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)
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 8
|
CONTENTS |
|
|
Page |
|
|
Orders of the Day |
|
|
Committee of Supply |
6931 |
|
Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General |
|
|
Hon. B. Penner |
|
|
L. Krog |
|
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
|
Committee of Supply |
6944 |
|
Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) |
|
|
Hon. M. McNeil |
|
|
M. Elmore |
|
[ Page 6931 ]
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. P. Bell: In this House, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General, and in Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Black in the chair.
The committee met at 10:08 a.m.
On Vote 16: ministry operations, $351,678,000.
Hon. B. Penner: Just before proceeding further, I'd like to introduce — for members who are following what I'm sure will be a very interesting debate — my Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Loukidelis, seated beside me. Behind me are Tara Faganello, the ministry's executive financial officer; Peter Taylor, the budget director for the Ministry of Attorney General; and Darrion Campbell, who is manager of planning. With that, I'll take my seat.
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General introducing his staff this morning. I note that we're not commencing with any statement from the minister, which bodes well, hopefully, for some speedy responses.
In the throne speech this year, there was zero mention of anything related to the justice system — no acknowledgment of delays in the courtroom. The previous year's throne speech had committed specifically to improving access to justice. "Significant changes will be introduced to improve timely access to justice, combat crime, reduce impaired and dangerous driving and improve public safety."
I'm just wondering: can the Attorney General comment as to why nothing was mentioned in the throne speech about what is a very timely topic for British Columbians, which is the state of our justice system?
Hon. B. Penner: As the member will know, this spring has met with a number of unusual political circumstances, with both major parties in British Columbia undergoing an overhaul in terms of their leadership. That process is now complete.
I welcome the election results last night in the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey and congratulate our Premier Christy Clark in winning that seat in the Legislature. I look forward to her joining us here on the floor of the Legislative Assembly as soon as the paperwork is complete by Elections B.C. and the Clerk of the Legislature.
Given that there was an unusual set of political circumstances, the Speech from the Throne, as the member knows, was not perhaps as fulsome as it has been in some other years. It was more brief, and so it could not articulate all of the things that government is working on.
I can advise the member that certainly reforms to the justice system remain a key priority for myself as well as the executive team in the ministry. In fact, all employees in the ministry, I think, share our goal of continually trying to work and streamline and improve the processes within the justice system.
Just to give the member a bit of an overview, things that we are working on include alternative measures; small claims pilots; new Supreme Court rules; the Victoria criminal case management project; Vancouver's downtown community court project; the bail reform pilot projects, which is including video conferencing; the prolific offender management program; and justice access centres undertaking a number of improvements and changes to their processes.
A number of other things that the member will be aware that we're continuing to work on include looking at updating family law legislation in British Columbia. So there's a wide range of ongoing activities in terms of modernizing and updating the justice system, and those continue to be a priority, whether or not they were specifically mentioned in the throne speech.
L. Krog: I was remiss in not congratulating the Premier on her victory last night in Vancouver–Point Grey and also to offer my congratulations to Mr. Eby, the NDP candidate, who ran a very good campaign. Given the narrow margin of victory, I can't help but be reminded of the words of the Duke of Wellington after the Battle of Waterloo when he said: "It was a bloody near-run thing." I think I'm allowed to use that language, hon. Chair, in this chamber, given it's a historical quote attributed to a distinguished British Prime Minister.
Having said that, the Attorney General in his response talked about new Supreme Court rules. I just want to confirm. Is he talking about the Supreme Court rules that have been in place since last year, or are we talking about further anticipated changes? And if he is, I would specifically like to hear his comments on
[ Page 6932 ]
the issue of the new forms, if you will, published under the Supreme Court rules, which, I think it is fair to say, have not met with universal acceptance or delight amongst the bar.
Hon. B. Penner: Yes, a number of significant changes were initiated in July of last year to the Supreme Court rules, with the focus on mediation and trying to take some of the disputes out of the court and not having to wait to get in front of a judge in order to resolve some of the disputes.
The member will be aware that there's a rules revision committee, which consists of a number of Supreme Court justices and senior members of the bar, practising members in the legal profession, who make recommendations to government on how to update and streamline the rules.
There was a major change last year. For the most part I've had positive feedback from members of the bar, although learning about…. Change is never easy, and especially for lawyers. I find, speaking as one myself, that once you become accustomed to a certain set of rules, there is a certain comfort that attaches to that familiarity. But overall, the response has been quite positive to the new rules, which are intended to, again, try and streamline some of the processes in the court.
But that doesn't mean we can't learn from the new rules and learn from the feedback, and so this rules revision committee has provided a number of recommendations to my staff and to myself. We are considering some of their recommendations, now that we've had quite a number of months of the new rules being in place.
L. Krog: Quite specifically on the issue of forms under the new rules and, for example, the changes to the forms for the Supreme Court family rules, those forms arguably, I would think, to the average member of the public being faced with them, are more intimidating, probably, than the old divorce petition.
I'm just wondering. The Attorney General has commented at some length about positive feedback from the rules committee, from members of the bar, etc. But I'd be interested in knowing what surveys, if any, have been undertaken of those people who have to represent themselves, given increasing legal costs — what they have to say about the forms and about the rules and whether or not, in fact, we are hearing from the public or just those who are actively engaged in paid positions in the legal system.
Hon. B. Penner: We'll continue to monitor, obviously, the implementation of the new rules and listen for feedback in terms of how people are finding the new forms. One of the intentions was to make the forms more user-friendly, so it does concern me if you're indicating that you believe that the forms are more difficult. That certainly wasn't the goal. In fact, there was an explicit goal to make the forms easier to understand and easier to complete properly and not inadvertently leave out something or cause some other unintended delay.
Certainly, they are a work in progress. As I said, the new rules…. There was a pretty significant overhaul that went into place last year, July 1. So now we've had — what? — about nine months or more of practice and experience with those new rules. But that doesn't mean we can't learn and change and improve them.
The rules revision committee has made a number of recommendations. I'm afraid I can't articulate exactly what they all are, because I just learned yesterday that they forwarded to us some recommendations, but I will be closely considering their recommendations for further refinement.
L. Krog: Very specifically, my question to the Attorney General is: is the Attorney General aware of or has the ministry or the rules committee made any attempt to speak to actual individuals who are having to use those forms, not the legal community — not the lawyers, not the judges, not the clerks — the individuals who actually have to use those forms in order to place a matter before the court?
Hon. B. Penner: I just want to correct what I said earlier. It's actually about ten months since July 1 of last year, rather than nine. So I apologize for that.
The member will be aware, coming from the constituency that he does, that in Nanaimo we have a Justice Access Centre, as we do in Vancouver. There we have ministry employees who work directly with members of the public who are seeking access to court processes and help them directly to complete the forms.
I'm certainly not aware of any preponderance of concerns being expressed about the new forms on the basis of our staff interacting with members of the public. I've just asked my deputy minister to see if he can make inquiries proactively of our staff to see what their impression has been in the ten months or so that these new forms and rules have been in place.
L. Krog: I want to touch on a few small topics as we get going this morning. When I say smaller, they won't necessarily form this larger substance of the areas I wanted to cover.
With respect to human rights in British Columbia, I'm presuming that the Attorney General has had a chance, or someone in his staff has had a chance, to review a wonderful document prepared by the Human Rights Clinic called Human Rights Process in B.C.: The System Explained. That explanation includes a number of suggested improvements.
[ Page 6933 ]
Has the Attorney General had a chance to view that document, and if so, does he have any comment on the suggested improvements?
Hon. B. Penner: Ministry officials are aware of the report from the clinic, but we don't have a copy of it here with us. We're endeavouring to get some more information here into the House pertaining to that report.
L. Krog: I appreciate that may place the Attorney General in some difficulty. The first suggestion is "that tribunal members be appointed on merit and reappointed on merit and/or tenure. This would assure independence, especially since the government is often a respondent, and tribunal members should not have to worry about the impact of unpopular decisions."
I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could comment on that recommendation — whether or not he agrees with the substance of it.
Hon. B. Penner: My comments will have to be fairly general, since that's the first time I've heard that specific recommendation, and I'll need some time to ponder it.
But I can inform the member that our government has put in place a merit-based appointment process, which is handled by the board resourcing office, commonly referred to by its acronym BRDO, which is applied across government for appointments. So we do have a merit-based appointment process, and that is, as I said, applied to all appointments, including to the Human Rights Tribunal.
L. Krog: Just to confirm, that would mean an appointment essentially by cabinet, would it not?
Hon. B. Penner: Yes, like many other bodies — agencies and commissions — the appointments are by order-in-council.
L. Krog: I'm wondering if the Attorney General would consider an appointment process that involved an independent officer of the Legislature actually making these appointments — in other words, to completely remove one from the possibility of any concerns about tribunal members having to make, as the suggestion is, unpopular decisions that might go against the very government that in fact appointed them.
Hon. B. Penner: The member will know that at law there is a significant independence that tribunals enjoy. It's inappropriate for elected members to try and interfere in the decision-making process of quasi-judicial bodies such as the tribunal the member is referring to.
I also note that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has for a long time — and continues today — made appointments to the Provincial Court. That role remains with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
L. Krog: I think the Attorney General would agree with me that once you're appointed to the Provincial Court, subject to some very bad behaviour, that is an appointment for your lifetime until maximum retirement age. Perhaps the Attorney General can confirm that that's not the case with the appointments to the Human Rights Tribunal.
Hon. B. Penner: It's true. For the last however many decades that there have been tribunals and boards of various kinds, typically the appointments are limited. They aren't for life. That was the case when the member was an MLA in the 1990s and the NDP government was running the province and, before them, the Social Credit government for many decades. It's been our government's view that these jobs are not jobs for life. They are important jobs, but they are not jobs for life.
L. Krog: Perhaps we can move on to talk a little bit about the ministry's Revised Service Plan 2011/12. The message from the Attorney General includes this phrase in the first paragraph: "This is an exciting time of change for British Columbia with a new focus on three key government priorities: families, jobs and open government."
I guess my first and obvious question is: if the focus wasn't on families, jobs and open government, what was the old focus?
Hon. B. Penner: The member correctly notes that many of our goals and priorities remain the same, but there is a renewed emphasis on things pertaining to families. In particular, the member will be aware that since the release of the White Paper last year, the ministry has been very actively engaged in working to modernize the Family Relations Act in British Columbia. That's become a major priority for the ministry, certainly in my time as minister and with renewed emphasis since the end of February.
L. Krog: If that, in fact, is the major focus of the ministry — and the Attorney General can correct me if I'm wrong, if I've misheard him — what will be the thrust of those changes? There was a White Paper, and obviously legislation will be in the hopper at some point, but I'm just wondering: how is that going to help B.C. families?
Hon. B. Penner: Obviously we're talking about future legislation, potentially, so I'll be circumspect with respect to my comments. But as indicated in the White
[ Page 6934 ]
Paper last year, the government is interested in additional efforts to provide opportunities for mediation of disputes, because we know that the earlier you can defuse a dispute, the better it is in the long term for the relationship between the various couples and, in particular, the interrelationship between the couples and the children, if there are any from the relationship.
We're also keenly interested in providing additional protections for women and children in the event of relationship breakdowns or where there is incidence of family violence. So again, I don't want to stray too much into the content of what could be legislation in the near future, but clearly the White Paper that was released last year set out a number of key priorities that the government was contemplating. We've had generally very positive feedback on those statements of intent that were contained within the White Paper, and our ministry is continuing to work towards those objectives.
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's response. When we talk about the new focus on three key government areas…. We've talked families, jobs, open government. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can comment on what they mean by open government in terms of a focus, particularly for his ministry.
Hon. B. Penner: Just a couple of examples that I can provide the member with. I've already referenced justice access centres. There's one in the member's own constituency. It's a way of providing additional assistance to the members of the public and to open up the court system and try and defuse some of the mythologies that people may have about how things really work when they walk into a courthouse.
There's also — and this was launched by myself and my colleague the Solicitor General maybe a month and a half or two months ago now — the JusticeBC website, which is intended to provide accessible information regarding the criminal justice system and, in particular, to provide easy-to-understand information for people who may be victims of crimes or who are being called to be witnesses in prosecutions and also to provide information for those who may find themselves accused of various offences.
The idea is to provide this information in a seamless and easily understood fashion through the increasingly ubiquitous Internet. I had a chance to take a look at that website myself. As I said before, the Solicitor General and I attended the event to launch the website. It does provide a lot of detailed information in layers. So you can have kind of a superficial bit of information, and if you want more, it allows you to dig deeper.
L. Krog: I'm just wondering, though. I appreciate the ubiquitous nature of the Net and people being referred constantly to websites for information, but there are many British Columbians who have rather frequent contact with the justice system because of various disabilities and problems, including addiction and mental illness. I'm just wondering what is available to assist those people in dealing with the concept of open government as it applies to his ministry.
Hon. B. Penner: I'm aware that there are people that experience the needs that the member refers to. That's unfortunate, but it is a reality in society. Recognizing that, the ministry has embarked on a number of projects, including the downtown community court in Vancouver.
Something different, but in many ways similar in terms of its intentions, is the Victoria Integrated Court, where there's an effort underway to provide dedicated caseworkers that are embedded into the system, dealing with mental health issues, housing and income assistance matters and trying to incorporate that into one location to make contact with people when they're being brought into the judicial system through the courts in that fashion.
We are aware that there are people that do have those kinds of particular needs and that those are often not limited to just one aspect of their life but can be multifaceted — thus, the integrated approach to trying to address those needs. The ministry is evaluating the success or otherwise of those programs. We're monitoring it. I look forward to getting a report back once the review is complete, but that won't be done for some time.
L. Krog: The minister mentioned the provision of services, but it seems to me that those all relate to the provision of services for those who come in contact with the criminal justice system.
As the minister is no doubt aware, formerly in this province we had a number of community law offices, including the one in my own community. Those offices are gone now. Those were administered through the Legal Services Society.
I'm just wondering: wouldn't the minister agree that, in fact, in terms of providing legal assistance to those who face various barriers and disabilities, that was a far more effective system that touched on the basic needs of people, including applications for tenancy issues, applications for appeal of social assistance decisions and those kinds of issues?
I'm just wondering if the minister wouldn't agree with me today that, in fact, the closure of those offices, in particular, made the justice system anything but accessible to the people that I've just talked about.
Hon. B. Penner: The member would be aware that the Legal Services Society had direct management respon-
[ Page 6935 ]
sibility for the offices that he's referring to. Obviously, they faced a number of budget challenges, as did the province. In the last number of years the base funding for LSS, as provided by the provincial government, has remained stable.
Nevertheless, the LSS, or Legal Services Society, I'm sure is not awash in a whole lot of excess cash, and maintaining quite a number of offices around the province is an expensive thing to do. So they've looked for other ways that they can deliver the service that they want to deliver.
We are, as I said, quite pleased at the performance of the justice access centres that we've established, and we're watching closely to see how those work. We think that it provides more of an integrated approach to individuals, but I know that there are budget limitations as to how many of those we're able to establish. The reality is that budgets are tight for the provincial government and the Attorney General's ministry and, I should add, also for the Legal Services Society.
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's response, but one of the essential jobs of government is to assist those in the greatest need. Quite candidly, the millionaires of the province don't really require the government's assistance to gain access to the justice system. I'm not cognizant that they're filling up the residential tenancy tribunals with their applications to deal with difficult landlords either.
So we have a whole group of people in our province who are often homeless or at risk of being homeless and who face constant difficulties with landlords and with the ministry, with respect to social service payments, grants and applications.
Surely the minister would agree that providing access to the justice system in the broadest sense should be a priority when dealing with those people and that the community law offices in this province did, for many, many years, indeed provide exactly that service.
Therefore, I ask once again to the Attorney General: wouldn't he agree that it would be far more effective for those people to return to a system of community law offices?
Hon. B. Penner: As I noted in my last answer, the member will be aware that Legal Services Society makes their own decisions within their budget about how best to spend those dollars. It's true their budget is tight, as is the provincial government's budget. We're currently facing a deficit this year projected in, I believe, the $1 billion range. Last year, I believe, it was more.
We are working as a government to try and balance the budget. That's not a fun task to do. It's not fun living within your own personal budget at home sometimes, and within government, it's often not any different.
There are challenges when you have to make decisions about how to spend a certain amount of money and when you have competing demands for public tax dollars and, in particular, when the public also expresses a view that maybe they're not that keen to necessarily be taxed more.
We've already discussed some of that this week in question period and the implications for the province if the HST is no longer an option for government and if we go back to the old retail sales tax system, known as the PST, and the loss of revenue that will entail to government.
That will, of course, visit upon government some more difficult choices and make it more challenging to find the additional dollars the member is suggesting should be spent to open up community law offices around the province.
I'm not sure if he's suggesting we should open up each and every one that ever was or if he's got a specific number of offices in mind that should be opened. I'm not sure if he's aware of what it would cost the Legal Services Society to do that, but my hunch is that it would be a pretty significant draw on their budget.
In addition to the Legal Services Society and legal aid, of course, the government, through the Ministry of Attorney General and other agencies, provides assistance to people that are looking for help, including through family justice counsellors in different parts of the province. There's also the family maintenance enforcement program to assist people in collecting on maintenance or support payments that they're legally entitled to.
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments about the funding difficulties, but I notice that it hasn't prevented the provincial government — and as much as it is a worthy concept — coming up with $25 million to assist people who can afford to buy cigarettes to get off the nasty tobacco habit.
It just strikes me that perhaps the government's priorities need to be reconsidered, and the Attorney General, I'm sure, will make that pitch in cabinet.
I would remind the Attorney General that when it comes to the service plan — and I quote in the section headed "Purpose of the ministry" — it says: "The ministry provides and funds justice services that enable disputes to be settled out of court." Very worthy. But it goes on to say — and this is on page 6 for those who are looking: "In consultation with the Legal Services Society, we manage the provincial funding of legal aid."
So with great respect to the Attorney General, I haven't heard him suggest for a moment that the examples I have used are incorrect — that in fact the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us don't require assistance; that they aren't in need; and that we had in this province for many, many years a very effective system of assisting
[ Page 6936 ]
those people in various communities across this province, including my own city, Nanaimo.
I come back again to the Attorney General. If we've got, essentially, as I say, $25 million for the worthy goal of getting people to stop smoking in British Columbia, surely we have a few million dollars to fund the community law offices, which is really all we're talking.
Again, I want to ask the Attorney General very specifically, and it's very simple: does he agree that that system was an effective way of delivering services to the most vulnerable amongst us — yes or no?
Hon. B. Penner: I'll take a third run at attempting to advise the member that the Legal Services Society operates at arm's length from government, and they get to set their own budget priorities. It would appear apparent that LSS has performed some analysis or come to some determination that, given the amount of money that they have to work with, their top priority is not to spend it the way that the member suggests. That's apparent by the decisions that they've made.
Now, as to whether or not the provincial government as a whole should be encouraging people to stop smoking, I'd be interested to hear if the member is saying that the province should not have made that commitment to help people kick the addiction of tobacco. The health implications of cigarette smoking and cancer and many other ailments that visit upon people that are addicted to smoking are well documented.
Perhaps the member can provide us with some more clarity. Is he suggesting that we should cancel that commitment to fund the tobacco patches in order to free up that money for other purposes, or does he not think that the potential health impact savings and the benefits to people having a longer, healthier life is not worth that investment?
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's questioning of me, and I look forward to the day when, in fact, those roles will indeed be officially reversed.
Having said that, I refer again to page 6. It even has a nice little greyed box on page 6. It says, "What we do," and it says, with a nice, short phrase: "Fund legal aid and family maintenance enforcement." That's right beside the sentence and the quote I read out earlier: "In consultation with the Legal Services Society, we manage the provincial funding of legal aid."
With great respect to the Attorney General, to stand up in this House and say somehow that the Legal Services Society is this independent entity off there that just manages its own funds and has to take full responsibility for the fact that we don't have community law offices, with the government stepping back and saying, "It's not our problem," is just not terribly believable and not understood or accepted by the people of British Columbia who used to work in that system or, more particularly and more importantly, by the people who used to benefit from having that system in place.
The fact is that the population of this province has increased in the last decade, with increasing poverty and high unemployment rates. In my own community, I'm sure the minister may be aware, the unemployment rate is now 16 percent in Nanaimo. With those increasing burdens, there are more and more people who are unable to access the justice system in its broadest sense because they have limited means. There are more and more people who are in need. There is indeed an increase in family breakdown as a result of those financial pressures. So in fact, the demand for legal aid in the broad sense and access to justice is increasing.
Now, that budget was cut substantially when this government came to power. It's been in power a full decade now. The reduction of legal aid funding has been cut, in fact. It's 27 percent since 2001. It was $96 million in 2001-2002. It's $69.7 million in 2011-2012.
I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to reconsider his answer in light of those statistics and tell this House how he can justify a $25 million funding of a worthy health program at the same time we're talking about a still-existing 27 percent cut in funding to legal aid.
Hon. B. Penner: I'll take a fourth stab at explaining to the member how the Legal Services Society operates. To be very clear, we as the Ministry of Attorney General do not direct the Legal Services Society about how to spend their budget. Yes, we have discussions with them from time to time to keep apprised of various issues emerging in the courts — major trial pressures, criminal cases, etc. — but we do not direct them how to spend the money that they have within their budget.
They prioritize, and they have to make tough decisions, just like I said earlier, that individual families have to do. There are a number of school children here that are watching us, and I know they probably don't get all the money from their parents that they would like every time they ask for an increase in their allowance.
Do you? Maybe sometimes your parents will increase your allowance, but probably not every time that you would like them to.
That's the same across government. We're working to operate within budget constraints. Budgets are tight. We went through a global economic meltdown around the world. That did impact British Columbia — not as much as many other jurisdictions. B.C.'s economy has fared significantly better than others, but that global slowdown did significantly impact provincial revenues, knocked off our projected growth in revenues that we have been counting on to fund a number of programs. It's an unfortunate reality. We've had to adjust to the decrease in revenue.
[ Page 6937 ]
As I said earlier, and I'll say it again if need be, it's not necessarily a fun thing to live within a budget constraint, but it is the job that we're elected to do. Again, the member seems to be criticizing the decision to provide funding to help people kick their smoking habit.
For the children that are watching here in the gallery right now, I hope that none of you take up the habit of smoking, because once you do, it's very hard to stop. You might not believe that now, but once you get addicted to tobacco, to cigarettes…. I'm told it's one of the hardest things to stop, and it's very unhealthy, and it's very expensive to you.
I see some children nodding their heads. It's very expensive. Cigarettes are very expensive.
I think it's important that government sets some priorities for health as an example for our children and also for adults. That decision was made to try and lead to healthier outcomes so that parents and others don't die prematurely from cancer that comes from smoking cigarettes.
Back to LSS. As I've said before, we don't direct them how to spend their budget. They make their determinations. I'm sure it's a challenging job, but I thank them for the work that they do.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments in this regard, but you know, there's a big difference between being denied a second toy if you're a child and being denied food. I would suggest with great respect that the analogy that the Attorney General has used just isn't terribly realistic.
We are talking about, in most cases, the poorest of the poor, the most vulnerable amongst us. It strikes me that it is ridiculous to spend government money putting out a service plan that says very clearly, "What we do is fund legal aid," and it says, "In consultation with the Legal Services Society, we manage the provincial funding of legal aid," when in fact, you're not.
I mean, that is the reality. The fact is that the government is not funding legal aid in the way that legal aid says itself, over and over again, and has publicly stated, over and over again, that it needs, in the way that's sufficient to meet its legal and statutory obligation.
Mayland McKimm said it very clearly, and he confirmed this in a letter that the Attorney General is well aware of. "In the board's assessment, however, the society is now providing services far below what the board believes is needed to properly assist British Columbians with low incomes and to effectively support the efficient operation of the justice system." Now, that's Mayland McKimm, QC, chair of the board of directors, very respected British Columbia lawyer, a man of impeccable reputation.
My question to the Attorney General again is: given that kind of comment from Mr. McKimm, given that the Attorney General still puts out a service plan that says "we fund legal aid" and "we manage the provincial funding of legal aid," is he still going to continue with this almost ridiculous response to my questions this morning, suggesting somehow that these decisions are made completely independently of government and that Legal Services Society has some choice?
They have had their budgets cut significantly. The budget has never been restored. We are a decade down the road now. We're still 27 percent below what it was in 2001. The tax on legal services in this province still generates annually more than sufficient moneys, as I understand it, to fund Legal Services the way it was funded previously.
Now, I'm going to give the Attorney General a little wiggle room here. No doubt the dramatic cuts to the funding of the Legal Services Society forced the society to consider all kinds of priorities and forced it to consider all sorts of technological innovations. Perhaps it gave it some discipline that didn't exist before. But when you get past all of that and you get to the guts of it — a 27 percent cut in total today compared to what it was a decade ago.
During this time, in this last decade, the government has seen fit to give 25 percent income tax reductions across the board. It's seen fit to eliminate the corporate capital tax. It's continued to reduce corporate taxation. It has continued to fund all kinds of things that other British Columbians support, and I acknowledge all of that. But we're now funding a $25 million program to help people quit smoking, but we don't have, literally, a few million dollars to restore some of the funding for legal aid.
Again to the Attorney General: very simply, given what Mr. McKimm says, what was the Attorney General's response to Mr. McKimm in that letter? I want to know exactly what the Attorney General had to say to Mayland McKimm, the chair of the board of LSS. What did he say in response to that very open and obvious plea for funding?
Hon. B. Penner: Just to talk a little bit more about the Legal Services Society and the structure. The society is governed by a nine-member board of directors, and under its bylaws the board's role "is to ensure the effective governance of the society through setting direction, monitoring performance, hiring and supporting the executive director." That's the end of that particular quote.
The member is correct. A number of changes took place in terms of service delivery. But it's important to note that over the last number of years, the B.C. government's core funding to the Legal Services Society, which
[ Page 6938 ]
delivers legal aid for people in British Columbia, has remained stable. That's despite the major hit to revenues our government took as a result of the global slowdown that I talked about a few minutes ago.
Revenues to the government fell off dramatically compared to what had been anticipated. That did force us to tighten our belts in many departments across government, but one thing we did not do was make a further reduction to the core funding to the Legal Services Society. That demonstrates government's commitment to making that a priority. Many other areas of government did take further reductions in order to try and meet the budget pressure when revenues fell because of the economic slowdown, but we maintained that funding.
Today it's $66.5 million in core funding every year that goes to the Legal Services Society. That's $66.5 million every year. But in addition, there are further amounts that flow for a variety of different specific issues, and that comes to a grand total of an extra $3.175 million on top of the $66.5 million. So overall, funding from the provincial government to the Legal Services Society is projected to be in the range of $69.7 million.
I understand the member is saying: "Just spend more." But you know what? There's a limit to how much we can spend when we're also trying to balance the budget. Meanwhile, the member is out campaigning to encourage people to vote to repeal the HST and replace it with the old-fashioned retail sales tax known as the provincial sales tax, which an independent panel last week told us will cost the provincial treasury almost $3 billion in just a couple of years.
We have a choice to make, and the member opposite's choice is to cost the treasury $3 billion in lost revenue. If we're losing $3 billion in revenue, it's hard to imagine how we're going to increase the LSS budget, much less other budgets if we're going to see a major loss in revenue.
L. Krog: Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said — what is it? — "The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"? The fact is, I have listened to the Attorney General here this morning with great respect rather trivialize the funding for legal aid, to talk to a group of school children as if we were somehow dealing with something equivalent to being denied some treats or some increase in their allowance.
I think the Attorney General is working on the presumption, of course, that children who would be denied some treat would in fact have a roof over their heads, would in fact have food in their bellies, would in fact have parents to guide and assist them.
What we're talking about here are people who are, and I repeat, the most vulnerable amongst us — those with addiction and mental health issues, those who are struggling, those who require access to the most basic of justice services. The fact is that as the Commission on Legal Aid put it so eloquently, commenting about funding: "Furthermore, no other province or territory in Canada, other than British Columbia, has made such drastic reductions to its legal aid budget while coping with the same fiscal environment. In fact, Ontario has managed to increase its contribution to legal aid during the same lean economic years."
I'm just wondering: what's the Attorney General's response to that quote? He didn't answer my last question when I quoted the letter from Mayland McKimm, so perhaps he would be prepared to answer quite directly by responding specifically to that quote.
Hon. B. Penner: In addition to the roughly $69 million that's flowing from the provincial government to the Legal Services Society just this year alone to provide legal aid services for people that are disadvantaged, the provincial government spends another $30 million every year on services to help British Columbians resolve legal issues and gain access to justice services. This includes such services that I've mentioned previously, involving family mediation at Family Justice Centres and the family maintenance enforcement program.
Now, the member is correct. Other provinces have made some different choices, and other provinces have seen huge increases in their debt levels, and other provinces, as a consequence, have seen credit-rating downgrades. That's something the member will be familiar with, because when the NDP was in office in the 1990s, they had successive credit-rating downgrades when lenders that were being asked to provide money to the province were being told by credit-rating agencies that there was an increasing risk associated with that lending to the province because of the record of fiscal incompetence by the NDP in the 1990s.
Despite the economic slowdown that we faced and the challenges we've had here in British Columbia, British Columbia has not had a credit-rating downgrade under our government. In fact, we had upgrades. That, in the long run, saves taxpayers money because there's less risk associated with lending money to the province, so we're able to borrow at a cheaper rate. That's something that people like Tommy Douglas would understand, the founder of the NDP. He certainly didn't like to be beholden to banks, but it appears that the members opposite, in order to relieve short-term pressures, would rather just borrow and worry about it later.
We have been forced into a deficit, but we're not happy about it. We're working to get back to a balanced budget as quickly as possible. Other provinces, it's true, have made a different choice, but those choices also have consequences in terms of increasing debt for future generations and credit-rating downgrades, which is increasing the cost of servicing that debt that they are quickly accumulating.
[ Page 6939 ]
L. Krog: I was wondering how long it would take us this morning to take us back to the '90s in the Attorney General's response. It's taken approximately an hour and ten minutes. I congratulate him for actually restraining himself from retreating back to the oldest and rather dullest and least effective argument that this government has used repeatedly for the last ten years.
If you want to talk about a history lesson, hon. Chair, then I just want to remind the Attorney General of the other AG who has an association with this government. That would be the Auditor General, and the Auditor General certified that this government, when it came into power, took over what were two surplus budgets in a row, left to them by the previous government — two surplus budgets in a row.
We then took this province into the biggest deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia. How was that achieved? Massive tax cuts, and then to pay for it, a 38.8 percent cut to legal services, to legal aid — a 38.8 percent cut. We're now still below the funding level of a decade ago.
I think it is time for the Attorney General to stand up in this chamber, as I would ask some member of government to do, and take responsibility for the fact that they have been in office for a decade now. It is time to stop talking about previous governments. The people of British Columbia in the next election are not going to be passing judgment on the '90s. They will be passing judgment on this past decade, assuming we do get to an election. But given the results in Vancouver–Point Grey last night, we may be looking at going into 2013 anyway.
Let's just come at this from another angle. I'm sure the Attorney General keeps track of this, because it would hopefully be a bragging point. What does this province spend per capita on legal services, on legal aid, and how does that compare to the rest of Canada?
Hon. B. Penner: My officials are seeing if we have that information. We may not have that available here, but I can get back to the member later.
I agree with the member that voters will be asked what kind of future they want to see, and a good indicator of the future is how those people in the NDP performed in the past. Even today we're just hearing the answer: spend more money, without saying where that money should come from, unless the member is serious about saying we shouldn't be funding people to get off the habit of nicotine and tobacco.
It seems like he's quite critical of the decision to try and help people break their tobacco habit, yet we all know that the health effects are well documented in terms of increased cancer rates and other lung ailments that arise from people being addicted to smoking. That's hardly a very comforting thought, when the NDP says that they care about people. What do we hear on the floor of the Legislature? Criticism for an effort to get people away from the scourge of tobacco and cigarette smoking — remarkable, hon. Chair, just remarkable.
I'm just looking at some numbers here. It's true that our government undertook significant restructuring in the early 2000s, and the LSS allotment obviously did go down, as the member has referenced, as other things did as well. We were working hard to recover to a balanced budget on a sustainable basis during the early 2000s. LSS funding was $55.9 million in 2004-2005. Today it's $66.5 million in base funding. With other top-ups and other various allotments, we expect that the provincial government will be providing $69 million to the Legal Services Society this year.
I understand the member wishes we would be spending more, but he hasn't answered the question of where that money should come from — particularly in light, again, of his stated opposition to the HST and the recommendation from his party leader that we go back to the old-fashioned retail sales tax, which an independent panel just last week said will cost the provincial treasury almost $3 billion in the next couple of years. In the face of a loss of $3 billion in revenue…. Tell me how any ministry in government can seriously expect to have a significant increase in their budget when the opposition is out there campaigning for a measure that will cost the treasury $3 billion.
L. Krog: I just want to extend my appreciation to the minister for acknowledging the fiscal mess that British Columbians are in as a result of this government's policies. We've managed, in ten years, to go from the biggest deficit in British Columbia history to another significant deficit, all in the space of a decade, with a barely comparable period of surplus budgets in between as compensation.
I heard, much to my surprise, in the last answer the phrase "scourge of tobacco." What does the Attorney General think is more important — someone who faces being homeless as a result of a predatory landlord and can't get assistance or advice, or someone who wants to quit smoking?
Now, I think that's a fairly easy question for most British Columbians to answer. If you said to the average person on the street, "Should we give a couple of bucks to George over here who wants to quit smoking or provide some legal advice to Jim over here who's about to be homeless?" I think the answer would be pretty obvious for most British Columbians. I think it would be very clear.
Just to assist the Attorney General, as I understand it, our legal aid planned spending in B.C. in 2009-2010 was in fact $17.80 per capita, while the national average was $23.21. Again, I repeat the words of Len Doust, another very distinguished British Columbian, the Commission
[ Page 6940 ]
on Legal Aid, who talked about the fact that our services are…. "Furthermore, no other province or territory in Canada, other than British Columbia, has made such drastic reductions to its legal aid budget while coping with the same fiscal environment."
I appreciate that the Attorney General wishes to put it back in the form of a question to me, but I want to remind him that in the estimates process I get to ask the questions; he's supposed to provide the answers. That's the responsibility of government. That's what you get the big bucks for over there on the other side of the chamber. Now, we can spend this whole day having him ask me questions, but if he wants….
Interjections.
L. Krog: I think, as my friend from Fraser-Nicola has so elegantly put it, perhaps that opportunity will arise in the future — however, as I indicated earlier, probably much later than anyone thought, with the results of last night in Vancouver–Point Grey. But that's beside the point.
The Attorney General has indicated we're not going to be spending any more money on legal aid. That's unlikely. So I guess the real question is: has the Attorney General sat down, not just with the legal services side but other stakeholder groups, and explored any new approaches as to how we're going to meet the increased demand with these extremely limited resources?
In other words, apart from the refrain of saying, "No money," what positive steps has the Attorney General taken? Has he met with all of the groups involved in providing any form of legal advice and assistance in this province? Has he met with them recently? What have they told him, and what has he offered back to them?
Hon. B. Penner: I did have an opportunity to meet both the past chair and the current executive director of LSS, and I understand that arrangements have been made for me to meet the new chair of LSS, who has just assumed his role, and the executive director. But of course conversations are ongoing on a regular basis at the staff level all the time as well.
I cited near the top of these estimates that in addition to looking for ways to find savings in the ministry budget, we also look to ways we can reform the justice system, things that include what I've already mentioned.
I'll cite them again: small claims pilots, the new Supreme Court rules, Victoria criminal case management project, the Vancouver downtown community court project, the bail reform pilot projects that have been underway across the province, the prolific offender management project, the justice access centres — these are all other initiatives — family transformation, work that we're doing to update and modernize the Family Relations Act.
These are all ways that we're working to try and streamline the system and make justice easier for people in the province without always having to say that the answer to every legal dilemma is to spend more money. I know it's an easy refrain for members of the opposition.
The member is quite right. This is his chance to ask questions, but a little bit of unsolicited political advice from me is that if he's never prepared to provide any answers…. It's unlikely voters are going to embrace the opposition as a government if they're unable and unwilling to answer the question: where is the money supposed to come from to pay for all of the irresponsible promises we've heard day after day from members of the opposition?
There isn't a single thing that the members of the opposition wouldn't like to spend more money on, except what we heard today was maybe a first. Today the member of the opposition, the Attorney General critic, is criticizing government efforts to get people to stop smoking so that they can hopefully save themselves from the health ailments that come from a life of being addicted to tobacco. The member of the opposition criticizes that.
I'll be very interested to see if the newly elected leader of the party shares his critic's view that the government shouldn't be encouraging people to stop smoking. I have a funny feeling that the new leader of the NDP may want to have a word with his justice critic about criticizing a measure that I hope and I believe will save lives.
That's what we're hearing from the opposition. Their one cost-cutting measure that they've thought of is to maybe cancel that announcement about encouraging people to quit tobacco in order to provide money for something else. That's not really a policy that I would embrace, but interesting to hear that that's at least one substantive idea we've had from the opposition.
L. Krog: The simple fact is that this government, through its Premier, in the last several months has made various decisions. The issue is not whether there are funds available. The issue is the discretion.
Quite candidly, we know of the $25 million announcement to assist people to quit smoking. We've had $15 million in new funding for non-profit community groups. We've had $4.7 million in support of thermal energy for Simon Fraser University's Burnaby campus. We've had $13.375 million…
Interjections.
L. Krog: Oh, let me…. I'm not finished. I'm not finished.
…for a new Ronald McDonald house and $6.7 million for housing for seniors and people with physical disabilities.
[ Page 6941 ]
Those are all very worthy, and if I had a moment, I would have pounded my desk with the same vigour as those backbenchers who are hoping to scrape back into cabinet.
However, that is not the issue. There is clearly discretionary funding available to this government. The Premier has been making decisions about it. The fact is that there is an ongoing crisis in legal aid.
Maybe I should just remind the Attorney General. He wasn't Attorney General at the time, but the former president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association said, quite simply, in his editorial, "Legal aid is in crisis in British Columbia," and nothing has changed. Nothing has changed since he made that statement.
The Attorney General I doubt very much is hearing from any of the stakeholders in the justice system that legal aid, the way it is funded in British Columbia today, is anything other than absolutely inadequate to meet its statutory mandate.
The reason the Attorney General gets letters like he did from Mayland McKimm, the reason the Attorney General has to read reports like he did from the Commission on Legal Aid is simply because this government has made choices about its spending that don't give any priority whatsoever to legal aid to assist the most vulnerable amongst us. That's quite simply the choice.
I just want to come back to this. There's one other item. We've even found $500,000 for communities to hold events marking the B.C. Parks centennial, the centennial of a system that now doesn't have enough rangers to staff, that can't provide programs for children and families anymore.
I'm just wondering. Let's put it back on the Attorney General again. Instead of asking me about smoking, I'm going to ask him about $500,000 for people to have parties around the province to celebrate the desecration of B.C. Parks and the park system. Does he think maybe it would've been better to spend that $500,000 on funding legal aid?
Hon. B. Penner: It's apparent that the NDP research department continues to struggle. You certainly have my sympathies, because it's apparent that the member opposite doesn't have confidence in his own research department. Everything we've heard in the last 20 minutes is taken from a newspaper article today written by one individual.
Maybe the members opposite should consider sending some thanks and compliments to Robert Matas at the Globe and Mail, because it's provided every single commentary and line of question that the member is using. It's unfortunate he's not able to come up with his own questions. Nevertheless, congratulations to him for reading the Globe and Mail this morning.
That was the last comment, I think, in Mr. Matas's column, about the B.C. Parks anniversary. He did also mention about Ronald McDonald House, which I think is a great investment to help young children and their families during very difficult times when the children require medical attention. That's very serious and traumatic.
Again, the member is speaking with some criticism and skepticism about whether that should be a priority for government: looking after vulnerable families when children are in need of medical care. It's shocking to hear the member here speak in a critical tone. Again, I doubt very much that his leader of the NDP party will very much share his point of view — publicly, anyway — about speaking critically of a program that's designed to help families during times that are very stressful and upsetting to them.
As for B.C. Parks, it's true. B.C. Parks are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the park system. It's one of the oldest park systems in North America, and it's the largest one in all of Canada. No other province has a larger land base that's protected. It's over 14 percent now in British Columbia. Just in the last ten years alone our government has protected another 1.9 million hectares of land.
The members opposite may think that's not a record of achievement that should be celebrated. Fair enough; that's their point of view. But it is a decision of our government that B.C. Parks' 100th anniversary is something that we should celebrate and take time to reflect on.
Getting back to these ministry estimates, as I've indicated, in 2004-2005 the provincial government funding to the Legal Services Society was approximately $55 million. Today the base funding has increased to $66.5 million, and with other additional allotments, we expect this year the provincial government will be providing a total in excess of $69 million. That's up $14 million from 2004-2005.
Admittedly, it's less than it was ten years ago. That is a result of various budget challenges. As I've said repeatedly, it's not always that pleasant to live within a budget, but it is something that on this side of the House we think it's important to do.
L. Krog: Delighted again to have a lecture from the Attorney General, who has thousands of people at his bidding speeding to provide him with the necessary answers to the questions he can't begin to answer, notwithstanding the information he's given.
It's very easy for the Attorney General to continue to talk about the lack of funding, but we know there's money in government. I've given him examples. Now, he may criticize the examples and say: "You'd cut that; you'd cut that; you'd cut that." The fact is that there is discretionary spending in this government. The fact is the Premier has been out exercising that privilege for
[ Page 6942 ]
the last few months in order to ensure her rather narrow victory in Vancouver–Point Grey last night.
I just want to ask this very simple question. How is it that other provinces that have faced the same tough fiscal circumstances have managed to hold their legal aid funding static and, in the case of Ontario, actually increase it? Why is it that in British Columbia we're still so far behind?
Hon. B. Penner: I thought I answered this question a while ago, but perhaps the member wasn't listening. It gives me an opportunity to speak about our relative economic performance and fiscal management compared to other provinces.
As I indicated earlier…. I think the member specifically had referenced a while ago the province of Ontario. Yes, the province of Ontario did make a deliberate choice to dramatically increase their provincial deficit. I think at one point it exceeded $20 billion in just one year. Some $22 billion or $23 billion was the forecasted deficit that they tabled for just one year.
That's a choice. But those choices also have consequences, and credit-rating downgrades are something that we have been able to avoid in this province despite tough economic times. We actually had upgrades after our government took office in the early 2000s, which followed on a succession of credit-rating downgrades during the 1990s. When the rest of North America was enjoying an almost unprecedented economic boom, British Columbia was going in the other direction. The result from independent credit rating agencies was successive downgrades of how the outside world viewed the credibility of the provincial government's finances and budgeting.
So yes, you can make a decision to say, "Deficits be damned," and run up the red ink and then try to face the music tomorrow. But let's keep in mind that there's a whole generation of people coming along behind us that will have to pay those bills for the decisions that we make today. This year we've kept legal aid funding stable in British Columbia despite the economic challenges. Despite reductions in very many other parts of government in order to try to get back to a balanced budget, what we have not done this year is reduced the LSS budget.
It's staying the same. It's up from 2004-2005. Again it was $55 million then. It's now almost $70 million in total provincial funding that we expect to go to LSS this year. That's $15 million more than five or six years ago. I acknowledge that in the grand scheme of things, that is a modest increase. Nevertheless, it does indicate that the government is making legal aid funding a priority, when it has not seen another reduction this year, unlike many other parts of government.
L. Krog: I want to apologize for smiling and laughing almost out loud, because this is a very serious topic. Only the Attorney General of a Liberal government could stand in this chamber and brag about the fact that they've increased the funding since 2004 when we have taken the budget in total from what it was a decade ago down a full 27 percent in that decade — notwithstanding the increase in population, notwithstanding the increase in demand, notwithstanding the deprivation that is suffered by so many of our fellow citizens.
Only a Liberal Attorney General could stand in this House and say: "Oh, aren't we wonderful? We've actually increased it since we took it down to the lowest level of funding in ages."
Let me give just one possible way for the Attorney General to show some real leadership on this issue. He has said, and he has been quoted as saying, "I'm willing to consider any option for access to funding for legal aid." Any option — I'm delighted that the Attorney General is prepared to consider any option. So has he considered the possibility that the suggestion of the Legal Services Society might have real merit — that is, that civil forfeitures actually be used to fund legal aid?
I'd like to hear from the Attorney General. Is he prepared to consider that? Does he think it's a good idea? That's a recommendation LSS has made. What does he think about that?
Hon. B. Penner: I am always open to ideas and suggestions. This is one of the ideas that we've heard about. The ministry is aware of it. I've asked for an analysis to be undertaken about what this proposal would mean in practice and what other fiscal implications it may have for the consolidated revenue fund or other parts of government. That's some work that we'll need to make before we can comment more fully on the proposal.
I just commend the member for now referring to articles from the Lawyers Weekly as opposed to the Globe and Mail.
L. Krog: You know, I would have thought the Attorney General would be flattered that I actually read what he has to say from time to time and pay attention to him in his particularly distinguished office that occupies such a unique role in our system.
I'm delighted to hear his response, because what it confirms, of course, is that in fact government has choices — that government can divert funding from one ministry to another, that that is entirely a matter of discretion. I think that's the issue here this morning. The fact is that this government, in its discretion, has chosen not to adequately fund the legal rights of British Columbians, not to adequately fund services to deliver legal advice of various kinds to the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us.
It just strikes me that if the Attorney General is seriously concerned about money and cost…. He has
[ Page 6943 ]
argued here this morning that, of course, there will be a long-term benefit from the funding of assistance to help people quit smoking, as an example, and it's a very good example, in fairness. So why has he not considered and what does he think of the public commission's claim that there are serious long-term costs associated with the short-term savings of underfunding legal aid?
I'm wondering if the Attorney General…. Since I'm sure he's read the commission's report, what does he have to say about that? In other words, there are going to be consequences for our failure to fund legal aid. So what's the Attorney General got to say about that?
Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated earlier in this debate, we are aware that there are individuals that are less fortunate among us, that often have more than one particular pressing issue, and that's why we are working on a more integrated approach to try and combine services. I've referenced a few times now things like the Victoria Integrated Court and the downtown community court in Vancouver, the justice access centres in British Columbia and the other programs that government funds — family court counsellors, the family maintenance enforcement program.
All together, those initiatives are another $30 million in government-funded support for people that are in need of assistance. That's on top of the $66.5 million in core funding this year in our budget for the Legal Services Society. With extra payments for specific projects, total provincial funding this year for LSS alone will be close to $70 million.
So we are funding the legal aid system. The fact, as I've pointed out earlier, that we're maintaining that funding this year, even in an environment where other programs in government are facing reductions in an effort to balance the budget during a relatively weak economy, indicates the importance that our government places on providing services to people that are in need.
L. Krog: I certainly appreciate the good work of the people at the family maintenance enforcement program and the justice access centres. But I'm just wondering: is there a justice access centre in Terrace? Is there one in Prince George? Is there one in Fort St. John? Is there one in Kamloops? Is there one in Cranbrook? Is there one in Kelowna? Is there one in Hope? Is there one in Campbell River?
Hon. B. Penner: The answer to the member's question is no. But he'll be aware that he has one in his own constituency, or at least in the community that he's in close proximity to. In addition, around the province we do have a number of rural pilot projects underway with Service B.C. and the Ministry of Social Development to work at integrating efforts to help people and bring different government agencies and resources to bear to assist people.
An example that one of my staff mentioned to me exists in Mackenzie, through the Provincial Court facility there. So we use a number of different mechanisms to try and leverage maximum value for the tax dollars that we're spending. That continues to be our overall approach, which is to try and get the best value we can during these times when budgets are tight. There's no doubt about it; budgets are tight.
We have family justice counsellors in 24 communities around the province, for example, which is another way that we try to help people with some of their issues that they do encounter and sometimes have difficulties with. So the short answer is that we're continuing to look at new ways and continue to innovate.
One conceptual idea is to make, again, greater use of what both the critic and I have acknowledged here during this debate is the ubiquity of the Internet, and the telephone, to provide more advice — maybe not strictly legal advice but more informal advice — about how people can go about arranging their affairs or accessing government programs to get them the help they're looking for.
L. Krog: Earlier today the Attorney General was making reference to Tommy Douglas, and I just wanted to say that I very much appreciate that Nanaimo has a justice access centre. I'm more than delighted, notwithstanding the fact that it's had its funding cut since it was opened and hasn't fulfilled all the high hopes that were expressed by former Attorney General Mr. Oppal.
Having said that, I'm reminded of what J.S. Woodsworth once said: "What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all." So I guess what I'm saying to the Attorney General quite clearly here this morning is: delighted as we are to have the justice access centre in Nanaimo, and delighted as we are that it's been up and running for several years, it doesn't solve the problems for the people in the communities that I listed in my question. The fact is, it is an inadequate response, because it delivers services only to people within a very limited geographic area.
It was particularly amusing, of course…. I suppose maybe this was the government's thinking. Given that on Vancouver Island we're stuck with increasing ferry costs and are therefore isolated from the Lower Mainland, perhaps it was very nice for us to receive a justice access centre because we can't very easily afford to travel to the Lower Mainland.
You know, the Attorney General said budgets are tight. Budgets may be tight, but his own ministry wrote off $6 million in legal fees for two Liberal insiders — a decision that was made, apparently, within the discretion of that ministry without too much trouble. We know that there
[ Page 6944 ]
were secured assets available to recover at least several hundred thousand dollars of those moneys.
So I guess my question to the Attorney General is: did he think it was better to write off the secured assets of Mr. Basi than it was to try and secure those moneys and put it towards funding legal aid?
Hon. B. Penner: The member will be aware that that was a decision that was made in the last fiscal year, not this year. It preceded my arrival as Attorney General in this portfolio. The member is also very aware that that was not a decision that was made by any elected official but, rather, by deputy ministers working in the provincial government who made a determination that it was the best way to respond to that issue.
Noting the hour, I'm going to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. van Dongen in the chair.
The committee met at 10:08 a.m.
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,330,591,000 (continued).
The Chair: We are currently considering the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Hon. M. McNeil: Before we start, I'd like to introduce the folks that I have joining me today from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We have Stephen Brown, deputy minister; Derek Sturko, associate deputy minister; and behind me is Randi Mjolsness, assistant deputy minister of policy and legislation; and Craig Wilkinson, executive financial officer. In the gallery we also have Chuck Eamer, ADM, Vancouver Island; Keva Glynn, senior director, early years; and Lenora Angel, executive director, child care programs and services.
M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to be here with the opportunity to pose some questions to the minister and staff on the topic of child care under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Just some opening remarks before I get into the questions. I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of child care providers and agencies, advocates, parents over the last number of months, and the story that has emerged to me that's becoming clear — and I look forward to canvassing this further in the estimates — is the real need that families face in having access to adequate spaces for the children.
The issue of affordability is also key in terms of having spaces available for families — for children, infants, toddlers and school-aged children — for before- and after-school care, so that parents feel that they are comfortable and confident that their children are in quality care while they're working and carrying out other tasks during the day.
Certainly, parents are finding that there's great difficulty being able to access adequate spaces currently, with only 20 percent of regulated spaces for children of families who are looking for spaces in British Columbia. As well, the issue of affordability is very important with the very high cost of child care. It's cited as the second-highest cost for a family after housing and mortgage payments. That's certainly a concern, as well as the difficulty being able to find spaces.
I've heard reports of wait-lists and great challenges around that and also concerns raised of the need to provide a living wage for very dedicated early childhood educators who are very committed and provide terrific service in the field — so a host of challenges that I've certainly heard. The recurring theme is the need for really a universal not-for-profit child care, early care and learning system here in British Columbia.
I guess to start my questions, if you could please share with me the budget allotment for child care under the ministry and also the different areas of the budget.
Hon. M. McNeil: First off, I'd like to welcome you. I welcome all the questions that you have going forward and hope I can answer them as well as you would like.
First off, being new to this ministry, one of the things I might point out is that I have an added benefit in that I am a mom of four daughters and I have grandchildren in it. So I personally have a vested interest. I also see the challenges young families face, having the four families in my life, and I watch with great interest some of the things that they have — a little different than what I had when they were growing up. But we won't say when that was.
To answer your question, the budget for child care right now is $296 million. It's approximately 25 percent of the overall budget. The key elements within the budget are the subsidy at $151 million, the child care operating fund at $65 million, supported child development at $57 million, the child care resource and referral centres at $9.8 million. Those are the key elements within the budget.
M. Elmore: Thank you for that. Just a couple of follow-up questions. Referencing the $296 million as 25 percent of the overall budget, can you just contextualize that — specifically, the overall budget? Also, do you have a number for the portion of federal dollars coming over? Also, the amounts for minor capital grants and major capital grants?
Hon. M. McNeil: Of the Ministry of Children and Family Development's total budget, which is $1.33 billion, as I said, approximately a quarter of the budget is for child care. That includes…. We have to ensure that we have the correct number. We think it's around $81 million from the federal dollars, but it comes in as part of a bigger package. That's why we're trying to confirm exactly what works within the child care budget.
As for the major capital, government has invested more than $35 million in direct major capital funding to help community partners create more than 6,500 additional licensed child care spaces. That's over 400 projects since 2001. There are no new major programs scheduled for this year, but we do have some dollars allocated to unfinished programs. I guess it really reflects the fiscal times that we are in, so that's that. In the minor budget it's $500,000 annually.
M. Elmore: Just to follow up on the minor capital, there is a cut for the minor capital grants. They were reduced to $2,000. I've had reports that it has put quite an onus and that it's difficult for child care providers to meet all the challenges of upgrading and keeping pace with regulated changes that they have to adhere to and that that's a hardship faced by many providers. Certainly, there's a need to have — and, I think, also a strong case to reinstitute — the $5,000 level for minor capital grants. I'm just wondering if the ministry would be in support of that.
Hon. M. McNeil: You know, just in the realities of the fiscal times that we're in, there were pressures within child care, as there are in other ministries.
One of the things that we really wanted to do was to protect the ongoing operations of the ministry, especially those that were dealing with special needs, mental health and the other more pressing needs. I think that one of the other factors is that we really wanted to create the maximum opportunities for the non-profits that were applying, make it equitable for all applicants. I think that's what we did achieve.
Having said that, I have taken your point, and I've just discussed with the staff that I think it's an area that we should monitor. If you would like to discuss with me further, we can certainly have that discussion.
M. Elmore: Yes, I would like to continue to discuss that point and also look for ways if it's possible to reinstate that funding. Certainly, I've heard from child care providers that it's a big pressure on them. So thank you.
In terms of the major capital investment. Because of the need that I hear in terms of the need for spaces…. Certainly, it has been demonstrated — and I guess you'd be familiar how your family, grandchildren, are looking for spaces — that there is a need for more spaces.
Currently with only regulated spaces available for 20 percent of families and children who are looking for child care, there is a need for investment, major capital investment. I'm wondering if there are plans in the works to address that, to make investments and to look to create and expand spaces.
Hon. M. McNeil: In the Ministry of Children and Family Development we do provide different types of child care support within B.C. Those are in the home, licensed family, group, infant-toddler, before and after school. Of the licensed daycares we have close to 100,000 child care spaces available in 5,000 licensed groups. That is, I think, a significant amount.
There's also another factor here, and that's the introduction of all-day kindergarten that's happening. As you know, as of this September it will be fully implemented. I think one of the things that we as a ministry have to do is see how that's going to impact child care. It'll potentially open up spaces, and that's something we have to obviously monitor.
That's why we just recently did the $1 million contribution to allow the agencies to adjust to this. I think one
[ Page 6946 ]
of the things that we're going to do, certainly, as the dust settles with the all-day kindergarten implementation is take a look at what's happening and what needs to be adjusted.
M. Elmore: Still, I’ll pose my question about the investment for major capital specifically in terms of investments to create more spaces. Just wondering also if you have a number on or if you know or track how many spaces have been closed over the last year — if there's a statistic for that.
Hon. M. McNeil: I do have to say that this has been a very valuable process, going through estimates six weeks in, because I'm learning a lot. I thank you for your questions, because I'm way smarter now than I was yesterday.
Currently the ministry does not have plans for any new major capital programs. Having said that, as licensed centres come forward, operating funds are demand-driven. As they come forward, we do provide. I think that one of the things the ministry is focusing on is subsidy and operating costs so that they are sustainable centres.
One of the things I might mention is that…. You asked for the number of closures. What I can tell you here is that the spaces do open and close. What we do know is the aggregate number, and it is increasing. For instance, from '03-04 we had 71,103, and today we have, as I said, just under 100,000. It's at 99,411. So we do know that the aggregate number is increasing.
Right now we can't give you the current local numbers and how that breaks down. However, what I have been told is that we are hoping by fall that we're going to be able to introduce increased monitoring so that we will have the ability to say on a local level what the actual picture is. But again, it's just focusing on the aggregate number going from 71,000 in '03 to now close to 100,000.
M. Elmore: I'm wondering if you have a record, the number, of registered early childhood educators — if you have that on file — and also what their basic pay level is.
Hon. M. McNeil: The numbers that we have here in the early childhood educators, the ECEs. We have approximately 11,700 registered ECEs and 3,800 assistants. From what I understand here, the B.C. child care workers' hourly earnings fall within the average when compared across…. We're consistent with the rest of Canada. Hourly wages for those working in child care services in B.C. were $15.69 in 2008. Oh, 2008. Let me see if I can get a better number there. It's just slightly higher than the Canadian average.
M. Elmore: The minister raised…. Just to touch on the issue of subsidy rates, I know that the cutoff is now at $35,000 and $750 a month, but it's been brought to my attention that it still falls short in terms of the ability to access, particularly, infant and toddler care, which is an average of about $1,000 a month. So there's still that shortfall.
It's very difficult for families under the $35,000, or even higher than that, to meet the costs, particularly for infant and toddler care. Just recognizing the role of subsidies, but the argument that it also doesn't replace a universal child care system that caps parent fees. I'll just let you respond to that.
Hon. M. McNeil: In the previous question I did mention that the dollars were…. The average hourly wage was around the Canadian average, which was $15.62. That was done with an annual survey across Canada in 2008. But since that time…. We do our own annual survey, and the current wage in 2010-2011 is $17.14. So that previous figure was from the cross-Canada survey, but this is the more recent number.
To your other question, our child care subsidy investments have climbed, actually, to $151 million this year, which is an $11 million increase over the past three years — $8 million in '09-10 and a $3 million increase in '10-11. I think it's worth noting that these increases have been made in pretty tough economic times, and it's something that we should recognize while we're trying to protect all the services. I think it really demonstrates the government's commitment to this program in some pretty, pretty tough times.
M. Elmore: Yes, recognizing that there has been an increase in the subsidy portion, but also with the argument that it doesn't replace a quality affordable and accessible child care system.
Thank you for the information in terms of the wages for the early childhood educators. Certainly, it's a very important position. The many early childhood educators that I've met have really made — many of the folks in the field as well…. It's really struck me — their level of commitment, their concern and their professionalism in providing a quality service and ensuring all aspects of not only the care but really the development of children.
That's something that is, I think, quite commendable and something that I recognize in the field. Certainly, they're a very valuable resource.
Also, I know there's a campaign by the early childhood educators of B.C. Adequate wages are also an important component of that, and they have campaigned for a $20 hourly wage, which I think is also fair compensation. That's something that I would put to the minister for her consideration.
[ Page 6947 ]
My next question. I'm wondering if you have a number…. Out of the 5,000 licensed groups, how many are infant-toddler, if you have that number?
Hon. M. McNeil: Member, I congratulate you on that question. We don't have that info, so we're madly trying to get it to have it broken down, and that will help.
But I just do want to add in one thing, and it's a little bit of a personal note. You mentioned the quality of the ECE. One of my daughters — my youngest, in fact, who would be horrified that I'm actually saying this on camera — is an early childhood educator. She has been working in the field for quite a while now, and many of her friends are in the field, so I have often heard and seen the dedication of these folks.
However, she's in her toughest role now because she has two of her own that she's looking after — and a third. She can't sort of hand them over to parents, so it's fun to see her go through that as well.
But I do understand the role of these early childhood educators. They have incredible talents, and we give them our most prized possessions. I do recognize the challenge there.
M. Elmore: I'd like to address now the point that was referenced earlier in terms of the impact of the implementation of all-day kindergarten on child care centres, the impact that it's had in the operation and the sustainability of centres. There are a number of cases that have come forward from child care providers in Chilliwack, on the Sunshine Coast and right across British Columbia claiming and commenting that their daycares have been impacted by the loss of business and, also, that there's a need to address that.
I know that you mentioned that there was a million dollars put towards that, the one-time funding. But the nature of it is that, as one-time funding, it falls short in terms of being able to compensate for the losses the centres are experiencing and that there needs to be stable long-term funding. So I'll just put that to you.
Hon. M. McNeil: Thank you, again, to the member opposite for your question. The one-time funding that you mentioned, the $1 million — it was interesting. Not long after that introduction, right when I was just starting, I was able to do an up-Island tour and went to the Little Ferns daycare up in Nanaimo. I don't know if you've had a chance to visit. It is one that I would suggest you get a chance to go up and see.
I have to say that one of the first things the director of the child care centre said to me was: "Thank you for that. It really made a difference." What it did was recognize that the government recognizes that there is a challenge with the introduction.
One of the things that we're chatting about right now with staff…. Staff is working very closely with the Ministry of Education to actually monitor the impact of all-day kindergarten. As we said, it's going to take when the dust settles to actually see what the impact is and make a plan from there.
I think it's important to recognize that the all-day kindergarten is there because it has been proven, obviously, that working with children at an early age and educating them at an early age will make for better outcomes and bode well for their futures. I think that's really important.
I also would like to mention that our ministry really works in partnership with both communities and the providers to support our vision of affordable, safe, quality child care options. I think that's also important to note.
Back to your earlier question. We do have the information that we needed on the infant toddler spaces. In '09-10 there were 5,864, and in '10-11, 6,524, which is an increase of 660 spaces.
M. Elmore: The issue of infant toddler care is also one of the biggest challenges in the field because of the high staffing ratios, the 4-to-1. That's an additional challenge there.
A number in Tofino are citing the lack of infant toddler care. I've visited some other communities as well. Prince Rupert has talked about the need for more infant toddler. I'm wondering if there are specific initiatives addressed at that particular shortage of provision of infant toddler care spaces in B.C.
Hon. M. McNeil: The child care operating fund that we've been talking about. Really, it's important to note that it's demand-driven, and as communities come forward, there are partnerships. So in the case of Tofino it's community-driven. When they recognize there is an issue and when they do come forward…. We do support demand-driven operating costs.
Going back to your other point, the fact is that all-day kindergarten will, as of next year, be all across the province. We will be monitoring, with the Ministry of Education, to find out what the impacts are. I think we'll then have the ability to reassign the funding previously provided for five-year-olds sort of down a little further to the age groups. I think that monitoring and that adjustment has to happen when the dust settles and we see what the numbers actually are.
M. Elmore: I am wondering about the next Provincial Child Care Council annual report, if that's pending, and also when you expect that to be submitted. Also, would it be possible to attend the next meeting for the Provincial Child Care Council?
Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that the '09-10 Provincial Child Care Council report is up on the website and that the '10-11 report is to be ready the end of May, in time for their next meeting, which I will be attending.
M. Elmore: I'm wondering if it's also possible that I could attend the meeting for the council at that time or another time.
Just if you could comment, as I'm interested…. You mentioned assessing the impact of all-day K on five-year-olds, and you mentioned the reallocation of funding, specifically for five-year-olds, back into the system. I'm just wondering if you could talk a little bit about that.
It's not clear to me, in terms of the funding breakdown — specifically categorized into child care operating fund subsidy, minor capital grants, the assisted supported child development and the child care resource and referral program — how you would make those adjustments. So I'd just be interested to hear a little bit more about that.
Hon. M. McNeil: First, I'll deal with your ask about the Provincial Child Care Council and attending a meeting. It's my first meeting, which I'll be going to at the end of May. What I will do — and I'll commit to you today — is discuss with the chair, and I'll be happy to discuss with the chair. They meet three times a year, so there are opportunities, and we can perhaps have you join us at a subsequent meeting. That would be great.
I think on your other question about working with the various communities, again it's premature right now to know exactly what's going to be happening. We don't yet know the impact of all-day K. We'll be learning pretty quickly once that happens. I think when we know, then we'll be able to partner with the various communities.
Again, I think it's really important to note that each provider needs to look at the impact of all-day K within their own community. Then they work with us, and we can decide where the needs are and what the adjustments are that have to happen. I think the subsidy and operating fund are going to be there once they adjust their needs. But again, it's their decision to make about what's happening and what the need is within their community. Then we work with them to partner.
M. Elmore: I'm wondering if there are plans or if you've been dealing with…. I know there's been a reference to setting up neighbourhood preschools for three- and four-year-olds. I'm just wondering if you have initiatives within that.
Hon. M. McNeil: Member, good question again. Learning lots. It's all good.
We really are in the early stages. Apparently, there is a cross-ministry working group initiative that's working with the Ministry of Education.
One of the things we want to do is ensure that the alignment between our ministry and Education works, with respect to neighbourhood learning centres, child care and the all-day kindergarten initiative. Again, it's still early stages. They are working on it. But I'd be happy to sit down with the member when the progress has been made, and then we can discuss the issue further.
M. Elmore: Yeah, that would be great. An opportunity to take a look at some of the documents and plans and also what's underway would be helpful. I'd appreciate that.
Another issue that's been raised, come to my attention, is the need, particularly for working parents, for the provision of before- and after-school care for families. That is a need, and I'm wondering if there are any initiatives underway to address that.
Hon. M. McNeil: One of the aims of this cross-ministry team that I mentioned earlier is to look at exactly that — look at the transition so that we make it as smooth as possible.
Again, the all-day kindergarten. What are going to be the impacts there, and how do we make it…? I know that for this government's agenda of families first…. I'm on the families-first committee — in fact, chair of the families-first committee — and these are the kinds of questions that we're looking at.
I see firsthand through my four exactly what some of the challenges are, and I know that it resonates with me personally. It is an issue. How do we make it easier for families, and how do we make that transition right through their early years, youth and into adulthood? How do we work together to make that work?
M. Elmore: Now, to just shift tracks a little bit in terms of questions and deal with the issue of these large corporate daycares, also referred to as big-box daycare, where we're seeing a relatively new phenomenon of the expansion of this big-box daycare in British Columbia with the purchase of a number of spaces and the opening up of new centres.
It's a concern to me, and there certainly has been a lot of research conducted to raise concerns about corporate big-box child care. We've heard the stories in Australia of the ABC franchise that expanded across Australia and was bankrupt and the real collapse of that system.
Certainly, it's been shown, I think, pretty much through all jurisdictions that with big-box, corporate child care (1) there are concerns about the provision of
[ Page 6949 ]
quality care for children, and also, (2) the concept of for-profit provision of corporate child care is a concern.
I'm wondering if the ministry is undertaking any particular initiatives or if you've been lobbied or had discussions with corporate child care lobby groups.
Hon. M. McNeil: You know, B.C.'s child care sector does include a mix of both private and non-profit providers. Both of these play a key role in providing quality early learning and child care services across B.C.
Currently half of the child care spaces funded through the B.C. government are privately delivered, but I think it's really, really important to note that there is a rigorous approach to this. We have clear licensing requirements that they have to follow and that protect the health and safety of children in the child care settings. I know that the ministry is aware of some of these different operations. They have met with them. When asked, they provide the information that's required, but I have been informed they have not been lobbied at all.
[D. Horne in the chair.]
M. Elmore: Just a comment to put on the record. Edleun, which is one of the companies that has purchased a centre in Maple Ridge and other acquisitions in British Columbia, has been linked to the failed Australia-based ABC/123 conglomerate. Just to have that on the record.
I'm wondering if there is a maximum child cap for child care providers in facilities — if there is a cap. Some other jurisdictions do have caps. I think Alberta is 80.
Hon. M. McNeil: Thank you for your question. It's my understanding there is no cap. Apparently, it's not about how big, but it's actually about the quality of the daycare. Licensing is a Ministry of Health issue. However, it's something that we do work closely on, and there's a rigorous approach. It's about the staff qualifications, health and safety, and these are things that are important.
You know, there are a number of quality larger facilities. The Y is an example; UBC is also an example. These have excellent reputations. Again, just from a personal point of view, the UBC one is where I had a couple of grandchildren, and they really are of very, very good quality — and larger.
M. Elmore: Yes, I've visited the child care facilities at UBC and also at the Y, and they certainly are excellent. I think the differentiation and the distinction between those programs…. It's typically a not-for-profit model, which contrasts to what we're seeing in the expansion of the big-box, corporate style of child care. I think that's the difference. Just a number of concerns raised about that, with the expansion into British Columbia.
I'd like to move now into some discussion and a couple of questions, with our time remaining, looking systemwide at what's happening: the reported shortage of spaces, the difficulty of parents on wait-lists to find spots, the issue of affordability and also the issue of the provision of quality care — quality provision by qualified early childhood educators.
I'm wondering if the minister is familiar with the…. I was presented with Community Plan for a Public System of Integrated Early Care and Learning by the Coalition of Child Care Advocates B.C. and also the Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia. Have you seen a copy of the plan? Is that a plan that the minister and the ministry would also make a commitment to implementing?
Hon. M. McNeil: My understanding is that the ministry has obviously received the report. I have not had a meeting or a briefing yet, nor have I had a chance to meet with the authors.
I understand that the report, as it is written, has a number of recommendations that have, actually, an impact cross-ministry — on Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Advanced Education — and that staff cross-ministry are actually discussing the report. I will then be briefed and also have an opportunity to meet the authors. This is one area where I think that it might be a good idea, once that happens, to be able to sit down with you, and we can have a discussion.
M. Elmore: Yeah, I would look forward to a discussion on that.
I just wanted to talk about the need for a plan in British Columbia and also some of the economic benefits for a plan. Citing the support, it was the B.C. Business Council that commissioned the human early learning partnership for the 15 by 15 report. Also, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution in favour of a child care system in British Columbia, echoed by the Burnaby Chamber of Commerce, and we're also hearing that.
I think that's something new in terms of Canada and the long, I guess, campaign to bring in universal daycare. That's something that we're seeing come on board. really. The business sector employers and a number of large-scale employers are talking about the importance of having child care facilities in terms of attracting and also retaining employees. From the business side but also the economic side, a universal child care plan generates jobs, and it also stimulates the economy.
Certainly in Quebec, which has a plan, they've seen an increased participation in the workforce, particularly from mothers. They also see a return from working
[ Page 6950 ]
mothers, in terms of taxes generated by working mothers. It's a good investment when we invest in kids.
I would just like to ask a question on if the minister has considered or will consider supporting the development of a bachelor of early childhood education as a new educational standard, in the context of a plan but in terms of supporting the professional development of early childhood educators and also looking to support the professional development in that field.
Hon. M. McNeil: I am very aware of the 15 by 15 and have read it. I actually have met with Paul Kershaw and had, I think, some very good discussions with him.
You know, many of the recommendations in the report are of interest to us. Especially with the government's new families-first agenda, I think a lot of it falls within that. Many of his recommendations are cross-ministry, and it's a shared responsibility of all those ministries.
I do know they're in discussions about various different aspects of the report. Quite frankly, personally, as the mother of four daughters, I'm fully supportive of more women in the workforce. That's where we're at with that one.
The bachelor's degree. I do understand that a number of institutions are looking at this — UVic specifically, but there are others. Again, it matters when there is student demand — that's when a lot of these things happen — but the ministry is definitely interested. I know that personally I do support it because, again, it's about the quality that we can provide for child care in this province and for the children. It's something that's very important to the government.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN 1499-2175