introduced a self-serve application and assessment tool. We continue to speak with our regional staff. We have a triage of processes in place to continue to ensure that those with immediate needs have their needs met on a priority basis.

While the member is right that there have been challenges, the ministry and its staff continue to address them, and there have been considerable improvements over the past few months.

S. Simpson: Before I ask the next question, I'll flag that just after five o'clock we're going to move to multiculturalism, just so the minister knows. I also believe my friend from Delta South has some questions related to employment programs. I know that Ms. Bond, I believe, covers both those areas. If she's in the precinct, if she comes into the chamber, then the member for Delta South could get her questions related to that. She will be here in five minutes or so? That's great. Thank you.

On the questions related to the wait-list, could the minister tell us what has been the result of those problems in terms of how it has affected people, in terms of periods of time they've had to wait or delays in being able to get service because of problems around wait-lists? I understand that a lot of people came into the system without having additional staffing at that time, and that creates a complication.

Could the minister tell us what the problem is there? What was the impact of that problem on people who were recipients? More specifically, how is it being addressed? Are there additional staff being brought in? How is that being addressed so that we don't face it in the present? In the future, hopefully, demand will go down.

[1550]

Hon. H. Bloy: We experienced a significant increase around Christmas, and some of our challenges were related to it being that time of the year. Since that time, regional staff have worked hard to address the number of incoming applications, and we are more in line with our service standards. Service requests that are not immediate in nature will be actioned within five business days.

[1555]

We continue to pursue an active hiring initiative to maintain a full complement of front-line staff at all times. I am particularly pleased at staff's ability to manage during these periods so that people with needs have been met.

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll get back to this at a later time. It's going to take some time, I can tell.

On a related matter, I have heard on numerous occasions about challenges related to the automated phone system: people talking about getting into the phone system and dropped calls and ending up on dead lines and a whole array of challenges related to the automated phone system for people calling in.
[ Page 6849 ]

Can the minister tell us whether he is aware of these problems, and if so, what action is being taken to improve that system?

[1600]

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bloy: Yes, I am aware, and I actually recently visited the call centre responsible for providing services to Vancouver Island and for provincial programs. The people have responded very positively to the introduction of phone service. In fact, over 1.5 million phone calls came in the first year.

Some examples of how we are looking to improve these services. In the Interior we've extended the hours of call into the evening. We are consulting with experts in the delivery of phone-based services about how to make them more effective. Our ministry isn't the only part of government that delivers services by phone. We are looking to share our common experiences and maximize our capacity by providing services to citizens over this channel.

S. Simpson: I want to make sure that I understood the minister correctly. I didn't hear the minister recognizing that there were problems with the system. Is the minister suggesting that he doesn't believe that there have been problems with the phone system?

Hon. H. Bloy: Yes, I am aware of the problems.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us whether there's been some assessment done to determine how many people got caught in that system — with dropped calls, with lost calls, people who weren't able to connect?

[1605]

If so, what steps have been taken with the people doing…? I assume it's technology and software combined. So what steps have been taken to correct that, and who pays for those corrections? Is it the people we bought the service, that system, from, or is it the taxpayer?

[1610]

Hon. H. Bloy: We're really pleased with the responses that we're getting on the phone system and the responses that we're getting in other provinces across Canada. The people's experiences very much depended on the part of the province they are calling from. In some areas called, they received service in one or two minutes; in other areas they may take 20 to 25 minutes. We are aware that some of the calls are lost due to high volume, and we do not have a reliable database to report on this.

There have been no additional system costs to the province. We are pursuing continued improvements through our hiring strategy and are seeking advice from experts in this area and consulting with our cross-government colleagues.

S. Simpson: I'm going to move to another area. I don't know whether Ms. Bond is going to be with us soon.

In 2010 legislation was passed regarding outstanding warrants. Essentially, recipients who have outstanding arrest warrants may not be eligible for income assistance, for hardship assistance, etc. When I spoke yesterday to some of the staff, I believe they stated estimates…. They stated that there had been 494 requests for warrants, 237 verifications of the warrants, but that only one person was cut off service as a result of that. I believe that it's the Solicitor General's ministry that does the review and then provides the information.

Could the minister confirm whether it's correct that of that series, of the almost 500 requests that were done, only one person was cut off service as a result of that?

Hon. H. Bloy: We checked last night and have updated and confirm that the number that have been issued warrants and have been cut off of income assistance is actually four.

S. Simpson: So is that four people in total from June 1, 2010 — from the enactment of the legislation — till the present? I see a staffer nodding, so I'll accept that that is accurate.

Could the minister tell us: what are the costs related to doing these warrant checks that have related to four people being cut off?

[1615]

Hon. H. Bloy: The cost to date for the ministry is $10,000.

S. Simpson: So $10,000. If I'm correct here — and I understand the minister won't have a number for another ministry, so I'm not expecting a number — that would be the cost for this ministry. But would it be fair to assume that there would be costs related to Public Safety and Solicitor General, for them to provide the reviews or the work that they do, or are there other ministries that play a role in this, maybe other than Solicitor General, who would also have costs related?

Just an acknowledgment of that. I know that the minister probably wouldn't have those numbers for other ministries, but are there other ministries that would also acquire costs for this?

Hon. H. Bloy: As far as we're aware, that is the total cost for the warrant search.

S. Simpson: Considering that out of 500-odd requests for warrants and processes, four people in some fashion got cut off…. Maybe I'll get to that question in a moment.

On the ministry's website it says: "The ministry will check for a warrant when an applicant or recipient dis-
[ Page 6850 ]
closes they have a warrant, or is unsure if they are subject to a warrant, or if the ministry is provided information that indicates the existence of a warrant or at the minister's discretion."

Could the minister give, maybe, an example of a situation of what type of information would come to the minister that might provide the minister with confirmation of the existence or indicate the existence of a warrant, other than self-disclosure? What kind of information would be available?

[1620]

Hon. H. Bloy: Our experience is that the majority of these cases are self-disclosed. They could also be disclosed from a law enforcement agency to us.

S. Simpson: For that to occur, would that be an instance where they would make this available, or does the ministry make requests of law enforcement agencies for information on applicants?

Hon. H. Bloy: We've never made a request for the information from law enforcement.

S. Simpson: I want to move to a question, maybe just one or two more questions, in relation to this. Is there any checking of warrants for people who are current recipients — not applicants but people who are existing recipients? Are they also required to give that information, or are there checks for them?

Hon. H. Bloy: Yes, it's a question that we have on the ministry's monthly request for continued assistance, which the recipients submit back to us each month.

S. Simpson: Moving to a bit of a different topic. This is the issue of caseloads versus no caseloads.

The ministry moved a number of years ago away from the notion of caseloads — workers who carried a caseload of a number of clients and worked with those clients on an ongoing basis — to the current system, which I believe essentially is that somebody phones in, a client phones in, and they are serviced by whoever takes that call, whoever the duty person is. They provide whatever service or interaction there is.

There obviously is a significant debate about whether one system is better than the other or whether it makes no difference in terms of the services.

My question to the minister is: has the ministry done any evaluation of the caseload versus no caseload model, and have they done that evaluation from the perspective of both the workers and the consumers of the service, the clients? Has there been any evaluation done?

[1625]

Hon. H. Bloy: There hasn't been a formal study on this topic, but the ministry does continue to examine trends for people's time on income assistance. There hasn't been any difference in people's time spent on assistance attributable to the move away from a caseload-specific model.

Furthermore, designated workers are available when it is necessary for a client to maintain a consistent working relationship with one ministry worker.

S. Simpson: The reality is that the vast majority of people clearly receive their service from whoever has the duty roster for the day, and that's fine. Some people believe that that system makes the most sense. I'm not convinced of that, but it would certainly be valuable to know that.

The minister talks about one consideration, which is length of time on income assistance, and that's an important factor. It wouldn't be the only factor, though, if you were doing a proper evaluation, I'm sure. It doesn't say much about what it does in terms of the service the staff believe that they're providing.

I know, from conversations that I've had with line staff of the ministry, that some of them feel a frustration with this. They don't feel that they necessarily have the opportunity to provide the best possible service when they don't get to build the relationship with people that a caseload model allows them and affords them.

[1630]

My question, then, is: does the ministry have any intention — and if not, why not? — to do an evaluation of whether this model makes sense in the long term, particularly, as we spoke earlier, about poverty reduction and breaking that cycle of poverty and some assessment as to whether, in fact, it might improve the situation for people on assistance to break that cycle if they were working on an ongoing and more consistent basis with workers, particularly for people who probably are on the employable side, who are looking to get off the system as quickly as possible — that there may be some advantage there.

So my question, again, to the minister is: since there's been no formal evaluation, is there any intention to do a formal evaluation of this at any time in the future, and if not, why wouldn't you do it?

[1635]

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, the member is correct. There are varying points of view about what works best. The ministry is committed to a multichannel approach in providing services. Phone service has proven very popular, as have self-service and office visits. It is extremely difficult to envision a caseload-based model in a multichannel environment.

I agree with the member that focus needs to be on helping people get back to work. Multichannel affords the best opportunity to work with people on employment plans and refer to employment-related services, where the one-to-one client interface is more critical.
[ Page 6851 ]

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that answer. I believe that the minister was going to ask for just a couple of minutes. After that, the member for Delta South, I believe, has a series of questions, and then we'll be moving on to discussing the multiculturalism piece at that point, following that.

We still have a series of questions around disabilities. We have community living tomorrow. So we'll have some conversation over the evening or whatever with staff, with the House Leaders, about how we fit this all in. We'll figure out how to do that. We'll get through those questions and the multiculturalism, hopefully, in that time. With that, I'll sit down.

Hon. H. Bloy: Hon. Chair, I ask for a five-minute break.

The Chair: Committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:38 p.m. to 4:46 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

V. Huntington: I'd just like to comment on the earlier discussion of the community volunteer program. Our office has been advised that the wait-list has not moved for two years. With 7,000 names on it, I doubt whether it is going to show much movement, given the budget attached to the program.

I guess my advice would be that the ministry consider — I don't know — dropping the program if people are being expected to volunteer and wait all of these years while they're volunteering to obtain the supplement. It seems to be a chicken-and-egg thing that isn't working terribly well for those people who sit on the wait-list and yet volunteer. So I think we all look forward to whatever options you're considering.

I'd like to move to the employment skills program and, I guess, the business transition program. Some time ago I wrote to the minister's predecessor with the concern that the decision to include the Delta employment skills program in the 27 programs that have been dropped was, in my estimation, ill-considered. I received a reply back to what I thought was a very reasonable explanation of my concerns, and I'd like to just canvass those a bit with the minister now.

The minister advised that other programs in Ladner and Richmond could cover the clients that were part and parcel of the Delta employment skills program or provide the services, and that is quite…. I won't say it's untrue, but it's not the case. The Delta employment skills program has quite unique services that it provides, and a number of clients are sent from Richmond to Delta in order to access those specific services. It is a very different program to the one that is generally offered in most of the other offices.

Also, the numbers of individuals that come from Richmond to the Delta program are staggering, and the Richmond office cannot handle their clients as they exist now.

One of the reasons the ministry may not have heard of this problem is an issue that I came upon when meeting with some of these organizations within the Delta area. I was attending a meeting, parked my car, got out of my car to go into the building, received a phone call and was told that I could not attend the meeting because they had just remembered a clause in the RFP which forbids proponents to attempt to communicate directly or indirectly with any elected official of the province. "In the event a proponent lobbies the province in relation to this request for proposals, the proponent's proposal may be disqualified."

So the groups, in recollecting this clause in the RFP, said: "We can't talk to you. We're not talking to you about the proposals. That's not why we asked you here. We wanted to talk to you about the impact of the business transformation program, but we don't dare talk to you."

[1650]

Minister, I'd like to know whether you are aware of that clause in the RFP for these proposals.

Hon. H. Bloy: First, I want to respond to the member. There's nothing in the RFP that prevents an organization or individual from talking to an elected official about unrelated issues to the RFP. The confidentiality and the no-lobbying clauses are there to protect the process and the proponents. They are standard clauses in all government requests for proposals.

V. Huntington: Let me assure the member that that clause and the impact it had on organizations that were needing to speak to their member was significant. They absolutely could not talk to me. They talked to me completely off the record. They were afraid to meet with me. They were afraid to come into my office, and it didn't matter whether the discussion related to the RFP or to another issue. They were estopped because of the fear they had of that clause. I just want to let the minister know that that was what happened as a result of that clause in the RFP.

I would like to just go back and emphasize that the Delta employment skills program situated in Ladner services a lot of the clients out of the Richmond catchment area, and some of the people from Surrey are also sent down to this particular program. The other organizations in Ladner are not going to be able to cover off the same types of services they have provided.

[1655]

I would really like yourself — the minister's office and his staff — to reconsider precisely what services are being offered and whether in fact the Richmond office is
[ Page 6852 ]
capable of serving its catchment area as it stands now. They tell me they are not. I know that they send a number of people on a regular basis to the Ladner office.

Secondly, the business transformation program is doing away entirely with the office, but even more importantly, it is leaving a significant gap in Delta, almost a year-long gap, as the office is closed. I've also mentioned that in my letter. There will be no services offered in Delta for up to a year until the new program gets going.

I have been asked.... Well, I have heard on a number of occasions that there is a deep concern within the programs that exist now that this service will no longer be available in Delta at all for the next year. There is nothing to cover off, whereas in other areas there seems to be program consistency.

I wonder if the minister could speak to that issue of the gap in service to Delta and whether he could see at least the services extended throughout the period of the business transformation program.

Hon. H. Bloy: We will not be extending the contract after the agreement reaches its natural end date on May 31. We are working with the DESP to ensure that all clients are effectively transitioned to one of the six service providers who provide the same services in the area.

V. Huntington: It's so disappointing when no one will listen, which is sort of the cry from the entire province. We're telling you that the service is not provided by other organizations, that for a period of approximately a year there will be no service provider in Delta at all, and all residents of Delta will have to go to Richmond and/or Surrey.

Furthermore, when the new program comes into place in April 2012, the office is slated to be in North Delta. Originally there were going to be two offices, but for some reason, the second one got dropped, so south Delta is left without one. So the office in North Delta....

For some reason, the ministry will not hear the fact that the transportation between south Delta and North Delta looks great on a map but doesn't really exist in reality. It is almost impossible to efficiently access North Delta. South Delta naturally gravitates to Richmond, not to North Delta, and for a period of a year you're leaving my entire community without service in Delta. Chilliwack has two and is going to maintain two, but not Delta.

[1700]

I would like to know what the reasoning is behind this when we are trying to say that the existing services offered in Delta do not offer the same services presently provided by Delta Employment Skills.

Hon. H. Bloy: You know, I want to thank the members across for their passion and for what they believe in, in working with their clients. But I want to assure you that we've had real analysis and thought process on this.

In 2009 the province inherited six federal programs delivered through more than 400 contractors. All labour market development agreements were reviewed for client service, types of service provided, results. Decisions not to extend or to end were based on low demand and/or similar employment services available in the community. Client service is the first and foremost when making these decisions.

[1705]

As a result, 268 agreements were identified for extension to March 31, 2012; ten agreements were identified for an early end date of January 31, 2011; and 17 agreements were identified for no further extension beyond their current contract end date. Clients will continue to have access to programs and services in their communities. We have talked to the remaining service providers to ensure that clients will be effectively serviced in that area.

V. Huntington: With great respect, Minister, I have received that standard answer three times now — not just from you but through correspondence with the former minister, precisely the same words. What I am trying to say to you and to your officials is...

The Chair: Member, will you remember to...?

V. Huntington: I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

...that an error has been made in the assessment of the Delta South situation, and I would like it to be reviewed.

I guess what I'm saying and hoping the minister hears is that this is obviously something he has to take care of out of his office. He should review the situation personally, in my opinion, and try and look at this with an open eye to what the member is saying and what constituents are saying.

The clients will not be served in the same manner, nor will it be convenient for clients of Delta to reach what is going to be the new office, in addition to which there is practically a year's gap in service in my community as a result of these decisions. The officials won't even consider an extension of the contract to cover that gap. There are problems, and I sincerely hope the minister personally considers the issue.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister and the staff for the opportunity to raise some questions about multiculturalism. I just have a few questions.

As I've been meeting with community groups, I wanted to get some input and some feedback in terms of their experience not only with provincial government programs but their experiences in the communities and also canvassing for suggestions and solutions for improving situations in the communities.

To that end, just in terms of reviewing the history of the multiculturalism policy here that we enjoy in
[ Page 6853 ]
British Columbia and looking back, the federal multiculturalism policy was implemented in 1971 by Prime Minister Trudeau, primarily with the policy goals of promoting national unity and promoting human rights. Through the evolution of that, in 1982 we saw the federal multiculturalism policy embedded in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with having it put out as a multicultural act federally in 1988. Now in British Columbia it was put into the B.C. Multiculturalism Act in 1996.

In terms of the evolution, we've seen that evolution in Canada in terms of our multiculturalism policy, from the original focus on ethnicity-based funding to encourage ethnic groups to self-organize, to develop and to respond to the needs of new immigrants, primarily programs to tackle racism and also to deal with issues that newcomers face in terms of settlement and integration into Canada.

I think one interesting point in terms of looking at our provincial multiculturalism policy is that.... Federally anyways, there is a central theme of multiculturalism, a consistent theme that it always included the issue of citizenship as a central concern. It's primarily in the federal context, but I think it also has some relevance provincially. It brings, to my mind, the challenge or the tension, primarily with the temporary foreign workers program — I know that's not officially under your area; it's been separated — but just in terms of immigration and multiculturalism, those issues coming together.

[1710]

I would also argue that from those origins in the '70s and the '80s to today the multiculturalism policy has become successfully embedded in our society at the national, provincial and municipal level, as well as in business, public life, unions, community organizations — you know, where we've really seen the adoption of many different multiculturalism and diversity policies.

Just in terms of a little bit of my introduction. We've heard that the demographic trends are changing in Vancouver. Immigration is going to be the prime source of our labour market development. We're seeing nearly a hundred thousand new immigrants and people with temporary status coming in to British Columbia. It's really changing the face of, particularly, Metro Vancouver.

Some argue that in terms of the evolution, there's a need for a post-multiculturalism or to conceptualize a multiculturalism 2.0, where we're seeing a new Canada develop an identity shaped by diversity. That's a term that's popularized out of the Centre for Research and Information on Canada — a report that they put out.

Those are just a few of my opening reflections, I guess, in terms of multiculturalism policy in Canada and also the development provincially, and just to lead into some of my questions with regards to the provincial program on multiculturalism. My question is: could you tell me what the budget for multiculturalism currently is?

Hon. H. Bloy: To the member across the way, I appreciated your introduction and your enthusiasm for multiculturalism.

You know, in the provincial budget we have $625,000, and in the federal budget there's $1.85 million. I also want to let the member know that we also work very closely with Jobs, Tourism and Innovation to stay connected with the excellent programs for new Canadians.

[1715]

M. Elmore: Just a follow-up question to the minister: could you outline the spending breakdown for the budget, just generally?

Hon. H. Bloy: Hon. Chair, $1.5 million in programming funding for grants to community agencies. The remainder is spent on the administration of the Multicultural Advisory Council. I'd be pleased to invite the member across to the next meeting of the advisory council.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister for the invitation. I'd like to take him up on that offer.

I'm just wondering if you can tell me when the most recent annual report on multiculturalism was and if it's possible to get a copy. I'd looked on the website, and I just saw 2009. I'm just wondering if there is a more recent annual report.

Hon. H. Bloy: The 2009-10 has now been edited to reflect the change in the ministry, to Social Development. The ministry intends to table this during the current session. Once it's approved in the Legislature, the report will be made available on line. The ministry is currently soliciting the information from all the different government ministries and Crown corporations, and we'll be proceeding with the next report.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the answer. My next question has to do with the concern…. I have attended — last year we had the hearings — the poverty hearings. As well, I was meeting with organizations in terms of the experience of racial minorities, experiencing racism in their environment and daily lives, and particularly the impacts of that of a systemic nature.

[1720]

Through those public hearings, it came out that of the four groups most likely to experience poverty, refugees and new immigrants were among those groups, and also that visible minorities, recent immigrants and refugees have consistently lower incomes and employment rates. As well, we see a disproportionate incarceration of African Canadians and aboriginal people and a higher incidence of racial and sexual harassment in the workplace.

So I'm just wondering what policies are being undertaken to address some of these systemic problems.
[ Page 6854 ]

Hon. H. Bloy: I just wanted to restate what I said earlier. The remainder of the moneys was spent on administration and the multicultural advisory committee — okay? We appreciate the member's concerns about the social justice areas she's identified. That's why we are so pleased that multiculturalism has become a part of the Ministry of Social Development.

[1725]

EmbraceBC was launched in 2009 to fund initiatives that directly address racism and promote multiculturalism at individual, institutional and community levels.

M. Elmore: Thank you to the minister. I'd just like to follow up additionally in terms of the concerns I have around the experience of immigrants, new immigrants and visible minority people in the workforce. We're going to be seeing that immigration…. Some would say that it will likely account for all of our labour force growth currently and in the near future.

However, in the last statistics that I was able to identify, immigrants have an employment rate that is two times the general population, averaged over the last decade. Then we see a significant lower income for recent immigrants — 28 percent is the statistic I have. Visible minorities are 15 percent below the national average, and it's also lower than that for aboriginal people.

In addition to that and compounded by that is that many immigrant and visible minority workers also face underemployment or precarious employment — temporary, part-time, contractual or self-employment — and are also concentrated in low-wage sectors.

That underutilization of that sector of the workforce also represents a loss of productivity and a loss of vibrancy in our economy. I was just wondering if the minister can address programs and initiatives to rectify this situation and to also look at more effectively integrating all workers into our economy and our society.

[1730]

Hon. H. Bloy: In recognition of the importance of placing a focus on multiculturalism in the workforce, we have embedded the multiculturalism program with our employment programs. The Safe Harbour program supports workplaces to provide equitable treatment to clients and customers as well as inclusive commitment.

To emphasize again, we work very closely with Jobs, Tourism and Innovation to stay connected with their excellent programs for new Canadians, including their employment program.

M. Elmore: I'm interested also in the issue of…. I was wondering if there are available statistics on the incidence of racially motivated crimes. I was surprised to learn that on the national level, the most common hate crimes, the most prevalent by 60 percent, are against racial minorities, followed by religion, sexual orientation and ethnicity.

I was wondering if the minister has access to those statistics and also if there is a hate crime data collection strategy.

[1735]

Hon. H. Bloy: The RCMP keeps statistics, although they are not current. We'd be happy to forward them to you.

However, we've had staff working on the hate crimes task force. We're also looking at measuring hate crimes as part of our overall business plan.

M. Elmore: Just to clarify, monitoring hate crimes in terms of the multiculturalism plan?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bloy: Yes.

M. Elmore: All right, okay. Thanks.

I'm curious about how our public service reflects diversity at all levels, particularly upper management. This is the issue, again, of ensuring representation, really, at all levels of society. We'd like to see it representative of the population — that the population is reflected at all levels. So concretely, I guess I can ask what the makeup is in the public service, if you have statistics around that and, also, measures in place to ensure that there is representation at all levels.

One reference point that strikes me is in terms of this chamber. The legislative chamber, our 85 elected officials — I guess I could do the math myself — are not necessarily reflective of the numbers in our society. We don't see that keeping pace at our elected levels provincially, federally or municipally. Certainly, I think that is a goal — to try to overcome those barriers to ensure that those inequities are addressed.

I'm curious to hear if you know what the numbers are and also the plans in place to be proactive in ensuring there is representation.

[1740]

Hon. H. Bloy: This is a Public Service Agency initiative, and we are working actively with the Public Service Agency on a strategy to address diversification of the B.C. Public Service. We consider this to be a priority moving forward and are working with our colleagues at the Public Service Agency on real action to make this happen.

This is a topic of keen importance to the deputy ministers, and they are actively in discussion to increase diversity. We will check with the PSA on what they have in terms of statistics and forward them to you.

But I did want to comment on your other portion about more diversity not only in the House and not only at the municipal level but at the federal level. I've got
[ Page 6855 ]
a strong background in the Korean community. But in many Southeast Asian communities….

There are so many great people there that work hard and that I keep encouraging. But you have to step out of your community too. You have to be involved in the whole province.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to bring more people into this whole mixture of what we have for a better Canada, because British Columbia is recognized as a multicultural centre for Canada.

There's one little statistic I learned, but you can't ask me for the source. I'm not sure. There are over 180 religions in British Columbia — cultures and linguistics. So I do look forward to working in and encouraging this area.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. I was just following up on that. I look forward to receiving the statistics.

I'm also curious in terms of…. I guess this would more be a cross-ministry effort, but do you track or do you have input or are there policies in place in terms of the appointment to boards or commissions or committees across the ministries in terms of representation from diverse communities?

[1745]

Hon. H. Bloy: The policy for board appointments is provincially set through the board resourcing office. We are aware, through our boards, that they prioritize regionally in ethnic diversity.

M. Elmore: Just the point that the importance of ensuring there is good representation has a number of different benefits, as I'm sure you're familiar, in terms of ensuring that more viewpoints are brought to the table, also ensuring that a wide variety of communities feel that they're reflected and can see their interests at the table.

Sometimes it's a subtle thing. It may not necessarily relate to committees or boards that sit behind closed doors. But certainly, in a public realm there's an impact in terms of acknowledging to the wide variety of constituents that they feel they're part of the decision-making and that their interests are reflected.

I'm also interested to look into that in terms of the specifics around the board resourcing office, so I'll follow up with that.

I have a few questions. I'd like to hear about just how the minister, through multiculturalism.... What are the comprehensive sets of equity and access policies — for example, policies including employment equity, antiracism, human rights, workplace harassment, access to services, multilingual services, etc? I'm interested to hear how those policies are implemented, not only, obviously, within Social Development and Multiculturalism but also throughout all the ministries.

Hon. H. Bloy: I appreciate the member's question across from me on multiculturalism and what we're trying to do. EmbraceBC has six program elements: arts engagement; interfaith bridging; organizing against racism and hate; community engagement and dialogue; inclusive leadership, development and mentorship; and public education.

The six program elements provide urban and rural communities with an opportunity to access funding for diverse strategies to address racism and promote multiculturalism.

[1750]

M. Elmore: I'm also wondering if there are requirements, in terms of the application for grants, for organizations to demonstrate issues and principles of diversity, access and equity measures in their proposals — so specific to multiculturalism, but if you also could comment in terms of grants from other ministries.

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to let the member across know that gaming grants are the responsibility of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I want to assure the member across the way that in the RFP for EmbraceBC projects we require the proponents to demonstrate links with diverse groups. We assess proposals to ensure there is a diverse representation of sectors and organizations.

[1755]

M. Elmore: Thank you for the answer. I'm wondering if you can address the issue of whether there is outcome-based planning — so evaluation on the basis of targets, plans and performance indicators, in terms of an annual evaluation of diversity, performance and progress; an objective measure in terms of statistics, evaluating the success of the many programs that the minister has outlined.

Hon. H. Bloy: We evaluate all of our programs to ensure that the funded projects achieve the goals that they identified. Each funded project must have measures and an evaluation plan.

M. Elmore: As I've been talking with groups and individuals and also canvassing in terms of issues and concerns, it strikes me that there are two very distinctive groups in terms of the need for services and also just challenges in our evolving society — specifically, the needs and concerns of new immigrants coming in and their need for services, being able to access services in their language specific and being able to provide support for them to transition, find a job, adapt in Canada, with all those numerous skills that are needed for that.

I wanted to just address the issue of — and this is with reference to…. Some have called it the evolution
[ Page 6856 ]
of multiculturalism in Canada, or multiculturalism 2.0, where from the 1970s, with the original multiculturalism policy, now…. I guess this would also include myself. My mother came in, in the '60s, for example. I'm born here. I represent kind of the changing face — and my generation and younger as well.

A number of my friends, when I talk to them about, "What does multiculturalism mean to you? How do you see yourself or conceptualize yourself in Canada? What does that mean...?" There's a difference in terms of the children — second generation, third generation — who were born here and grew up, and their parents, who may have emigrated from other countries. They have a different experience in terms of what it means to be in a multicultural society.

[1800]

So my question is…. I'm interested in this in terms of.... It's been raised to me that there's a need to really be more effective in terms of tapping into that diversity. It's often stated that it's a great potential that we have, and it's an evolving area in terms of being able to tap into and effectively utilize that creative potential of that changing generation.

Another example is that often.... So new immigrants coming in. Then also their children often experience different.... You know, they're able to integrate more quickly once they get into the school system. For example, as well, it's been posed to me that it's the children of the immigrant parents who are often the conduit between their parents and mainstream society.

My question is just in terms of multiculturalism. It's more, I think, mainstream. Canada has been characterized as being a leader in terms of being able to tap into the potential of that, often called the diversity quotient or the cultural intelligence quotient, in terms of being able to ensure that we utilize all our assets of social capital effectively.

I'm interested: has there been any discussion or programs to address that? It is an area that's more.... Certainly, we hear more in terms of the business community being able to recognize that, the changing face of cultural relations in the workforce. I'm also interested to hear if that's something that is being thought about or implemented in the ministry or across ministries.

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to assure the member that what she's saying is right and very encouraging, because EmbraceBC is exactly that — ensuring that we fully embrace all of our citizens. EmbraceBC aligns with the act to provide all British Columbians with an understanding of the benefits of living in a culturally diverse society. Supporting projects and recognizing the importance of cultural diversity and the elimination of racism is critical as B.C. continues to grow in its diversity.

I'd like to mention again about Jobs, Tourism and Innovation providing programs totalling $26.8 million to support labour market attachment of immigrants. We work closely with JTI to ensure that the programs are aligned.

[1805]

M. Elmore: Just following in terms of diversity, it's also characterized as a competitive advantage. Certainly in the business world, my friends tell me that it's something they articulate as not moving beyond accommodation and competing and really looking to leverage and be effective in terms of bringing together culturally diverse staff to also bring their talent and to more accurately serve their client base and their customer base.

The one specific that was told to me, in terms of the second- and third-generation descendants of immigrants — our young children of immigrants — is that it's often the children, who have a combined social, economic and cultural mobility, that have been the natural bridge between immigrant communities and what is considered mainstream Canada and that there's a need to make diversity a priority in all areas and also a need to make Canadians aware of the lack of diverse representation in media, schools, the public sector and different areas and the need for inclusion — visibly diverse models for young children, to create in them a familiarity with diversity.

I'm wondering: are there any future plans in terms of an integrated vision or model looking forward in the future to effectively embrace diversity and encourage full participation?

Hon. H. Bloy: I can assure the member across the way that we do have a vision, and it's something that this new ministry has been working on and continues to work on. The vision is that British Columbia is a model society that embraces the cultures and traditions of its people with opportunities for all to live and grow.

M. Elmore: I recently had the good fortune of attending the metropolis conference, which was held in Vancouver. I believe it was the fifth annual conference held across Canada but convened in Vancouver. I'm wondering what initiatives there are in terms of research or investment in conferences that bring together stakeholders. What I liked about the Metropolis model is it brought together government, community groups, academics in that model. So I'm wondering if there are any initiatives underway.

[1810]

Hon. H. Bloy: EmbraceBC is what you were talking about. We have two programs that highlight it. Organizing Against Racism and Hate funding supports projects that enhance a community's ability to effectively address racism and hate crime. As part of the progressive three-year, three-step process, communities work to
[ Page 6857 ]
develop capacity, to foster community engagement and to build local community action and sustainability plans to address racism and hate. Organizing Against Racism and Hate replaces the critical incidence response model.

Community engagement and dialogues funding supports projects that foster trust and relationship-building between various sectors of the government and diverse cultural communities, including aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, youth and elders, and recent immigrants and longtime residents of Canada.

M. Elmore: Just further to that, I'm wondering if there have been any provincial conferences that have been organized or that are being planned, or if there have been in the recent past.

Hon. H. Bloy: We offer opportunities for communities to dialogue, whether at the provincial or local level, through EmbraceBC.

M. Elmore: I'm just curious if there have been any specific provincial initiatives, gatherings, conferences in the last couple years — and proceedings available from that, specifically.

Hon. H. Bloy: We can send you a list of our funded projects.

M. Elmore: I'm wondering, also, if there are plans underway or programs in place in terms of coordinating with municipalities along the principles of promoting multiculturalism and diversity.

[1815]

Hon. H. Bloy: Municipalities are welcome to apply for EmbraceBC funding in collaboration with JTI. We work with the intergovernmental steering committee, which includes municipalities.

M. Elmore: In terms of the intergovernmental committee, is that specific on diversity and implementing the policies and priorities of multiculturalism, or is that a broader coordination and collaboration?

[1820]

Hon. H. Bloy: Your question relates to a JTI committee. It's called the Welcoming and Inclusive Communities Inter-governmental Steering Committee. It is an opportunity for local governments to provide their perspectives on what is happening on the ground in their communities.

M. Elmore: My interest is in terms of the coordination through provincial, municipal, and I'm also interested federally around these issues. Just wondering if there are partnerships in place in coordination with the federal government.

Hon. H. Bloy: We are actively involved in the Canada-provincial-territorial committee on multiculturalism, which is led by Canada.

M. Elmore: Just wondering, also, if you can elaborate in terms of some of the areas of coordination, programs involved and….

Hon. H. Bloy: We'd be happy to send you the information on B.C.'s involvement in the committee.

M. Elmore: Thanks a lot. My last question for today is just in terms of following up. If there is specific research that is funded or research priorities that are identified that the ministry is supporting, I'm very interested to hear about that in the areas of immigration or any issues around diversity, particularly as impacting the economy.

Hon. H. Bloy: Noting the time, our staff would be pleased to set up a technical briefing for you and to review all the details that you would require.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.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. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.
[ Page 6858 ]

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

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

The Chair: We're currently debating the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General's estimates.

K. Corrigan: Minister, we had left it this morning with a couple of questions about PRIME-BC. I'm not sure whether the intention was for the minister to respond to those questions now with the information that I think you were going to gather, or was that for later?

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite wouldn't mind just beginning with one or two of the questions. I know it was related to the board of directors. If the member opposite would like to highlight which question she'd like us to respond to, we'd be happy to.

K. Corrigan: To the minister: I knew you were going to ask me that. I was asking about the makeup of the board and where the control is and who is on that board. I believe that the specific question I didn't get an answer to yet, because we ran out of time, was: who appoints the board of PRIME-BC?

Hon. S. Bond: There is actually a subsidiary corporation. The board of directors is actually elected by the shareholder, so certainly not by the government.

K. Corrigan: Okay, elected by the shareholder. I'm sorry. I'm not sure who the shareholder is.

[1435]

Hon. S. Bond: The shareholder is E-Comm, and that stands for Emergency Communications for Southwest B.C., and in fact, E-Comm is made up of municipal representatives.

K. Corrigan: So E-Comm then decides who is going to be on the PRIMECorp board of directors?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I'm a little confused, and I do admit that I don't understand the workings of PRIME very well, but it seems strange to me. In 2010 the city of Richmond passed a resolution which included a whereas that there's no elected local government official on the board of directors of PRIME records information management, etc., even though municipalities fund a significant portion of the operating costs. They further resolved that they wanted to keep the rates the same instead of them doubling, as they did, and that local government officials be appointed to the board of directors of PRIME records information management environment British Columbia board in proportion to the costs paid by the municipal sector.

I guess that my question, then, to the minister is: is the minister saying that it is municipal officials who denied municipal officials being on the PRIMECorp board of directors?

Hon. S. Bond: The board has changed, in fact. The original board was made up of people who actually own the information, which is police services, but in fact, that corporation, E-Comm, has now changed the role, and responsibility includes local government representatives. They were added to the board in August 2010 at the request of UBCM. Currently we have the mayor of Surrey, the mayor of Langley and the mayor of Prince George on the board.

K. Corrigan: So that's E-Comm — correct?

Hon. S. Bond: No, they're on the board of PRIMECorp.

K. Corrigan: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

So the PRIMECorp is the one that sets the levies for PRIME. In other words, I think it's currently at…. It might be higher, but it was $500 an officer up to $1,000. So it is PRIMECorp that sets that, and it's approved by the Solicitor General? Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: In the context of the day-to-day operation of PRIME, the board not only looks after administration but also financial administration. They also select and oversee the general manager, and they ratify the PRIME-BC budget, levy and strategic plan. It then is brought to the Solicitor General for endorsement.

K. Corrigan: So the PRIMECorp does set those levies. The levies were previously set, the $500 to $1,000, prior to municipal representation on the board? Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct, to both of those answers. The board oversees and directs financial administration, and they do suggest the levy, and it is endorsed by the Solicitor General. The original levy was set before municipal representatives were added.

[1440]

K. Corrigan: Just to be clear, when the levy was doubled from $500 to $1,000 was there municipal representation on the board at that point?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, technically it is correct that the levy was increased before municipal representatives were added to the PRIMECorp board. Having said that,
[ Page 6859 ]
there is a governance council, which in fact includes CAOs of municipalities, that reports up to the board.

So in fact municipalities, I am told, were aware that PRIME would need to operate on a full cost recovery basis. The initial fee was $500, and in fact I think there was an extension of the $500 period. But certainly, I am told that municipalities were aware that there would be a transition and that the cost would increase.

K. Corrigan: I know that there are many, many municipalities that have gone back and checked. I think one of the suggestions was that the RCMP were told at a particular meeting. I know that certainly in my municipality, which has, I believe, the second-largest RCMP detachment in Canada.... Certainly, the city of Burnaby did not know, and the RCMP say that they did not know either — that there was no suggestion in advance that there was going to be anything like this kind of increase.

Hon. S. Bond: I can only recount the information that's provided to me, and I am assured that municipalities have been aware. Certainly, to suggest that the RCMP were not aware is inaccurate.

The RCMP actually sit on the board. They actually work with CAOs from municipalities that are related to this project. So in fact, the RCMP were aware that there were going to be increases, and I am informed that there was a discussion with CAOs of municipalities.

K. Corrigan: Well, it may be that there were some CAOs at some point and some RCMP representatives. I'm sure there were RCMP representatives. I do know, though, that there were many municipalities that were not aware. I don't believe Richmond was aware at that time, although I can't vouch for that. They were certainly concerned about the increase, as their resolution to the Union of B.C. Municipalities would make very clear.

I know that the city of Burnaby was not aware — again, the second-largest detachment in Canada. Richmond is probably the third-largest detachment, in Richmond. Neither one of those municipalities are represented on PRIMECorp's board of directors.

So I'm just wondering how it is that.... What particular municipalities are represented on PRIMECorp? You said — I just want to make it clear — the appointment comes from E-Comm. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm informed that, in fact, the recommendations about who should sit on the board came from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They were passed forward to PRIMECorp, which passed them on to E-Comm, and those recommendations were respected.

K. Corrigan: Okay. Thank you very much for that. That clarifies some things and raises some more questions that I will pursue at a later date. Thank you.

[1445]

I wanted to move on to some questions about Corrections. If you want, I'll just sit for a second.

Hon. S. Bond: We're happy to move on to Corrections and happy to do that. Having said that, I have been asked…. I think that it's important that I respond to a comment that the member opposite made in the closing minutes of the earlier discussion that we had. It is, I think, essential that as legislators we ensure that we are correct on the record wherever possible.

The opposition member commented, and it may have been a passing comment, but nonetheless, it needs to be corrected. The member opposite suggested that during the closing days of the recent federal election, information was leaked by the police, namely the RCMP, from a database accessed by those police, a database similar to PRIME British Columbia.

First of all, I'd like to clarify that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada with a provincewide police records management system. So first of all, that is inaccurate. The various police agencies in Ontario have their own separate records system.

Furthermore, it appears that it was a Metro Toronto retired police officer that spoke to the media about information on a certain federal election candidate and their activities. The information did not come from a database but rather from a retired officer's personal knowledge.

It is essential…. The member opposite actually named the police and suggested that there was a leak from the police. It is important that, even though we are protected in this House, that information be corrected, because certainly it appears that that was anything but accurate.

K. Corrigan: My comments were to point to the potential dangers of having a database with 4½ million names in it — 4½ million names of citizens of British Columbia. That was the point, and I continue to think that there is a danger, and I think that people should be concerned that there is a database with 4½ million names in it.

I was relying on what I had seen or thought I saw in media, so if I was incorrect in that regard, I would certainly retract that comment, if the information that I had was incorrect, but it doesn't change the point that I was making. The point that I was making was that I think people have expressed, and rightly expressed, a concern about having 4½ million names on a database, any database, that is supposed to be related to crime and criminal activity.

The only reason that I mentioned that was because of what I had seen in the media. I'm certainly not suggesting that any police officers in this province would be unethical or would leak information, but I do think that any time you have a database with 4½ million names of citizens on it and comments about their interaction with
[ Page 6860 ]
the police, it is a legitimate matter to raise and to ask questions about whether or not this is the kind of world that we want to live in.

Hon. S. Bond: Further to the member's point, it is absolutely relevant if the member opposite actually relates concerns about a database and leaks that don't exist in Ontario and in other provinces. In fact, it is unfortunate that that would cast aspersions or in fact diminish the effectiveness of PRIME in British Columbia.

PRIME actually has, had the member opposite asked that question, an audit log, which actually…. If there is access to the system, and if there is a leak, the audit can actually be tracked directly to whoever accessed that information. Any officer who inappropriately leaked information would be identified and would be subject to an investigation and possible discipline.

In terms of the number of names on the database, I've already explained to the member opposite, in fact, that yes, there are numerous names on the list which are duplicates, that there is a system which includes whether you make a complaint or whether you are a witness.

[1450]

All of those people are on an information management system. That's exactly what PRIME is designed to do. Freedom of information is an important practice, and it is incorporated into the design of PRIME. In fact, the freedom-of-information commissioner is actually going to look at this situation. We've agreed to fully cooperate because we recognize the value of PRIME.

While I appreciate the member opposite's comments and the information that she is prepared to retract, what's important is that it was an attempt to discredit the system that's in place in British Columbia. That is unfair. It is inaccurate. It is a system that is incredibly well protected. Yes, there are more names in it than the member opposite would be comfortable with, but at the end of the day, there is a process for which those names are also purged. That was another question that the member asked: how and when would a contact name be removed from the PRIME database?

There is a standard file-management process through which files are purged after a certain amount of time, with the time frame dependent on the type of offence. The process is standard across all police agencies. There is also a process where individuals can request that their name be removed from the database. The request would be made to the specific police agency that filed the report, and the decision whether or not to remove would be made specifically by that police agency. So there is a way, actually, that your name automatically comes off, or you can request that it come off.

The point of PRIME in British Columbia is to try to actually deal with reducing crime in our communities, and in fact, PRIME has been proven to be an effective tool. Do we need to protect individual rights? Absolutely. We're happy to comply with any of the reviews that will be done, but to imply that there is risk based on a circumstance that didn't exist in another province is incredibly unfortunate.

K. Corrigan: I have a question for the minister. Was the minister surprised when the minister found out, perhaps through this media…? I don't know how the minister found out. Did the minister know that there were almost 4½ million names, some of them repeated, on this database?

Hon. S. Bond: PRIME publishes the number in their annual report, so throughout the course of briefings, eventually I would have been made aware of that number. I became aware of it in the media, but it is not something that PRIME attempts to in any way not share with the public. It's in their annual report.

K. Corrigan: Well, it's interesting that they had to do an FOI to get that information. I'll have to talk to them about their research basis. So 4½ million people on that database; the minister thinks that's just fine?

Hon. S. Bond: What I think is just fine is the fact that we need to find a way to allow police organizations in British Columbia to deal with issues that the member opposite and other members of the party bring up regularly. We want safe communities in British Columbia. It is a number one focus of our new Premier. It is about making sure families in British Columbia feel safe.

I, and members of this side of the House, believe that we should actually provide as many tools as possible to the men and women who serve in this province every day. Should it take into consideration personal and individual rights? Of course it should. But we have every reason to believe that freedom of information and protection of privacy have been carefully considered with the design of PRIME.

The member opposite, while she may want to focus on the four million names…. What I want to focus on is the fact that PRIME has actually been responsible for putting criminals in prison where they should be. That's exactly what the system is designed to do. I've explained to the member opposite that if you make a complaint, your name will be in the database, but it does not reflect in a negative contact designation.

What I think we need to do is to better understand the purpose of PRIME and stop simply relying on a number and implying that there is something that is inappropriate about that number.

K. Corrigan: I take it from that answer that the minister thinks that it's just fine. That was the question, and the minister has made it very clear that she thinks that it's fine to have 4½ million names on the database.
[ Page 6861 ]

I wasn't going to go back into this, but I guess that I just can't help myself. The minister just said that somebody could apply to remove themselves from the database. Do you think that it's appropriate that people should have to apply to have themselves removed from a database?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: You don't have to apply. There is a regular protocol which sees those names purged from the system dependent upon the type of crime. I for one am not going to apologize that if you commit murder in British Columbia, your name's likely going to stay on the database.

If there is a person who feels that their name should be removed sooner than the protocols would call for, we're simply pointing out that they can go and have that discussion. But at the end of the day, there is a protocol that regularly removes names from the database.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could let me know: how many names were removed from the database this last year?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the number of names that have been removed. Each detachment is responsible for their own removal according to the protocols that have been established. That would happen routinely in detachments across the province.

K. Corrigan: I would really appreciate, if it's possible to get the information, for the minister to make inquiries, to find out how many names were added to the database in the last year and how many were removed, just to get a sense of what those numbers are. I would appreciate that.

Hon. S. Bond: We will attempt to provide that information. It's certainly not an attempt not to, but it is new work, because it isn't something that we would typically calculate. But I've been assured that we can look for that information and attempt to provide it. It won't happen in the short term, obviously.

I do also want to make sure that it's clear on the record that there have been concerns expressed about the number. Obviously, the Privacy Commissioner also has been clear that she wants to be sure that appropriate protection-of-privacy protocols are in place. We totally agree with that.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

In fact, I've made an attempt to meet with the Privacy Commissioner on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, she's been ill, and we look forward to doing that meeting very quickly.

If there are improvements necessary, we will contemplate those, but certainly from our perspective, it is an important tool for law enforcement across British Columbia. We believe the appropriate protocols are in place, but we are fully willing and eager to cooperate with the Privacy Commissioner's work.

K. Corrigan: I certainly agree that it is absolutely appropriate, and it's a useful tool to have a database with information about criminals on it. My questions are merely as to how much information should be on a database. I certainly agree that I would want to have on a database, as well, somebody who was a murderer. I absolutely think that is appropriate.

But again, I don't think that there are 4½ million murderers in British Columbia. It's just a question of degree and a question of how much. I look forward to getting that information from the ministry at some point in the future, and I do understand that it probably will take a bit of time.

With that, I would like to move on to Corrections. Are we prepared for that? I can sit down if we need a minute.

I also wanted to thank your staff for their professionalism in providing the information quickly and appropriately to my questions. I do appreciate that very, very much.

The minister just spoke a few minutes ago about the primary importance of keeping British Columbians safe. In that vein, I'd like to start talking about the appropriate subject, I suppose, of corrections in British Columbia — just the global numbers, the budget numbers.

[1500]

From looking at the budget documents, the budget for Corrections in 2010-2011 was $192.904 million. Is that correct for 2010-2011? I guess that would probably be restated.

Hon. S. Bond: The numbers that the member opposite gave us are correct. It's $192.904 million in 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 estimates are $190.443 million.

K. Corrigan: We have a slight reduction in Corrections this year.

Hon. S. Bond: As mentioned to the member opposite this morning, the decrease is primarily related to benefit changes, and the balance of the amount is actually administrative reductions so that we meet our ministry targets.

K. Corrigan: My understanding is that from 2001 to 2011 the budget for Corrections has been cut by $25 million, approximately 11 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: We do not have the numbers at the ready here in terms of 2001. We will certainly undertake to get those numbers very quickly.
[ Page 6862 ]

K. Corrigan: I want to talk a little bit about prison overcrowding. The ministry's service plan — actually from last year, but I think that the comment is certainly applicable this year as well — says the current daily adult inmate population is between 2,750 and 2,850. This volume has reached critical capacity, with the province's nine correctional centres operating at an average of 170 to 180 percent of designed capacity. That was March of 2010.

I also believe that for pretrial, it's somewhere in the range of 200 percent of capacity. Is that correct?

[1505]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the member opposite has identified a challenge that we are facing in British Columbia. We recognize that there are capacity issues in our correctional institutions. The numbers are slightly different than the member opposite but not in a significant way; 2,743 is the number, and 2,818, when you look at the numbers.

But we recognize there's a challenge there. In fact, that's why we're engaged in the largest expansion of correctional facilities in British Columbia's history. We're adding a number of facilities but also a significant number of cells that will help address this problem. We also recognize that we're looking for ways to deal with the system wherein which jail or pretrial are not the only options.

There is a process underway that is looking at capital expansion, and we're going to see significant additions over the next four years in particular.

K. Corrigan: I have a quote here from the Vancouver Sun that actually said that pretrial facilities are 200 percent over capacity, but I do believe that would be a misprint. It would be at 200 percent capacity, not 200 percent over — correct? Okay, I wanted to make sure that was correct. I assumed that was the case.

That same newspaper article said that there's an estimated ratio of 40 inmates to one staff at Fraser Regional. Would that be an accurate reflection of the situation at Fraser Regional?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite, in terms of the number that she reflected, is accurate. But I think it's important to try to put some context here. First of all, it's important to reiterate that we recognize there's a challenge here and, in fact, are working aggressively to attempt to deal with some of those issues related to capacity.

But it's important to always remember the context. There are different inmate ratios, depending upon the degree of risk. For example, a living unit that has a high-risk population may have staffing ratios as low as 1 to 10. The staff-to-inmate ratios in most secure centres range from 1 to 24 to 1 to 40. Again, even the 1 to 40 number could be higher, depending upon the design of the facility.

We recognize it's an issue. We're working to try to accommodate additional capacity. It is the largest expansion we've ever had in British Columbia, but we recognize that there continues to be work to do.

K. Corrigan: Would the minister agree that with the change in federal legislation, an estimate of 270 inmates being added to the existing prison population would be a reasonable estimate?

[1510]

Hon. S. Bond: We do believe.... At least, staff who are far more expert than I will ever be.... I should take this moment to introduce who has joined, additionally, our team this afternoon: Pete Coulson and Micheila Cameron, who are both experts in looking at corrections issues. We're very pleased to be able to have them here today.

We do believe that the number is reasonable. The challenge we face, I'm told, is that no one can predict what judges' sentencing patterns or behaviour will look like. There are predictions that that number could be significantly lower, but generally, we believe that that would probably be a reasonable number.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me how many jails in B.C. have been closed by the Liberal government since 2009.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm told that since 2009 — none.

K. Corrigan: I apologize. I think I must have misspoken. I meant to say 2001, please.

Hon. S. Bond: Rather than take up what I know is valuable time for the member opposite, we will confirm the number. We had a couple of different numbers here, so we're going to make sure we get the right number. We'll bring that back in just a couple of minutes, as soon as we know it.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that, Minister. Somebody had written in a note here that they believe it's nine, but I would defer to the expert staff on the other side. So I'll wait for that number.

Given the admitted severity of the overcrowding facing B.C.'s jails and, I would say, the escalating seriousness in terms of the health and safety of both the prisoners and staff, can the minister explain why these jails — whatever number there were — have been closed?

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, there are a variety of reasons. Obviously, first and foremost, there was a concern that a
[ Page 6863 ]
number of them were old and inefficient. Generally, it's more an issue of what was closed. In fact, what closed were conditional, medium, open security types of situations. Many of those were camps.

Interestingly enough, I'm told that because judges' sentencing patterns have in essence changed, the very people that would have been in those facilities or camps actually are no longer being sent to institutions or camps. Judges are now sentencing differently. In fact, they're often in the community on conditional sentences.

So while there were facilities closed, the types of facilities that were closed and the inmates that would have been in the…. The inmate population in those facilities is actually being treated very differently now by judges.

There were ten closed, when you look at the total number, and one was transferred. Those are the numbers. But again, we have to look at why they were closed and what's happened since that time.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then. So the minister is saying that the people that were in those facilities that were closed — the net nine, it seems — were not sent to other facilities?

Hon. S. Bond: I may have caused some confusion there. The inmates involved that were actually in facilities that were closed were obviously moved. Remand was moved to North Fraser, so the inmates were moved to North Fraser. The remaining inmates were moved to other facilities.

What I was attempting to say — and, obviously, not that well — was that since that time there's been a different approach to sentencing. Again, I think it's important to point out, as my deputy reminds me, that this is a generalization. I'm sure there will be people who will say, "Well, that's not the case in certain situations," and I grant that.

But generally, we're seeing that there is a different approach to sentencing. Many of the same types of inmates who would have been in these facilities are now being sentenced in the community with conditional sentences.

[1520]

So post-closure a different approach has been observed by judges' sentencing — again, a generalization. There may be circumstances where that is not the case, but generally, that's what we've observed.

K. Corrigan: Yes, I certainly don't want to suggest that if we go find one person that was moved to another jail, the minister will be said to be incorrect. I understand the spirit of the answer, but the reality is that net nine jails were closed. There may be a change in sentencing, but net nine were closed.

We now have an admitted crisis of overcrowding in jails which is creating real problems in our prisons and health and safety issues, certainly, for the staff who work there, who have been expressing their grave concerns about this for years now.

The truth is that this government has been the one that has been responsible for Corrections for the last ten years, so any overcrowding issues that there are, are simply as a result of the priorities or lack of priorities of this government.

I'll ask the minister a couple more questions about this prison lack of capacity. What progress has been made since last year to address prison lack of capacity?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I certainly want to correct the record. I don't think I used the word "crisis" and would not do that.

While we recognize that there are challenges…. I explained to the member opposite the difference, generally speaking, between the closures that took place and how those inmates would be managed today. But progress has been made, in fact.

As I also mentioned, we are involved in the largest expansion of capital related to Corrections in the history of British Columbia. Since 2007 we have actually added an additional 270 officers, and that enhances supervision in correctional centres. We plan to hire an additional 200 officers when phase 1 of the capital expansion is complete in 2013. So we continue to add additional officers.

We also have seen that assaults on staff, despite the challenges that are being faced, have actually gone down. And when you look at those numbers.... We want to make sure that's continuing to happen, because the safety of the men and women who serve in correctional institutions is incredibly important to us.

Phase 1 of our expansion includes an additional 20 women's cells in Prince George. The move-in date was December 2010. Alouette is also adding additional cells for women. It is obviously a women's correctional centre. We have 104 new cells that will open in October of this year, and at Surrey Pretrial we're adding 216 cells there, and we expect to be able to open those cells in the fall of 2013.

So an additional 340 cells will be on line. People have been working very aggressively, and then we will move into phase 2 of the capital expansion.

K. Corrigan: You're right. The word that was in the ministry's service plan was not "crisis" It said that the volume has reached critical capacity, which is a similar word but not exactly the same.

The ministry's service plan also says that with new facilities, there would be reduced overcrowding, which I assume acknowledges, again, that there is overcrowding; and reduced risk of inmate disturbances, which to me would be an acknowledgement that because of the overcrowding, there are inmate disturbances; staff assaults; and also liability to lawsuits — all in the ministry's service plan.
[ Page 6864 ]
It also says that staff safety would be increased if there were new prison facilities.

The flip side to all of that is that we are in trouble and that staff safety, liability for lawsuits and staff assaults and risk of inmate disturbances are higher because of the overcrowding that has occurred for many, many years in this province.

[1525]

The minister just referred to the fact that violence has gone down. My understanding — and the minister can answer me on this one, perhaps — is that the reason that the stats changed was because there was a different system instituted in January of 2008 which tracks the incidence of violence in a different way, and that, in fact, explains the seeming decrease in incidence of violence.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the BCGEU and Mr. Dean Purdy have disagreed with the numbers that our staff have compiled, and that's a concern to me. So in fact, our staff have met directly with Mr. Purdy. I look forward to meeting with him shortly as well, and we're happy to sit down and talk about how there are differences in the numbers that the BCGEU members have and we have.

We want to be sure that.... While the numbers are important, what's critical to us is that there be a safe set of circumstances for men and women who choose this as their profession. So we are looking forward to the results of the discussion that I am aware the staff are having. We want to get to the bottom of why there are differences. But certainly, we believe that our numbers are accurate, and we look forward to sitting down with the union and working through that issue.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could provide the current average staff-to-inmate ratio.

Hon. S. Bond: I think I referenced this earlier, but I will repeat it. It depends on the circumstances, and it depends on the level of risk. So there are living units that actually have staff-to-inmate ratios as low as 1 to 10. The staff-to-inmate ratios in most secure centres — so if you look, more broadly speaking — range anywhere from 1 to 24 to 1 to 40.

There is an exception to that at the North Fraser Pretrial Centre, where the highest ratio is 1 to 60. Before anyone reacts significantly to that, the centre was actually designed in a specific way to accommodate the ratio, and it is designed with a special security feature which allows a better coordination among staff.

So as we look at future institutions, B.C. Corrections will look at the design approach to make sure that when we have the need for increased capacity, our buildings actually accommodate a way of approaching this that keeps corrections officer safety at the front of our agenda.

K. Corrigan: I fully understand that there are different situations that would appropriately have different ratios. But the question was if the minister can provide the current overall — the average — staff-to-inmate ratio through the system. I'd also like to know if it's possible to get the number of how that compares with, say, 2002. If that's not possible for today, I'd be quite willing to have it at some point in the future.

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: Our staff doesn't have that average with us, but certainly we will make an effort to look at it. Having said that, I think that the relevance of an average…. I'm not sure what that is. When you look at…. We're going to be very clear that with high-risk offenders, there is a lower inmate ratio, and that would be absolutely appropriate. Having said that, we don't have the number, and we will certainly work to get it.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the minister offering to provide that information — just as an average throughout the system — and I do fully recognize that there are varying situations within the system. But I think, just as a global number, that would be useful.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about inmates with mental illness. Is it correct that 56 percent of all inmates inside B.C. provincial jails suffer from some form of mental illness and/or substance abuse?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct, approximately.

K. Corrigan: What is the government doing to address these huge numbers, to stop them from climbing and to stop people with mental illness from going to jail, where they are often victimized?

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the member opposite brings up a very relevant and significant issue that is a concern for people who work not only in Corrections but in the field of public safety.

[1535]

I'm very pleased to tell the member opposite that actually, B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a dedicated director of mental health services, and we take assessment and care of all of the inmates in our population very seriously. In fact, there is a screening process, and every person who is admitted to a provincial correctional centre has a mental health screening within 24 hours.

In 2007 and 2008 we created full-time mental health officers, liaison officers, across the province, and there's a minimum of one in every centre. That particular officer is a correctional officer who provides support to men-
[ Page 6865 ]
tally disordered offenders in conjunction with a mental health team that we have in place at each centre. So there has been a significant emphasis on providing support to mentally disordered offenders. It is a challenging issue, but we have, I think, led Canada in some of the initiatives that have been put in place.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to talk about, just give a couple of examples of, the numbers of people that are in jail just to get them confirmed.

For example, at the North Fraser Pretrial Centre in Port Coquitlam there are times that the staff-to-inmate ratio is running often at 1 to 60 — one staff to 60 inmates. The average number of inmates in that jail ranges around 600 in a jail that was built in 1999 for a count of 300 inmates. I would note that at that centre there have been about 35 assaults on correctional officers in the last two years.

I'm wondering if the minister could confirm that that would be appropriate and accurate data.

Hon. S. Bond: North Fraser is actually the institution that I described. As the member opposite points out, it does have a ratio of 1 to 60. In fact, the description about the facility is an important piece of context there.

This was a facility opened, I believe, in 2001, and it was designed to accommodate this type of ratio through security and design features. So yes, the number is 1 to 60. On average across the province, in most secure centres, as I mentioned, the ratio is 1 to 24 or 1 to 40. This building was designed to increase the ratio and to build a security system that reflects that.

The number of assaults…. Every one of those is one that we're concerned about when they occur to our staff.

[1540]

But that is one of the numbers, in fact, that we'll be having a discussion with the BCGEU about. Our numbers would indicate there were 21 over two years. Again, we're very willing to sit down with Dean Purdy and the BCGEU and have a discussion about how those numbers are counted. Our primary goal is to ensure that there are safe working conditions for our corrections officers. So we're happy to have our staff sit down and work through those numbers.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify then. Is the minister saying that the policy or the guidelines or the legislated ratio — because frankly, I don't know exactly where it's contained; I haven't seen that — is 1 to 60 for the North Fraser Pretrial Centre, that that is in writing as the appropriate ratio?

Hon. S. Bond: I've just learned something new, and I'm happy to be able to share that as well. I'm being ably assisted by the former warden of North Fraser — in fact was key in the design of the building and doing the research.

I have received every confidence that a great deal of work and thought and consideration of best practice was actually used in the design of that building. The building actually received accolades for looking at a new model that included more effective supervision and the way that that could be done using the facility that was built.

In fact, the ratio is 1 to 60. The building was purposefully designed to have a more efficient supervision model. I am assured that there certainly is a sense that that building is designed appropriately and that a lot of research, hard work and best-practice considerations went into the design of that building.

K. Corrigan: Well, I certainly am pleased that we have that expertise here today. I just want to clarify then. The North Fraser Pretrial Centre — was it built for 300 inmates or for the present 600 inmates?

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: The capacity of the facility…. Well, let's put it more accurately. There are 300 cells in the facility, and the cells were designed slightly bigger than a normal cell would be in other facilities, and so initially there was an expectation that some double-bunking may be required, and in fact, today that is certainly the case. It has come to fruition, the concerns that the facility recognized — that there would likely be double-bunking. So that is the case today.

K. Corrigan: I just want to go back to clarification. The minister said that the guidelines or policies are that the ratio is 1 to 60. Were the guidelines or policies that it be 1 to 60 when the facility was built?

Hon. S. Bond: There isn't a formula or a legislated requirement about inmate-to-guard ratios. The facility was built assuming that there would be a larger supervision number for inmate to guards. Whether that number was 1 to 60, there certainly wasn't a decision that this building would be designed and that it would be a ratio of 1 to 60. That is the number today, which we've clearly identified, but there is also confidence on the part of certainly the ministry team that the building allows for that to be done safely.

Having said that, it's not the only thing we've done. We've actually added additional officers as well. So we have added additional staff, and the building, we believe, functionally allows that high of a ratio.

K. Corrigan: Well, I certainly know that the people who work there have expressed a great deal of concern about those numbers and feel very strongly that there is increased tension, particularly with the high number of people with mental illness problems in those and
[ Page 6866 ]
other facilities, and that there's an increased number of guard assaults. I'm sure they will be much comforted to hear that everything is fine and that there isn't a concern about that ratio.

I'm certainly not in any way attacking the integrity of the people and the senior people who work there, but it is a real concern for the guards and other workers that work in that facility. I think that I will leave it at that on the prisons.

I just want to make a comment, though. A couple of years ago in my community of Burnaby, there was a suggestion that a remand centre would be built at a location that the people of Burnaby did not want, and government changed its mind.

[1550]

I recall that in the discussions about that throughout the time period that government had first announced.... They said it would be at that location, that they weren't going to consider any other location and that the decision had been made. But it was sold, or tried to be sold, to the community as a facility for — you know, I can't remember — around 350.

It was only much later, through doing FOIs and a lot of digging, that we found out, in fact, that it was another facility where the actual capacity could be up to 700. It made my community quite angry when people found out that, in fact, what was being sold to them was something that would house — I think they said — 350 cells. Maybe there was something of an assumption there, but certainly, the impression of the community was that it was going to be 350.

Certainly, apart from the safety issues, I also think it's very important for government to be honest when they are looking at siting a facility in a community — that a lesson be learned from what happened in Burnaby and that government consult fully and take into account local wishes. As well, be forthright in what it is exactly that a community is going to get.

Now, my understanding is that in the Okanagan there is more consultation happening, and I commend government for that. I think that's appropriate, but it certainly didn't happen in my community. The numbers in my community were, at best, hazy — if not somewhat misrepresented.

Hon. S. Bond: I don't want to end this section of the discussion by underestimating the concern we have when corrections officers express their concerns about their safety. We pay attention to that.

I am the new Solicitor General, but I look forward to meeting with Mr. Purdy to talk through the issues that the BCGEU has made public. We will certainly have a discussion about those with every intent to try to, first of all, increase capacity and provide additional support. As I said earlier, we've undertaken the largest expansion of capital related to correctional facilities in the history of British Columbia.

I live in a community that has a correctional facility in it, and I can't begin to tell you how professional the men and women who work in that institution are. I have lived there my entire life and have not felt that having a correctional institution where I live is inappropriate by any stretch of the imagination. We have very secure buildings, facilities, and exceptional staff.

The process in the Okanagan has clearly been outlined. We have rejected a particular site because a community did not want the correctional facility there. We do our very best to be accurate and informative. I'm very pleased to say that there are a number — I'm told; I haven't seen them — of exceptional proposals for a new corrections facility in the Okanagan, and I look forward to adding that capacity. We've been very pleased with the way the staff and team have been able to work with those municipalities. So I look forward to a new facility opening in the Okanagan in 2015.

K. Corrigan: Well, then, it sounds like the ministry has learned a lesson. I appreciate that the minister is making commitments to things changing or discussing with staff some of their concerns about overcrowding, about their safety concerns, and addressing the fact that we have such an overcrowding at our institutions throughout this province.

But the reality is that we now have a new minister saying, I think, that things are different now. We have had a revolving door of Solicitors General. We've had no action on these issues for months, if not years. So now this minister inherits the legacy of, frankly, neglect in this regard. It has been a Liberal government that has had the ability to address these concerns as they intensified over the last ten years. I'm very pleased to hear that things are going to be done differently under this new minister, and I look forward to that.

I am aware that we are under significant time constraints, and there are a number of areas that I wanted to ask questions now of the minister this afternoon. I think what I'm going do is ask a couple of very quick questions that I would have preferred to have had a much longer time to do. The reality is that we have a very limited number of hours for estimates this year, since we're closing on June 1, after just a month of sitting. Oh, I'm sorry; there was another week beyond that.

[1555]

I'll ask a couple of questions about the B.C. Coroners Service, and I will ask very quick questions on the mid-rise wood-frame construction. Then we are going to go to motor vehicles and ICBC. I think we should manage to do this. We have two hours and a quarter.

I was going to ask a couple of questions about the Coroners Service at this point. My question is very short, actually. There won't be much. We had a sudden resignation on December 13, 2010. After only eight months on the job Dr. Diane Rothon suddenly resigned as B.C.'s
[ Page 6867 ]
chief coroner. She cited differences of vision with the provincial government over the direction of the office as the reason for her abrupt resignation. But in addition, I believe that some e-mails were FOI'd that said Dr. Rothon was forced to leave her position by government compromising her professional ethics and personal values. She also accused government of weakening and eroding the coroner's role.

Media reports — I can't confirm this — indicate that the former chief coroner was paid $128,000 in severance after just eight months on the job.

My question to the minister is: what reason can the government provide for the sudden resignation of former chief coroner Diane Rothon in December of last year?

Hon. S. Bond: Before I respond to that, I'd like to introduce British Columbia's chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, and also the commissioner of emergency management British Columbia, Becky Denlinger, who are joining me for this section.

This is a personnel matter. I will not be discussing the details of the termination of the chief coroner.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me why she can't explain the circumstances, what differences there were between the chief coroner and government and that there can be no rationale provided.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite should well know that there are privacy reasons attached to that type of decision. The termination of an employee is actually a personnel issue that we would not typically discuss.

K. Corrigan: I will go to the comments that government is weakening and eroding the coroner's role. So we won't talk about the circumstances of Diane Rothon's leaving, but I'm wondering if the minister could comment on how the coroner's role could have been weakened and eroded or that there would be a chief coroner who felt that there was a weakening and eroding of the coroner's role.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't share the view that, in fact, the coroner's office has been weakened or eroded. It is an independent organization, and I'm not going to speculate on the comments that Dr. Rothon made.

[1600]

K. Corrigan: In a December 13 departure letter to colleagues, former chief coroner Rothon described her inability to continue on in a system where plans are in place for the Coroners Service that will continue to erode and weaken the service.

Maybe the minister could just elaborate on what kinds of changes are being planned for the Coroners Service.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm only going to reiterate the fact that the coroner's office is independent, so government doesn't and didn't direct the coroner's office to change anything.

In fact, the only change that I'm aware of and that is visible is the fact that we now have Lisa Lapointe as the chief coroner in British Columbia. I'm sure that as the chief coroner, she will make the decisions that are appropriate for the Coroners Service.

The Coroners Service investigates 7,700 deaths each year and makes recommendations to the government. That's the role of the Coroners Service, and the only visible change that I'm aware of is the fact that we have a new chief coroner.

K. Corrigan: So the minister is saying that the coroner's office is independent. Is it an independent office of the Legislature?

Hon. S. Bond: The independence of the Coroners Service is not related to being an independent office; it's related to their investigations. The province, the government of British Columbia, has no role, no involvement, in the investigations that the Coroners Service conducts. They are independent, and that's the relationship to the word "independent." Those recommendations are provided to government, but there is no role for the government in the 7,700 deaths that are investigated each year.

K. Corrigan: So it is not an independent office. The individual investigations are independent, but how independent is the Coroners Service from government involvement?

[1605]

Hon. S. Bond: All of the core functions that are critical to the Coroners Service, including decisions around policy, training, hiring and, most critically, investigations — all of those are done independently.

K. Corrigan: Does the coroner serve at the pleasure of the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: The chief coroner is appointed by OIC. It is a three-year term, and that is renewable.

K. Corrigan: Okay. I'm going to go back to a Vancouver Sun article of December 2010 which said: "B.C.'s chief coroner has left the job she took just eight months ago, saying she had a difference of opinion with the provincial government on the future of the office. 'We just really couldn't see eye to eye,' Diane Rothon told Postmedia News on Wednesday. 'I have a different vision for the coroner's office. It's at variance with others, I guess.'"

While I appreciate that the minister will not talk about the reasons that Diane Rothon left, she already said them
[ Page 6868 ]
publicly, that she couldn't see eye to eye. She had e-mails that said that her integrity was in jeopardy. She had a different vision for the coroner's office. My question to the minister is: what was that different vision?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, I am not going to discuss the termination of an employee. It is a personnel matter and, for privacy reasons, cannot be discussed.

K. Corrigan: I'm not asking the minister to discuss the personnel matter or the termination. I'm asking what the difference of opinion is, what the changes are, what the plans were that are changing in the coroner's office.

Hon. S. Bond: To my knowledge, what changed in the coroner's office was that we have a new chief coroner. There was no wholesale change of direction. There is no direction provided by the government to the Coroners Service. In fact, the Coroners Service is independent. Independent means that the chief coroner has the ability to hire staff, to design training and to conduct investigations. Information related to a particular recommendation would be conveyed to the government. So there was no significant, wholesale change. There were no changes made, other than we have a new chief coroner.

K. Corrigan: Well, it's a bit perplexing, then, because we have quotes from the former chief coroner saying that there was a different vision, that her integrity was being compromised, or something along that line, and that there was a change of direction in the office that she couldn't see eye to eye with.

Yet I'm being told by the minister that there has been absolutely no change and the only change was that she left. Yet her very statements when she left are not consistent with the comments that the minister is taking.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: They're not. They're not consistent with what she said at the time she left.

Does the ministry set the policy procedures and direction of the coroner's office?

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: I think, having answered this on more than one occasion, the word "independent" means that the chief coroner and the Coroners Service are independent. We do not set policy. We do not give direction. We receive recommendations after investigations are conducted. We do not provide direction in terms of protocol, policy, hiring — any of those issues. Those are dealt with independently by the chief coroner.

K. Corrigan: I am so fascinated by this subject. I would love to ask questions, because I'm completely perplexed about how it could be that the coroner could say things like: "I have a different vision for the coroner's office than government." And the answers that I'm getting from this minister about how independent they are — obviously, Diane Rothon did not feel that that was the case, because she left, and she left with great concern. I am not going to ask any more questions about that, because time is marching on.

I think, unfortunately, that I may have misled you a bit. I said I was going to ask some questions about the fire service. I think that I'll leave that for a little while, if that's all right, because I have some people here that need to go back to the other House or need to go to other appointments.

I know we'll probably need to make a little switch, but I think we're going to go on to some.... We're going to do a few motor vehicle questions, and then we're going to go to some ICBC questions. I'm hoping to come back. The Coroners Service is finished, and I'm hoping that we'll come back to fire questions before we break, if I have time.

Is that okay with you, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: Sorry. Just to wrap the comments on the independence of the Coroners Service. The member opposite says she's perplexed. I'm not sure why she wouldn't understand that, in fact, if a person has been terminated from her position, there may be a difference of opinion.

K. Corrigan: Well, absolutely. There obviously is a difference of opinion, but I think the issue was independence. The coroner obviously felt that something about what had happened compromised her independence and her ability to do the job that she had been hired to do.

With that, I think I'm going to hand the questioning over to my friend from Skeena.

R. Austin: I'd like to change the subject and ask a few questions. I think it's very timely that this is May, which is motorcycle safety awareness month. I would like to ask a couple of questions around motorcycle safety.

I just want to give a little bit of context to the minister, because obviously, in the last couple of months, this being a new ministry that she's handling, she'd have had to read an awful lot of material. So I just want to give a little bit of context.

I'm asking specifically around an issue of the graduated licensing system for motorcyclists. Last year, in May of 2010, Bill 14, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, was brought in and passed by the Legislature. Part of that was to give the government the right to bring in, by regulation, some changes — namely, to bring in a
[ Page 6869 ]
graduated licensing system for motorcyclists; to bring in regulations around doubling, or two people riding on a motorcycle that's not designed for that specifically; and, of course, to regulate helmets.

What I'd like to speak to today, though, is specifically around graduated licensing. I'm representing some families here who tragically lost their children at a very young age as a result of being able to go out and purchase extremely powerful motorcycles. One person grew up in Kitimat. His name was Corey Lodge, and on March 2 of 2005 he bought a 1,000-cc GSX crotch-rocket, a high-speed racing motorcycle, and the following day died not far from here on the Malahat.

His family and others have been lobbying the government and several Solicitors General since 2005 to bring in a graduated licensing system for motorcycles in the same way that we have the changes that were brought in years ago for graduated licensing for cars, which I think the minister would agree has been very successful.

[1615]

Now, the law was passed. The act was passed, but the regulations haven't been brought in. I simply want to ask the minister what the delay has been in regards to that, because this family has been working on this issue, and many families, obviously, have lost children in these tragic circumstances. We'd like to see this happen as quickly as possible so that we don't see these kinds of tragedies happening in the future and other families aren't put through this horrendous act.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the very thoughtful question of the member opposite. I am certainly aware of both the Lodges' circumstance and also other families. There is a family in Prince George who also faced the same circumstances. None of us, certainly, as parents want to face those kinds of situations, so I appreciate the question.

I have spent some time, not enough time yet to be able to fully outline where the next steps might take place, but I have spent time, obviously, meeting with Steve Martin, who is the superintendent of motor vehicles and who joins me here today.

A lot of work has been done. In my view, as a new minister I still need to take some time to have a conversation about the effectiveness, the impact, all of those kinds of things. In the short term I'm very interested in moving forward on some of the issues related to helmets, for sure. We have to get that done because ultimately we need to correct the situation that exists today. So I think there are some things in the shorter term that I can move more quickly on.

I do want to express my concern about the length of time and the impatience, understandably, which families feel. I am aware of the work. It is complex, and there are a lot of implications. I've made a commitment to sit down with stakeholders that have views. And there are varying views, as much as we might be passionate about a particular direction.

I do need to finish doing that work. I know that's not a comfortable feeling for those families, but I'm committed to doing that. In the short term I certainly want to get clarity around things like the helmet regulations. I think we need to deliver that in the shorter term.

R. Austin: Do I have this correctly, then? With regard to the helmet part of it, is the minister saying that that is going to be done fairly quickly because that has been dealt with? The stakeholders are in agreement on the helmet issue, and there aren't any issues around the public policy aspect of it.

But is the problem…? I assume, then, on the regulations around two people sitting on a motorcycle that's not designed for two, that that also is probably not very complicated. Am I right in assuming that there are complications around the regulations, then, around the graduated licensing system? Are there still outstanding issues that the minister is hearing on that specific issue from various stakeholders?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the most important point is that, as the member points out, the bill was an enabling act that allows us to do the work necessary to look thoughtfully at the issues that have been included in that bill. As you can imagine, I've only been on the job a matter of weeks and want to first get fully up to speed on the work that has been done. It has been fairly extensive.

There has been a long period of conversation about the effectiveness of graduated licensing and all of those additional issues. What I would like to do is be able to demonstrate that we're committed to making sure that there is improved motorcycle safety in British Columbia. I know that ultimately…. Right at the moment we have, for example, motorcycle helmet issues that need to be addressed. We need to make sure that there are standards for the use of motorcycle helmets.

I think what I'm trying to say is that there are some things that we can move more quickly on. I need to do a bit more work to fully understand the issues and the concerns around a couple of the other issues, but I'm committed to doing my homework to get up to speed as quickly as possible. We recognize, you know, that motorcycle riders are among the most vulnerable on our roads.

[1620]

I also think there's a dual responsibility to look at vehicles to make sure that they understand the appropriateness of how you manage with motorcycles on the highway. They share the road.

I understand the anxiety. I understand the need to move forward. After only a few weeks in the job, I do want to move some things forward, perhaps more quickly — others need a bit more time for me to understand the
[ Page 6870 ]
implications — and at least meet with stakeholders to better understand some of those varying views.

R. Austin: I just have one more question, then, and I thank the minister. She obviously is showing a real willingness to work on these specific issues.

I think, for people who are advocating for things like this, where they want to prevent other families from going through the tragedies that these families have had to go through, they look at government and the processes of government, and they don't necessarily understand the complexities of it. Frankly, I'm here, and sometimes I don't understand the complexities of it.

Let me ask the minister this. The House is going to rest on June 2. This is enabling legislation that can be brought in by cabinet, by the executive, through OICs, provided we don't go to an early election, which may happen. Is there ongoing work that happens by ministry staff, irrespective of what happens on the political side, so that if there is an early election, these families can expect the new government of the day to have done all of that work, so that we won't have to be waiting — it was 2005 since this was first brought forward — for several more years in case there's a new government or a new minister?

I appreciate that the minister has only been here for a couple of months, but we have gone through six or seven Solicitors General, most of whom have said publicly that they agreed with these things, and yet it hasn't taken place. Could I get some assurance from the minister that there won't be substantive delay due to any election and that, hopefully, if we come back in the fall, we will have seen these regulations brought in sooner rather than later?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, one of the things that I know about…. The member opposite just asked about the chief coroner serving at the pleasure of the minister. We all know that ministers serve at the pleasure of the Premier, so I can only work as hard as I can for as long as I have this role, and that's what I'm committed to doing.

Absolutely, the work will continue, and I want to be very clear about that. Believe me, there is a large volume of work that has been done, which is one of the reasons that I need to make sure that I'm very familiar with the implications and with the work that has been done.

The team has been very committed to following up on issues. For example, in the Lodges' case, I know that education is a very critical part. I think that COREY is the name of the organization that the Lodges so appropriately created. We commit that the work is continuing to be done. There's not going to be a large bureaucratic hold-up should there be an early election — and who knows?

We are committed to the importance of motorcycle safety, to the views that families in the province hold. Again, I hope to demonstrate the fact that it matters to us by, in the shorter term, trying to move some of those initiatives out the door and allow me to catch up on the work that's been done.

The work will continue; a lot has been done. We understand the importance of this. And I, like you, certainly do not want to see other young people in the province face similar circumstances, or their families.

C. Trevena: I'd like to switch tack a little with the minister, if that would be possible, to look at the DriveABLE program. We've had concerns from a number of my constituents on a couple of issues that I'd just like to canvass with the minister.

The DriveABLE program is for seniors who are deemed to need to have a test to ensure that they can keep their driving licence. I've heard from a couple of constituents. One of the serious concerns that they have is in rural areas and the distance they have to travel to take this test.

For instance, for a senior on Cortes Island it's a matter of two ferries, and then it's still a drive down to Nanaimo. If they pass the test, they've got to come back and drive all the way back. If they don't pass the test, they've got to have somebody to drive them back.

I wondered if the minister was looking at any way of ensuring that this test is available more widely around the province.

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: It's certainly an issue that I've heard about, not only from members of the opposition caucus but also our own. In fact, I have spent a lot of time better understanding DriveABLE. I had the DriveABLE team come to my office and actually bring the terminal that seniors and others — it's not all seniors; I should be clear about that — have to go through and what they experience. It was very helpful for me.

I think what we do need to remember is that DriveABLE is basically a medical…. There is a medical necessity for the testing to take place, for the assessment to take place and potentially for the test.

Yes, I am concerned. Like the member opposite, I live in a rural and northern part of British Columbia, and certainly my colleagues have expressed their concerns about DriveABLE. I have tried to work very carefully with them and would be happy to do the same with the members opposite.

I think what we're trying to do is potentially look at a mobile version of the assessment so that we would be able to take the test more broadly to the people where they live. We're already seeing an example of that. I think we currently have a mobile unit being used in Fort St. John. Is that correct? It is.

I think we recognize the challenge, and it's a very anxious period of time. We know how important driving
[ Page 6871 ]
is for people. I know my family has experienced that personally with my father, and it was a very difficult circumstance. I think we recognize the concerns. We're working to see the model evolve. It is a very necessary process.

When I saw the outcomes and understood the rationale…. I think we could do it better. I think we could do it with a mobile version. I think we need better education. I don't think we should be waiting for 80-year-olds to suddenly be informed that they have to go through this process. We need to start working with families much earlier on, with senior centres, to explain why.

The other thing I'd like to offer the member opposite is that I would be very happy to set up a similar type of briefing and hands-on opportunity for the opposition caucus to go through the DriveABLE experience and understand it. It was very helpful to me, and I think my caucus colleagues would agree with that. I'd be happy to set up the same opportunity for the opposition caucus.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for the offer, and on behalf of the opposition caucus I'd like to accept the offer. I think it would be very useful to have that and also to explore the idea of a mobile unit.

One of the concerns, though, is that because it is at the same time a cognitive test and a computer test…. I'd be very interested in seeing it. One of my constituents, Gordon Turnbull from Whaletown on Cortes Island, actually wrote to the B.C. Medical Journal. His concern about this is the cognitive aspect of it.

If I might quote from his letter, he says: "Most seniors being tested this way are unfamiliar with computers, touch screens and computer-generated visuals. If they fail the test, they are told so within two minutes by a clerk. There is no appeal; the licence is revoked on the spot. You can retest after six months for $200. Imagine being told that you're cognitively deficient, not by a doctor but by a clerk."

I have a question to the minister. It is a medical issue, but again, building in the sensitivities of this and how we can ensure that what is a computer test is really understood and accessible. The other thing, before the minister responds on this…. The other point that he raises is that he states there's a misdiagnosis in this test of one in five. I wondered if the minister has any comment on the use of DriveABLE as the software that's being used rather than any other software that is available for this testing.

Hon. S. Bond: Once we set up the opportunity for the member opposite and the opposition caucus to take a look at it…. It is a touch-screen process, so it doesn't require computing skills. One of the things that really impressed me was that the staff are specially trained to actually conduct the assessment, and they're very, very thoughtful about the anxiety levels. There are practices done so that they sit and walk through that experience with a senior, for example, where they're shown how to do the touch screen.

The other thing is that we could provide some information that shows the scientific background that has gone into the development of the program. It is very significant.

[1630]

Also important is that the vast majority of cases are physician referred. At 80 there's an automatic referral, an automatic letter. I want to make sure we're looking at the tone of that letter and whether there's a way to better communicate that, especially earlier.

But typically, the referrals are physician-driven, and physicians would refer the person to the DriveABLE test.

I think we have taken into consideration some of the issues that the member opposite raises, but I would also be very happy to have someone from the DriveABLE or from the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles contact the gentleman that's been mentioned to talk to him about some of those concerns, because we're always looking at making sure that it's appropriate and accurate.

As I said, I think that, first of all, seeing it in person and experiencing it is really helpful and then contemplating how we can improve the model for northern and rural communities in particular. Happy to contact the gentleman and discuss some of those issues with him.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister and will pass on the details about this to her office. I think it would be very useful to see it in practice and also to see some of the research behind it.

The minister, though, well knows that it is, as she's mentioned, a very significant step that all seniors who face this are going through — particularly, as she represents a more remote rural area too, the fact that they may not have access to other forms of transportation if they lose their licence. This is very significant for their whole way of life.

Anything we can do to ensure that we can get the education done and the information out there would be very much appreciated.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I want to thank the member opposite for bringing up the issue, and members of my own caucus who have done that. It's also been demonstrated and pointed out to me by some of the members of my caucus that if you are from a rural location and have to travel, there's the potential that you also have to stay overnight or incur additional costs. So while the referral is actually paid for, the actual test — the first time, at least — there is a bit of an advantage potentially for urban seniors and others who have to take the test.

That does concern me. I've expressed that to the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, and they've
[ Page 6872 ]
recognized that we need to do some work on that. I think it's another area of mutual agreement on both our parts — that there does need to be work.

I'm going to ask Steve to make sure that he contacts your caucus to offer the opportunity for a hands-on demonstration. Also, we'd be happy to share the same package of information that we provided to our caucus members who walked through the development of the program.

Certainly, I'm committed to looking at how we can better accommodate the needs of those seniors, in particular, who live in more rural parts of the province. I appreciate the question, and I'm happy to work collaboratively to try to provide more information.

K. Corrigan: I apologize in advance to the minister because I know it's going to mean some staff changes. But because of people coming in and out of the questions now, we're probably going to do a little bit of switching back and forth, complicated by the fact that I have a flight at 6:30 p.m.

I want to ask a couple of very quick questions right now about victim services and particularly about programs regarding violence against women — victim service programs regarding violence against women.

Minister, I'm wondering: will we still have the ICBC people here later?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they're not going anywhere.

K. Corrigan: They're not going anywhere. Perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

As I'm sure the minister knows, issues of domestic violence are near and dear to my heart. I'm very concerned about domestic violence, as I'm sure the minister is as well. I had a whole series of questions that I was going to ask, but we are really running up against time constraints.

[1635]

I will ask just one or two and then perhaps ask the minister if it would be possible for me to follow up in writing with some questions. Perhaps we can get some information that I was hoping to get through writing at a later point. Is that okay with the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: That would be very appropriate. I would also be happy to sit down personally with our staff and with the opposition critic to discuss the issue. She's correct. It's a very compelling issue for me, as well, and one of the first briefings I asked for.

We'd be happy to sit down, and maybe we could go through those questions in person rather than in writing. We'd be happy to do that.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that, Minister, and I will absolutely take you up on it. We'll plan to do that in the next little while. I appreciate it.

I guess what I'll do, then, is just ask for one piece of information. Sorry to bring you up for this one thing because it takes a little bit of time to compile, but I was very pleased to receive it last year.

Last year I requested in estimates the funding information on victim services programs and violence-against-women programs. I received an initial listing of the programs and then clarified that what I was looking for was something much more detailed — a detailed list of the contracted front-line programs and funding amounts organized by community.

I was very pleased that the ministry provided that to me. If the ministry needs to see what I received last year…. You probably have a record of it. I would appreciate receiving the same information as I did last year. It was appreciated. There were many service providers who used this information throughout the year and were pleased to have it.

I'm sorry to have kept you here all afternoon to simply ask for that and to make arrangements for a future time when we sit down together. I think maybe that's what I'll do at this point, because it's quarter to five, and we only have about an hour and probably 20 minutes, something like that.

Hon. S. Bond: Just to confirm to the member opposite, we'd be happy to compile that list. I think we could sit down and have a mutual discussion about areas that the member opposite would like to get not only more information on, but I'd be interested in hearing her views and sharing. I know that she's very passionate about this, and I would appreciate the opportunity to hear from her on the subject.

Tara and I would be happy to sit down and do that.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you. I appreciate your comments, Minister, and that will be, I'm sure, a very fruitful discussion. I look forward to it.

I wanted to turn for a few minutes to the changes to the building code that allowed mid-rise wood-frame construction of buildings up to six storeys.

Again, probably a switch of chairs. I'll wait for a second.

Hon. S. Bond: I may be able to save the opposition critic some time, because the building code actually doesn't fall under our ministry. It falls under the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Housing, I think. I do obviously have Becky Denlinger here. But Becky's responsible for emergency management British Columbia, and in fact that would deal with fire but not necessarily directly targeted to buildings. So the building code is no longer under my area of responsibility.

K. Corrigan: Apparently, if it's no longer under your area of responsibility, it's no longer under my area of critic as well. We're both learning so much today.
[ Page 6873 ]

If I had questions about the representations that were made by various industry groups, experts, fire chiefs, etc. asking about the decisions that were made and, of course, referencing what has happened in Richmond — I won't say tragically; luckily, nobody was injured — this would not be the appropriate place to ask those questions?

Hon. S. Bond: Despite having a new deputy and a new minister, we both agree that this does not fall under our jurisdiction. The responsibility for the building code — I'm assuming where that discussion would have taken place — rests with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Housing. Is that the title?

[1640]

K. Corrigan: Well, I've gone through two whole areas of questioning in 3½ minutes. I guess we'll move on.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: That's right. Thank you so much for your answers.

Okay. Then I am going to perhaps…. I have my friend here. My colleague here from Surrey has some questions he wants to ask about drinking and driving. Maybe we'll just slot those in right now while I regroup.

J. Brar: I would like to ask a question to the minister about the new rule of drinking and driving and the impact it has on the small business community.

I understand clearly the intent of this new rule of drinking and driving, which is a good one, but I also understand that when policy like this is implemented, there is a process and plan to develop the policy as well as to implement the policy.

My question to the minister is: was there any consultation done with the small business community before implementing this new policy and new rules about drinking and driving?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly I am aware of the fact that in early 2011 the former Solicitor General met with a broad cross-section of the food and beverage industry to hear from them. I am not aware of the degree, if any, of consultation that took place with small business, but I am informed that, in fact, there was significant discussion with police and law enforcement agencies — that type of discussion.

I am not aware of the degree, if any, of the consultation that took place. The previous Solicitor General, though, as I point out, did meet with a broad cross-section of interests in early 2011.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for the response. I appreciate the answer given by the minister.

Just recently there was a survey conducted by the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association about the impact of particularly drinking and driving — new penalties, combined with the HST of course — and the finding was printed just a day before in the Vancouver Sun: "Nearly nine out of ten restaurants in B.C. have seen sales drop since the introduction of the HST and new drinking and driving penalties, according to a survey by the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association." Clearly, there has been a huge impact when it comes to the sales in the restaurant industry.

[1645]

So I would like to ask the minister. We don't know what kind of consultation took place before implementing this new penalty, but in light of this finding, which clearly states that in nine out of ten businesses sales have dropped, will the minister review these findings and work with the restaurant industry to find out if there's any solution which is workable for both parties?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, thank you to the member opposite. I certainly intend — and, in fact, have meetings scheduled — to meet with a variety of groups related to this issue. I think we do need to have really good communication about what happened and what is happening.

The former Solicitor General also agreed that some additional work should be done, and we are doing that work. The member cites statistics that have been provided by small businesses and restaurants in particular, and we are also doing that work. I think it's important that we have a look at the impacts.

I think the other impacts that it's very important to contemplate are related to what impact it's had in terms of public safety in British Columbia. That was certainly the driving factor in looking at the creation of the toughest impaired driving laws in the country. I think it's important that work be done both from the safety perspective and.... Today, even as recently as question period, we heard the Attorney General reference the fact that early data would show us that there's been a dramatic reduction in fatalities, in particular.

So to the member opposite's point, the former Solicitor General assigned some work to be done to review the impacts, and that work is currently underway.

J. Brar: I will ask one more question. I appreciate the response.

My understanding is that there will be some sort of consultation, particularly with the restaurant industry, keeping in mind these new penalties. Again, I just want to emphasize that I understand the intent, which is a good one, of these new penalties and rules. At the same time, if there's anything that can be done, at least to understand the perspective of the restaurant industry, to just talk to them, that will be, of course, good in this particular case.

With that, thank you very much for the answers.
[ Page 6874 ]

The Chair: Recognizing the member from Burnaby–Deer Lakes.

K. Corrigan: Lake — singular. We're going to get there.

The Chair: Boy, I tell you, I've got some work to do.

K. Corrigan: It's all right. I can't remember all that. I don't know how you people do it in those chairs.

I'm going to ask a series of questions about ICBC now, and I promise that I will stick to that subject for a while.

We're all very proud of ICBC. It has been a jewel in the crown of British Columbia. So I think all British Columbians want to maintain it but, obviously, improve it as well.

I do have a number of questions about ICBC and what seems to be some change in the approach and some change to some of the programs and so on — some of which are concerning to me and others who have spoken to me.

The first thing I wanted to talk about was the amount of excess optional insurance capital transferred to the province.

[1650]

In the Budget 2010 the plan was for $487 million to be taken out in 2010-11; 2011-12 was $144 million; and 2012-13 was $778 million. In the Budget 2011 that amount for 2010-11 increased to $580 million. For 2011-12, it's $185 million; for 2012-13, $225 million; and for 2013-14, $225 million, which means that the province is going to take $1.215 billion out of ICBC — has or will over a period of four years — and put it into, presumably, general revenue.

My question for the minister is: does the minister think it's appropriate to be taking this much money, which is essentially paid for by British Columbians through their premiums for auto insurance, out of the Insurance Corporation and placing it into general revenue?

The Chair: For all those hundreds of thousands watching around today, I would like to recognize the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, thank you very much. Hundreds of thousands — boy, our ratings have gone up. It must be the scintillating debate between the opposition critic and I. So that's good news.

Well, I think, in essence, the most important principle that we have to remember is that government is committed to ensuring that there is enough money in the company to meet regulatory requirements. We expect there to be protection against unexpected events, volatile rates and also that ICBC can reinvest in their business. It's only been very recently, in fact, that ICBC has accumulated more operating capital than is required.

In fact, those dollars will be returned to government. I think the benefit of that is obvious to British Columbians — that it will then be part of what helps to provide exceptional health care and education services in the province. We are in the position of being able to do this only very recently, and in essence, our first principle is to ensure that the company has enough money to meet its expectations in terms of regulatory requirements and additional expectations.

K. Corrigan: It is appropriate, I think, for some amount of money to go back to government. I wouldn't dispute that. But $600 million, almost, in 2011?

ICBC is not a private company. It's a Crown corporation, and I think it has been traditionally run as a cooperative, essentially, to provide reasonably priced auto insurance for the people of British Columbia. So I'm not sure that the people of B.C. really understand what's happening, but it seems to me that that is a pretty outrageous amount of money to be coming from drivers back to government revenues.

Hon. S. Bond: I think what's important is that, in fact, ICBC is going to be well protected in terms of the amount of capital required, which is actually determined by ICBC's actuaries, and they do that in accordance with federal regulatory guidance and validated by an independent actuary.

[1655]

Our principle is that we want to be sure that ICBC has the ability to operate, to continue to invest, and when there is higher than expected investment income, it is clear that those dollars, wherever possible, will be returned to government.

K. Corrigan: Well, you said that this was information that was provided by actuaries. I'm wondering: is the minister saying that the actuaries that provided the estimates were so far off that they missed by $600 million?

Hon. S. Bond: In 2011 and 2012 the higher forecasted amount that will be transferred is due to improved profitability from the optional business but also a result of lower claim costs and significantly higher investment income.

K. Corrigan: Families in British Columbia struggle to make their bill payments every month, and one of the things that most families are required to have — at least one in a family, usually — is a vehicle. Some people manage not to, but many, many people, particularly in rural areas, are required to have a vehicle just to go to work to meet their living obligations to live, work and play.

I think that British Columbians generally would agree with me that $580 million for 2010 and 2011 is excessive when an option, my assumption would be, would be to
[ Page 6875 ]
reduce insurance rates to take some of that burden off families. Now, I understand there was a small reduction in November, but certainly, with that kind of slack, a larger reduction could have been possible.

[D. Barnett in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite talks about reductions. In fact, in 2010 ICBC's optional rates were reduced by an average of 3 percent. It is the fifth time in six years that ICBC has lowered optional rates, for a total cumulative decrease of approximately 20 percent. So there has been a consistent approach to looking at what is reasonable, and we've seen rates go down for the fifth time in six years. Again, one of the reasons that there are additional dollars being returned to government is that we have seen an increase and higher-than-expected investment income.

You know, we recognize the importance of mitigating rate increases on British Columbians, and our Premier has made it very clear. In fact, we are looking at issues like B.C. Hydro and B.C. Ferries, and ICBC will be counted among those as well. We recognize the importance of mitigating rate increases, and that's why you've seen optional rates drop five times out of six years.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask some questions about the number of claims and the value of claims. I thought I just heard the minister say that there was actually a decrease in claims, and yet there's a story posted on April 7 that I read that said that ICBC claims have increased by $100 million. I wonder if the minister could explain that.

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: When we talk about bodily injury, the side of the business…. Obviously ICBC has two businesses, basically. But on the bodily injury side we have seen claims increase there, and it is adding pressure on the basic side of the business. As the member opposite would know, those rates are regulated by BCUC.

In fact, we are looking at the bodily injury claims. As I said, those numbers are increasing. We are concerned about that. We want to better understand why that is the case, so we're having a good look at bodily injury.

My comments around crashes being reduced are on the impact in terms of the number of crashes. Damage related to those is on the optional side, so that's why we see pressure on the basic side — because of bodily injury claims — and a much better scenario on the optional side, because damage related to those crashes is on the optional side.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what the amount of bodily injury — personal injury claims are the same thing, I assume — was last year and what it is this year. We're talking about a $100 million increase. What are the two time periods, and what are the amounts that we're talking about?

[1705]

Hon. S. Bond: I neglected to introduce Jon Schubert, who is the president and CEO of ICBC, and Anwar Chaudhry, who is the controller who is madly looking up the numbers, for the member opposite, related to bodily injury.

I should point out, though, that bodily injury does not impact optional unless it is above $200,000, so actually it's a very small impact on the optional side, which is why we're seeing improved results on the optional side. Where the pressure really comes is on the basic side. We will certainly get those, the year-over-year numbers, if we have them, as soon as Anwar can find them.

K. Corrigan: Without knowing exactly what those numbers are, the media report that I saw was that there had been a $100 million increase in claims. I would assume that that would be an increase…. And I'm not suggesting that is the number, but that was what was reported. I'm not sure of the time period, either, so if I could get clarification on that as well.

Hon. S. Bond: We will certainly commit to trying to get those numbers for the member opposite. Maybe what I'll do is just explain how that number was used. The member is correct. The number $100 million was used, and what it was used as was a demonstration of how incremental bodily injury claims drive the cost.

For example, if there are 14.5 bodily injury claims for every 1,000 customers, an increase of one bodily injury claim — so you have 15½ for every 1,000 drivers — actually drives the cost up by $100 million. That's where the number came from. It was really an example used to talk about incremental costs and that every additional bodily injury claim has a dramatic increase in costs.

We don't have the total broken down into just bodily injury costs. I can tell you that claims and related costs rose more than $100 million over last year, from $3.57 billion to $3.76 billion. In that mix the number of vehicle damage claims dropped, while the number and costs of bodily injury went up. That's where you get the two sides of the business and the impacts — negatively on the basic and positively on the optional.

K. Corrigan: I thank you for that. So we're in agreement that whatever amount it is, the costs on the bodily or the personal injury side went up somewhat over the last year.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct, and we're simply not able to articulate at the moment what that cost was year over year. But the important point to note is that even
[ Page 6876 ]
increasing by one bodily injury claim out of 1,000 customers drives $100 million in cost.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could speculate on the cause of that increase.

[1710]

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, I can't. From the sense….You know, we've just discussed a couple of things. For example, it could be more weather incidents. It can be a variety of things. In fact, there is concern at ICBC. Jon and his team are looking at that very question, because obviously it adds pressure to the basic side. So we want to try to better understand it.

It could be random; it could be weather; it could be technology; it could be a number of causes. There is going to be work done to try to decide what influenced that increase.

K. Corrigan: Well, I have one suggestion about why the cost for bodily injury went up so much. I'll make a suggestion about it — that there's been a significant change in how legal services are provided, the cost of legal services and what is happening with legal services provided by lawyers to ICBC.

Hon. S. Bond: It's probably a valid observation. I am advised that we're seeing more bodily injury claims, people utilizing lawyers, and that requires ICBC to use legal services. So in essence there probably is an increased demand for dollars to fund legal services related to bodily injury claims.

K. Corrigan: That is not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is that…. That is a possibility. I can understand why the minister would take it that way or get advice that way. No, what I am suggesting is that ICBC has changed its policy on how it uses lawyers it hires to do work and that because of the changes ICBC is making in how it's dealing with lawyers it hires, the claims rate is going up.

Hon. S. Bond: Maybe it's the lateness of the hour and the length of time we've been together. First I answered a question that she didn't ask, and now I have to come back and ask the member opposite if there are specifics related to her concerns, because I am assured by ICBC that they have not made a significant shift in the way they utilize legal services. So I'm happy to provide an answer once we have more specifics around the question.

[1715]

K. Corrigan: Well, for one thing, is it true that the lawyers that do work for ICBC have been told that the rates will not be raised for three years, that they will be frozen for three years? That's a start.

Hon. S. Bond: It is a negotiated agreement that is in place. Apparently, the current three-year agreement expires next year. On average, the existing agreement has seen increases of about 2 percent over the course of three years, so in fact there have been increases. It is a negotiated contract, it expires next year, and negotiations will begin around the next three-year contract.

K. Corrigan: Well, that's certainly not the information that I was given. So nobody has been told that rates are going to be frozen for three years?

Hon. S. Bond: I am advised that that has not been the message that has been conveyed, that there is a negotiation period and that it will commence before the expiration of this three-year contract.

K. Corrigan: Has there been a change to how billing is done? My understanding is that ICBC has gone to a computerized billing system that compartmentalizes each and every thing that a lawyer does. I'm told that this is resulting in rejection of about 10 percent, or something along that line, of things that are billed by lawyers, which means that they are not getting paid what they used to get paid.

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: It's believed that last year a legal audit billing process did begin at ICBC. It means that as lawyers submit their bills, there is an automatic auditing of the services that they've provided. And yes, indeed, there has actually been rejection of some bills or some parts of bills, I'm assuming.

That process did start last year. In fact, I'm told that, generally, industry uses it. ICBC was one of the last large organizations of this nature to actually begin to look at that audit process.

K. Corrigan: Is it also true that if there is a bill of more than $5,000 it must now be signed off by a director and that this means there are delays in lawyers getting paid?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is a process where there is a required sign-off. We're not quite certain at this point in time exactly what that threshold is, but we will get that answer as quickly as we can. But yes, there are checks and balances in place. So there is a sign-off required.

On the other hand, neither Jon nor Anwar is aware of delays in paying legal fees. But we'd be more than happy if the member opposite wanted to share information with us or give us details. I know that Jon would certainly follow up. It's not the intent to delay the payment to lawyers, and they're not aware of that circumstance.

I will give the member opposite the threshold as soon as I have it.
[ Page 6877 ]

K. Corrigan: I feel it's very odd that I'm sitting here defending lawyers, but I guess I could say some of my best friends are some, and I am a lawyer by training.

The serious side of this is that there has been a significant increase in bodily injury claims. My concern is that one of the factors is whether or not we are supporting good legal assistance from lawyers and from others.

What I've been told not only by lawyers but also by tow truck drivers, court suppliers and others in the system is that essentially what is transpiring is that the people who supply ICBC are financing ICBC now because of the delay — 30, 60, 90 days payment — and that this is adding up to millions of dollars a year and creating real hardship.

It's not necessarily the lawyers — although I'm sure that significant income is being lost for lawyers; I've been told that — but also people like court suppliers. I've been told of a situation of a court reporter in…. Man, I can't remember what community it was. Basically, they're shutting their business down because of the way the billing is done now and the delays that are happening. It is having a significant impact on a variety of people.

The tow truck drivers. I've talked to them recently, and they've said the same thing. The way they're getting paid is that there are delays — 30, 60, 90. Their opinion is that it's intentional as a way simply of financing ICBC on the backs of the suppliers who service ICBC.

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is significant concern being expressed on this side about any delays that would take 30, 60 or 90 days. Practices haven't changed. There is a corporate view that paying the people who provide service to the organization is essential. On the other hand, there do need to be checks and balances in place.

So the only circumstance, I'm informed, that may delay the payment of service is if an invoice hasn't been sent in or if there has been an error. Generally, suppliers are paid every two weeks, which is better than the industry standard. In fact, for many of the large suppliers, like body shops, etc., there would be electronic deposits.

If there are specific circumstances, we'd be more than happy to have a look at those. But it certainly doesn't appear, at least from the advice I've been given, that there's a systemic problem with paying people who supply services to ICBC.

K. Corrigan: Well, I do hope the minister will look into it, because I have received that information from several sources, to the extent that…. Certainly, what I've heard from lawyers I know well is that the feeling is that many, many longtime and very, very experienced lawyers who could keep the claims down for ICBC have left or are going to be leaving work for ICBC because it is simply not worth their while anymore.

When you combine what their understanding is — that rates are not going to be raised; that they've been told, "Take it or leave it…." I'm sorry. I'm quoting somebody else there, and I'm not going to say who that is. With the new billing system, there is a significant refusal for exactly the same work for which they have been paid for decades, and there is a time delay because of sign-offs and other refusals and so on. It is having an impact not only on lawyers but on, as I said…. Certainly, I've talked to tow truck drivers who are saying that it's had a significant impact.

I've been told anecdotally that there are other suppliers, like court reporters, that actually are firing people or shutting their businesses down — small businesses that support families — because of the changed practices of ICBC.

So you save, perhaps, some money. It's understandable that we want to save taxpayers money. We save some money at the front end, but we spend more on the back end. Part of the problem is that it's difficult to track it, because we have what is seen as an unexplained increase in the claims. Then at the same time, ICBC can say, "Why, we've saved money on legal services," when, in fact, the efficiency of the system may have actually declined, because it is a false savings if injury claims and other claims do go up significantly.

I wanted to flag that for the minister. I hope the minister will look very closely at it, because it certainly is a concern, a very significant concern, that has come to me from a variety of sources, with the same comments being made by not only lawyers, not only tow truck drivers, but anecdotally by other people — as well as somebody who was a senior manager at ICBC and recently retired.

[1730]

Hon. S. Bond: This is certainly the venue to raise those types of issues. I will have a further discussion with ICBC. Having said that, I am assured that it is a priority that service providers are paid appropriately and swiftly. Certainly, we recognize the importance of those services provided to ICBC.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I appreciate hearing those concerns from the member opposite, and I can assure her that we will have a further discussion to be very clear that practices do not disadvantage payment to service providers.

K. Corrigan: There were recent announcements in the papers, television stories and so on about some changes that are happening at ICBC and that, depending on what you believe or don't believe, there would be 350 to 1,000 ICBC adjusters — primarily adjusters but also administrative people; assistants, I assume, attached to those adjusters — who are going to be laid off over the next three years.
[ Page 6878 ]

Now, I talked to people representing some of those people, and they felt that that was perhaps a little exaggerated — some of the newspaper reporting. So I'm not suggesting that it is going to be a thousand people, but I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me what the changes are that are coming. I understand it is related to.... I think it's the Guidewire computer system change, which will hopefully make ICBC more efficient in its claims adjustments.

Hon. S. Bond: Let me reassure the member opposite that there will not be a thousand people that are impacted by transformation, and in fact, there will not be layoffs. So those are clearly the key principles around which the transformation process will take place.

In essence, it really is an attempt by ICBC to look at serving their customers more efficiently and effectively. There are currently very outdated technology systems in place. They're currently 20 to 30 years old. Now, all of us who use technology can only begin to imagine how a large organization like ICBC would function with 20- to 30-year-old equipment.

This a multi-year, multiproject effort to modernize ICBC's technology and to better serve the clients — the people of British Columbia.

The number of positions that will transition out would be 350. Of that 350, 70 will be managers and, in fact, there will not be layoff provisions. It is about a natural progression, and the vast majority of those — all of them — would be dealt with by attrition.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me how much the new technology, new computer system, is going to cost.

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: The transformation program hasn't separated out the technology part in terms of costs. The overall transformation program will be about $400 million. As the member opposite can imagine, there's a lot to do with processes and managing to treat people fairly.

The key note is that there will be no layoffs, this will not impact rates, and there will be no closures of claim centres. Those are important principles, because I certainly had a reaction conveyed to me as well. I have been reassured that the plan is capped at 350 people and that they will be dealt with fairly and through attrition. There will be no layoffs. Again, what's incredibly important is those claim centres, and I have been reassured that there will not be closures around the province.

K. Corrigan: Does that include claim centres or centres that are presently leased?

Hon. S. Bond: There may be some consolidation of leased space, in the Lower Mainland in particular. There won't be impacts in the rest of British Columbia, but the employees that currently work in some of that leased space would be moved over to a facility where there is currently space. So there may be some amalgamation of space, focusing on reducing costs through getting rid of the leases.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear, because we were talking about timing of questions here. So none of those leased centres are claim centres, any of them. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: We're just trying to differentiate here. There may be some claims staff moved from a leased space to the space owned by ICBC to reduce the costs. There is not job loss or anything related to that. But there may be some amalgamation of space, and there may be some claims people involved who would go to the owned space.

K. Corrigan: Okay, I just wanted to be clear. So there will be…. If there are claims people, it's not a claim centre, because the minister said that there weren't going to be any claim centres closing. I just want to be clear on what is and isn't happening.

Hon. S. Bond: All right. We're getting down to the nitty-gritty here. We're trying to describe the difference between a claim centre and claims people.

I'm assured that if you drive your vehicle into the centre, that is a claim centre. Those are not closing. Those are not being adjusted. Having said that, there may be office staff — office people, office adjustors, claims adjustors — that are in leased space that would be moved to the space that is owned by ICBC so that the leases could be let go. I think that's a better definition.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister, for that. I appreciate that.

With this Transformation 2014, is there an expectation that the corporation is moving away from face-to-face service and more towards managing things by telephone?

[1740]

Hon. S. Bond: The overarching principle in terms of the transformation is to better serve the client. There are many customers, I'm told, who would rather not spend a lot of their personal time in person in a claim centre if they have a relatively simple claim that could be dealt with on the telephone. So yes, there will very likely be less in-person time in a claim centre because simple claims would be dealt with by telephone.

So that saves personal time, but it also means the vehicle gets back to the individual more quickly, because they can be directed to a particular body shop, they deal
[ Page 6879 ]
with that, and they do not need to physically visit the claim centre.

K. Corrigan: The way the minister characterized this is that some people prefer to do their claims that way. Is the minister saying that this will be entirely at the option of individuals, that the existing claim centres will stay there and people will have the option of going to the claim centres and having their vehicle dealt with that way?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I'm told there are three options, which would be optional. I think about my own family. If it were my children, I know which one of these three they'd choose.

You can call, you can click — so you can actually go on line — or you could go in person. I'm wagering that.... I'm not wagering; I'm a Solicitor General. I am thinking that perhaps there is a real appetite for many customers to actually look at using computer technology. So three options: call, click or in person.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister. Is there an intention for ICBC to move increasingly to what's been called the valet service or express repair?

Hon. S. Bond: The goal of using a system like the telephone would be exactly that. You'd call in, get approval for your claim, and then you'd be able to go directly to a body shop of your choice. If that's described as express service, yes, that is part of the intention of the transformation.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to ask some more questions about that, and then I'm going to pass it off to my colleague here. But there's one other area, since he wants to ask about the same area, and some questions related.

I just want to ask about the satisfaction surveys, the employee surveys. I can't remember what they're called. But I wanted to find out about the state of morale, as reflected in the employee surveys. How is ICBC doing in the area of staff morale?

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: ICBC does do a very extensive external survey, so there is an external survey that's done. About 85 percent of the employees at ICBC actually participate in that survey, and over a two-year period the results have moved from 44 percent in terms of employee satisfaction to 55 percent. It's clear that there has been progress made, but there is more work to be done.

There is an increasing effort to engage and involve employees, particularly in the design and transformation process. There is a formal recognition program beginning, a formal wellness program that's been initiated. I think that there's a recognition that work is being done, that that type of gain over a two-year period is considered significant by the people who conduct the survey and that there is more work to be done.

K. Corrigan: I would have loved to have asked a whole bunch more questions about that, but because I have some colleagues that want to ask some questions, I will ask one final question. I want to ask about this express repair, and it'll lead nicely into what my colleague is going to ask about.

With the express repair or the valet service, whatever you call it, it has been expressed to me that there is a real grave danger of somebody who has an autobody shop or a repair shop…. They are essentially the fox guarding the henhouse. They are in the position that they are making an estimate and then submitting it and that the oversight is not there. There's a real concern about the audit process.

I could have asked ten or 15 questions on that, but I do want to flag it. I know that some people who have been very senior at ICBC have expressed that concern to me.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, ICBC is making every effort to be aware of those concerns. They will be implementing an audit system. There is also the evolution, or a change, in the role of estimators currently, and in fact those estimators will take on more of an audit role and fulfil some of the oversight that's necessary. So I think that there is an awareness that this needs to be monitored. There will also be the opportunity to do drop-in visits. They occur now, but there will be an expanded role in terms of the oversight of body shops as well.

I think that ICBC has clearly thought through the kinds of concerns that the member opposite has suggested and are putting appropriate measures in place. Certainly, it will be one of the areas that they continue to monitor as transformation takes place.

H. Bains: I have some questions. Because of the time constraints, I will try to take shortcuts rather than go through the explanation on some of the issues that I have on hand.

[1750]

I want to talk about what they call multiple claims, or you call them two-stage setup time, for painting. If there is a claim on one part of the vehicle and then there's another one before this one is repaired and then there's another one, then two of them — as they call them, two-stage claims or multiple claims….

My understanding is that if the first claim is dealt with through your ADXE system, it will be a stand-alone claim, although there's a second claim going to that same body shop. The second claim will also be a stand-alone claim. Each one of them will be including a payment for what they call the set-up time for the paint
[ Page 6880 ]
and for the painting and the tinting to make it even for both sides of the damage. In that sense, you're double-paying for part of the claim.

My question is: how many of those claims do exist out there, as we speak today? Per year how many of those claims are there, and what is the average cost of what you could call a double payment?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the specific number. I am assured that the number of those circumstances where they are treated as two separate claims…. That does happen, but it is in a very small number of cases. We will work to get the numbers back to the member opposite.

H. Bains: As the minister probably knows, there is an organization called ClearView Connects. Because I am short of time, I will explain. This is the system that is used by internal employees, if they find some fraud or some practices that are unethical happening, where they could report to the management through ClearView without being identified.

I have a few e-mails that went through ClearView, and they have identified initially about 4,000 such claims at a cost of about $240,000 per year. Since that time, when certain employees challenged those numbers, they came back. The higher management actually did the investigation and came back. In fact, there are 11,000 claims, and the average cost of the double payment is about $100, but it is much higher in many claims. That's the low end. The $100 is considered to be at the low end of the estimate, but the estimate could be four times higher.

Even if you look at 11,000 claims of that nature where there is a double payment, you're talking about over $1 million per year that you are paying twice to do the same work to that same body shop. Can the minister agree that that's what takes place today?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, there is agreement that that could and does happen in terms of two separate claims. We're not able, at this moment, to verify the number of claims. I have a commitment that there will be follow-up to determine the number of claims and how frequently that happens. The point has been made by the member opposite. Certainly, Jon and Anwar will go back and get the data.

H. Bains: I appreciate the minister's commitment to get that data back.

[1755]

I'm reading those numbers from the management folks talking to their employees and doing their personal investigation and coming up with these numbers. They are saying that it is very, very difficult, because they have to download each individual claim in order to find where the double payment has been made.

They came back with 11,000 between September 2009 and October 2010, in a one-year period. So they have established 11,000 claims, at a cost of over a million dollars. Per year, we are paying twice for the same damage, the same claim, to the same body shop. It has been identified to the management, all the way up to the CEO. That has also been identified through these e-mails going back and forth between ClearView and certain employees of the organization.

I am told that it goes back to before 2009 when these issues were brought up. Certain employees raised those issues, and the management acknowledged that those things are there. They're blaming the computer system that they had, ADXE, and that there is no way that we could pick out the double payment.

They have suggested it can easily be done by either the ICBC estimators or the shop estimators. They can easily identify the double payment and take that out. But the management has been instructing those estimators not to deduct the double payment.

So the minister needs to acknowledge that that practice exists today and that there's a double payment, as it is identified through some of these e-mails, over a million dollars per year.

This is money that comes out of ICBC's clients, the money that should go towards reducing their rates. It is not happening. Management is aware of it for the last two years at least. So how many millions have already gone out to pay twice for the same claims? Perhaps the minister could provide us with those numbers.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the commitment is that there is work being done to try to find a solution to the issue. There is a bit of a challenge in that the numbers are different. The number that I've been given in terms of the issue is about $200,000 a year. That's not insignificant either. But in fact, the fix might be more expensive than that.

So the management that's here today has been clear that they are aware of the circumstance. They are working to find a solution, and they will go back and make sure that there is some additional work done on this issue.

H. Bains: I appreciate the minister's commitment on this. But Minister, the employees have been advised by the management that there's no intention of fixing this problem. These are the e-mails between ClearView and the employees.

Now your staff is saying that they are in the process of fixing it, but in fact in the real world and ICBC circles, they are told that they cannot fix it because that's the system — the system ADXE. They are basically told this is the system that is all over North America; it's an acceptable system. It is the system that has been negotiated between the repair shops and ICBC, so it can't be fixed.
[ Page 6881 ]

Management knew all along that there's overpayment. It's double payment to do the same work, and nothing has been done.

I would like the minister to explain to this House: how is this going to be fixed when the employees are saying it's an easy fix? They're saying that if you allow individual estimators to take the double payment, it can be done either at the shop level or at the ICBC level. Why is that not allowed?

[1800]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sitting beside the president and CEO of ICBC, who tells me that he does not have that information in front of him. He has made a commitment to me that there have been efforts made to look at how to fix the issue.

We'd be happy to take the information that the member opposite has. Certainly I've been assured, also, that senior management very likely has that information. That's what the member opposite is saying.

I'd like to point out that it has also been mentioned that this is not an easy fix. The e-mails might indicate that it is; I'm being told that it's not quite that simple. What we've agreed to do is to ask Jon to go back to ICBC and look at what, if anything, can be done.

I am told that the fix is more expensive than the problem, so there are challenges with that as well. But I'm also informed that the transformation process, which will move the company ahead and look at ways to be able to fix these kinds of things, will also be helpful.

So there is not an easy fix in this room this afternoon, but certainly, there is a commitment to go back. The CEO has made that commitment, and he will go back and have a look.

H. Bains: I just want to read to the minister one of the e-mails. This comes from ClearView. This ClearView e-mail is advising certain employees who were inquiring about this. It is November 2010.

"It is my responsibility to update the chair of the audit committee, which is part of the board of directors, as well as the CEO, on all reports that come through ClearView. I explain to the audit committee and to the CEO what the report is about, the work done to figure out if the concern raised in their report is true or not and any decisions or corrective action that need to be taken. I have done all those things."

So this is ClearView advising employees that "I have advised the audit committee and the CEO," which is part of that reporting process.

That has happened, so I think the CEO understands that that system is there. All I need to hear from the minister is: do those double payments for the same work, as I have explained before, for the multi-claims or the...? Do they exist today? And I understand that the minister will be giving us the numbers later on, but do they exist today?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't think there's been any attempt this afternoon to indicate that they don't exist today. In fact, they do. The challenge is trying to fix it. The fact of the matter is that information I've been provided with says that the cost is about $200,000 — not an insignificant amount — but that the fix is far more expensive than that.

It is clear that the CEO and the controller will go back, will have a discussion about this issue and try to verify the numbers in terms of the issue that's been brought to their attention this afternoon.

N. Simons: I have a few questions, with the five minutes I have, regarding the DriveABLE program recently implemented. I have a few questions; maybe I need to sort of package them all together.

In my constituency seniors are being required to drive a considerable distance and take a ferry into the city where they would never choose to drive. They are required to undertake a computer test, as well as, in some cases, a driving test two weeks later. So in my constituency we've had people who've had to drive from Powell River, take the ferry to the Island and then drive down to Nanaimo on a 110-kilometre-an-hour freeway.

On the lower Sunshine Coast I've had residents having to go from Pender Harbour to the ferry early in the morning — a very long day for a couple of residents in my community who are over 85. They're very lovely people whose independence is hugely impacted by their ability to drive.

[1805]

Has the ministry ever contemplated graduated delicensing for seniors, as opposed to the pass or fail?

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you to the member opposite. I am certainly aware of one of the cases — in terms of Ms. Robertson, I think, who went from Sechelt and had that very circumstance.

I, too, shared concerns about DriveABLE, so I appreciate hearing the member's concern. I know he also faces the issue of being rural and remote — those kinds of things.

I have not contemplated graduated delicensing, but I do think — and I said earlier in the estimates — that we do need to do a better job of the transition from being able to drive and not being able to drive. I've shared numerous times with my colleagues very personal and painful circumstances from my own dad. I know what that was like, and it was extremely traumatic. It was very difficult.

I think we have some work to do with DriveABLE. I value the program, only because I know a lot more about it now than I did when I was an MLA complaining about how it worked for rural B.C.

We need to look at an evolving, mobile way to do this, so people don't have to leave home. I think there
[ Page 6882 ]
are additional costs and anxiety. I also believe that we need to look at better information for families and for individuals, because it is a medical issue; it is a cognitive issue.

I think we do need to do a better job. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms, but I think we have to start much earlier than 80 to prepare people for that. It's an interesting concept, and it aligns somewhat with my own views that we need to look at this differently.

We will arrange a briefing for the opposition caucus where we could walk through those issues related to DriveABLE.

N. Simons: I really appreciate that. I think that a thoughtful approach is obviously what we're going to have to deal with, and we're going to be dealing with it more and more.

The fellow I was thinking about, whose name is Ron.... He used to drive a tank, and then he drove fire trucks, and then he drove buses. He had issues with some of the testing and felt that his training in driving forced him to rely on mirrors, because that's how he drove. He thought that some of the subjectivity in the test caused him to not be successful.

I do think we're going to see a lot of issues around independence, and I'm kind of worried about that and the cost associated with my constituents hiring a driver because they won't drive in the city.

I think most seniors actually self-regulate their driving. A lot of them say: "I don't drive at night" or "I won't drive if it's raining." Well, a lot of us won't drive if it's bad weather.

I'm hoping that briefing will be helpful, and maybe — if I could ask at this point, if it's possible — that the minister would be okay with me speaking with the superintendent to look at all options and make sure that my constituents know that their concerns are being heard.

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely, we would encourage you. What we'll do is that when we set up the DriveABLE briefing, we'll actually have the team bring in the terminal that's used, because I know there've been concerns expressed about a computer test. It is a touch-screen test, but it's still an anxious time.

Any advice or thoughts that the member opposite would have would be welcomed by the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and by me, because I am looking at ways to try to make this a more responsive, more sensitive process, a better education process for families, for seniors centres. I don't know how we do it, but I look forward to that input.

I've asked Steve Martin, who is the head of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.... He will be in contact with the opposition caucus to set up the hands-on briefing. I'd welcome those comments at that time.

N. Simons: I think that the issues have to do with the fairness of the test and the cost associated. I'm not sure if one still has to pay the $300 fee, or once referred, perhaps that fee is waived. Maybe that could be clarified.

I'm also wondering if the places where people can get driving tests done now would be an infrastructure that's already established for the provision of these tests for seniors. Again, when I think about restricted licences and seniors who would voluntarily drive only during certain hours of the day, or do already.... I think there are a lot of areas where the minister indicates that there is room for discussion, at least, and I appreciate that.

[1810]

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, in terms of the cost, the test is provided at no charge the first time. It is based, usually, on the referral of a doctor. So there is definitely a medical imperative here.

When the member opposite gets to see the actual terminal and some of the clips related to how this translates to safe driving, it is quite troubling. So from a public safety perspective, it's also a concern.

Costs are taken care of for the actual process the first time, when it's referred by a physician. But if you're living in a rural part of British Columbia and have to travel to another centre, there could well be additional costs. I am aware of that and concerned about that.

In terms of using existing facilities, the issue is the training of staff. When the member sees it, there will be a recognition that there needs to be a very special guide by the side who is actually trained to assist through that process.

But I do think we can look at mobile. You could look at every six weeks — it being in certain communities — to try to alleviate some of that travel. I think we're more than willing to have that discussion and would welcome, as I did to other members of the opposition caucus.... The input, advice would be really helpful.

N. Simons: Obviously, we can go into details about each case. I'm not sure if that's necessarily.... Now, there are some concerns from people who, it seems to me in the situation in my case right now, have trouble with languages. English as a second language, I think, has been a challenge for some on operating this test, as well as the cost. So I look forward to being able to try and determine whether or not there are other opportunities to promote independence in seniors, at the same time ensuring our roads are safe.

Just a final question — the graduated delicensing. I know that ICBC was presented with a paper indicating that the delicensing reduced the number of accidents by 87 percent. I'm wondering if there are any scientifically valid studies indicating that the DriveABLE program has had a similar reduction in the number of accidents.
[ Page 6883 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have statistics in terms of the direct correlation with DriveABLE, but I know that there is some excellent research material on the development of DriveABLE. Actually, when I sat down and read it, I had a much better sense of the science behind the program that's been developed. But really for me, it was brought home when I actually sat down with the presenter at the terminal — all of those kinds of things.

Some great scientific work, though, has been done to develop the program. Again, when we do the opposition briefing or workshop — whatever we want to call it — I could easily provide those papers that would give a sense of the background. I know a number of my colleagues have actually attended it, and I think it was very helpful to them. So I'd be more than happy to provide that to the opposition as well.

The Chair: Member, and noting the time.

N. Simons: Am I noting the time? I do note the time. It's very late in the day, and the minister has had a very long day, and so have you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that. I do think that constituents are going to be comforted by the fact that the issue is being reviewed, and we might be able to find some solutions that will help mitigate some of the negative impacts of these tests.

Noting the time.... I have no idea what I'll do when I note the time, except maybe I'll ask the minister to note the time as well.

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be happy to do that. I also wanted to make the offer that if the gentleman has been concerned, we would be happy to have someone contact him directly and hear some of those concerns. We'd be happy to do that.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I know the member opposite joins me in noting that time and that movement.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:14 p.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