2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th 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)

Monday, July 8, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 2

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, JULY 8, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today from an extraordinary organization in Victoria that I'll have a little more to say about later. The first person is Jean McRae, who is the executive director from the Inter-Cultural Association. The second individual is the chair of the board of the Inter-Cultural Association but also someone who is very well known to me — my best support, my mentor, my role model — my mother, Mavis DeGirolamo. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. A. Virk: It's my pleasure to have three guests in the House today. If I may introduce my three daughters. First, a few words about them. They're up at the top here.

My oldest is Jusleen. They all manage volunteering, sport, education at the same time. She's on Team Canada in karate, Canadian champion, Pan Am champion and gives back to the community — Jusleen Virk. If the House would welcome her, please.

My daughter Anisha volunteers at Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation and goes to university, teaches karate and is on Team Canada as well. If the House would welcome Anisha Virk, please.

My youngest daughter keeps me very busy by asking a lot of questions. I would ask the House to welcome my youngest daughter, Maansi Virk.

[1335]

Hon. D. McRae: My daughter is not in the House today, but today she is celebrating her tenth birthday. So would the House please give Gracie McRae a happy birthday and a good, warm welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

FUNTASTIC SPORTS SOCIETY
IN VERNON

E. Foster: I rise today to thank a dedicated group of volunteers in my riding. The Funtastic Sports Society hosts Canada's biggest and best sports music festival. The group of 500 volunteers, led by executive director Jim McEwan and society president Brett Kirkpatrick, along with the dedicated executive, held the 29th annual Funtastic ball tournament this past July long weekend, with 298 teams from Alberta, B.C., and even a team that was registered and took part from Iqaluit.

The tournament each year brings about $4.5 million in economic benefit into our community, which is the largest such event, certainly in our area and probably in the province. Fundraised by partners, agencies, volunteers, we got $32,000 this year. They got just a shade under $30,000 last year. They include sports organizations, the Lions Club, junior chamber of commerce and so on. The Funtastic community grant was established a few years ago, and they've given out $129,000, supporting organizations such as the Schubert Centre, Kindale Developmental Association, Vernon and district riding association, PacificSport. Forty-three local non-profit organizations have received funding over the last few years.

This was another successful year for the agency. I'd like to thank the partners for Funtastic: the Department of National Defence, the RCMP, the city of Vernon workers and the more than 500 local volunteers. But for me, the highlight this year was Sunday evening, when the Funtastic Sports Society along with Julian Austin, internationally known Canadian country artist, paid tribute to our veterans and members of the military. Lt. Col. Lyle Johnson and 20 members of the military, many of them decorated soldiers from Afghanistan, joined the country music artist on stage, and a tribute was given to those soldiers.

I would like to thank all of the members of the Funtastic Sports Society and the great work they do in our community.

STORIES OF
AIR INDIA VICTIMS' FAMILIES

H. Bains: Last week I had the opportunity to attend a book release ceremony by Gurpreet Singh. The Punjabi version of the book called Fighting Hatred with Love: Voices of the Air India Victims' Families was released by the Khalsa Diwan Society vice-president Major Singh Sidhu, who lost his sister, a niece and a nephew in this tragedy.

This book is not about the Air India investigation or its outcome or the political background of the tragedy but is a simple collection of interviews with 12 of the victims' families. The idea is to let people understand why it is important to hear their stories and discover their beautiful minds and kind hearts. Translated by Pawan Gulati and published by India-based Chetna Parkashan, Nafrat Sang Piyar Di Jang is about testimonies from Air India victims' families who are now engaged in philanthropy and have turned their grief into kindness.

Among them are Dr. Chandrasekhar Sankurathri and Dr. A.V. Anantaraman, who have migrated back to India and are currently running free schools and hospitals for the poor and destitute. Both these men lost their wives and children in the Air India bombing that left 331
[ Page 206 ]
people dead.

Fabian Dawson, deputy editor-in-chief of the Province newspaper summed it up. "In this book Gurpreet tells a story of a tragedy through the lives of the families who lost their loved ones to a terrorist attack that killed 329 people aboard Air India flight 182 and two at the Narita airport in Japan."

He points out with his stories that it is those who live with their loss that triumphed over evil. They have won; the terrorists have lost. The beautiful stories of each of these families inspire hope and optimism for everyone in this dangerous world, because they arm you to fight hatred with love.

[1340]

SOCCER ACTIVITIES ON NORTH SHORE

J. Thornthwaite: Last Saturday I attended the 2013 Girls Provincial B Cup Championships at Inter River Park in North Van. There I was able to fumble the celebratory kickoff for the local Special Olympians as they gear up for the 2013 B.C. Special Olympics Games, coming up in Langley.

What a soccer weekend it was, as the Vancouver Whitecaps Football Club beat the Seattle Sounders 2 to 1 at B.C. Place that evening. In just two years' time Vancouver will be hosting the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup.

The North Shore Girls Soccer Club and the North Shore Youth Soccer Association were the hosts of the provincial cup this weekend. The North Shore Girls Soccer Club has over 3,500 players registered, from the age of five and up. In fact, my first foray into politics was as an age group coordinator for the club when my youngest daughter started her illustrious soccer career in 2003. But I, like thousands of other moms and dads, have been volunteering for this and the boys club for several years as a soccer mom.

Last month I attended a retirement party for an amazing volunteer who demonstrates leadership, wisdom and guidance. Shauna Tucker is retiring after six years as president. Shauna, along with many partners in government and the private sector, helped bring to fruition the Windsor Bubble, a neat practice facility at Windsor Secondary, and helped secure the contract for the Windsor Soccer Academy for our students, coaches, club and the entire North Shore community.

My daughter is fortunate to be one of those soccer players who continues to benefit from the dedicated volunteers like Shauna, who instil confidence, skills, fitness and a sense of team for mutual success.

Thank you to all of the soccer volunteers, who put in countless hours, days, weeks, months and years to help our young people grow into successful and passionate adults with a lifelong love for the world's most popular game — soccer.

DIVERSITY HEALTH FAIR

C. James: Better lifestyles mean better health and well-being. It's a message that's important for all British Columbians, but not everyone is able to access programs and services that help them to make better choices and live healthier lives. This is especially so for newcomers, who may not have a support network or speak fluent English. That's where initiatives like the Diversity Health Fair come into play.

Hosted by the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, this free event on June 15 presented ways to prevent chronic diseases through health, wellness, recreation, nutrition and healthy living. Participants included 40 of greater Victoria's local health and wellness practitioners, service agencies and organizations that came together to exchange information and promote healthy living.

Nearly 700 people attended, with the opportunity to experience a variety of activities, including health workshops, four fitness classes and demonstrations, an international food café and an interactive children's activity centre. About half of those who attended were families with young children. Nearly a third were seniors and the rest a mix of middle-aged and young adults.

It was my pleasure to speak at the opening ceremony, and I can tell you that it was fun, interactive and inspiring. Local businesses and organizations stepped up, too, with donations and in-kind support. It was a real community effort, made possible by the hard work of the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria.

This association provides information, support and tools to help immigrants reach their goals and to help individuals and organizations connect across cultures. The diversity fair is one more in a long list of contributions that the intercultural association makes to our community. I ask the members of the House to join with me in thanking all of those who came together to deliver another successful Diversity Health Fair.

WEBSTERS CORNERS HERITAGE
AND FINNISH COMMUNITY IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Dalton: I recently attended the 14th annual Webster's Corners Day, hosted by the Webster's Corners Association. Maple Ridge has a rich history that springs from a number of pioneer communities, including Ruskin, Albion, Haney, Hammond and Websters Corners.

Websters Corners was established in 1882 by a Scottish man named James Murray Webster from Aberdeen, Scotland. Hence, Websters Corners. He settled with his family on a 160-acre homestead east of Martin's Road, now 256 Street, and south of Dewdney Trunk Road.

In 1905 Finnish settlers arrived at Websters Corners to take over a shingle boat operation that had been abandoned by a Chinese crew because of the dismal camp
[ Page 207 ]
conditions and poor wages. It's hard to see why the grim job attracted this Finnish group to Websters Corners, but they were desperate.

[1345]

They had just come from a failed logging and farming venture on Malcolm Island, off of B.C.'s north coast. Started by a charismatic socialist, Matti Kurikka, this was now to be an ideal commune based on the founding ethic of the Finnish people, the Kalevala. They rented several fishing boats and purchased a farm, which they called Sampola after the legendary magical mill that grinds out corn, salt and coins.

After seven years of communal living the magic wore off, and internal disputes led to its disbanding. The land was subdivided among its members, and Sampo Hall was built. Rather than discouraging the Finnish community, the dissolution of the commune restored everybody's spirit, and they actually got along better by living separately. Surprise.

The Sampo Hall still stands today, demonstrating its own version of the sisu, or stubbornness of the Finnish people. Websters Corners adds to the vibrant, historic multiculturalism of Maple Ridge.

KOREAN WAR

J. Shin: Hon. Members, I would like to share with you an excerpt from the memoir by Mr. Young-Gil Park, a Korean War veteran I'm privileged to have as my very good friend.

"It soon turned dark, and with anxiety kicked in sudden thirst. In the thick, black forest I crawled towards the sound of water and drank my fill out of the pool of it. It wasn't until the morning that I witnessed the dead soldiers floating atop of the small body of water that I drank out of. It was their blood that had quenched my thirst the night before and gave the life I live today."

The Korean war that started in June 1950, just a few months after my mother's birth, and ran its bloody course through July 1953, killed and devastated 2.5 million lives, including our own 516 Canadian soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice. I remember the stories of this war I heard on the laps of my grandparents — so horrifying that they are all too surreal for me to believe. So when a Port Moody resident by the name of Guy Black contacted me last month to join him on his two-day, 82-kilometer trekking through Burnaby, I jumped on that chance to make the four-hour midnight journey down to Mount Seymour with him to remember what has come to be known as Canada's forgotten war.

This year Canada celebrates 60 years of armistice and peace by designating year 2013 as the Year of Korea. It also marks 50 years of Canadian-Korean diplomatic relations. Sen. Yonah Martin also tabled a private member's bill, S-213, which will make July 27 as Korean War Veterans Day. Over 6 percent of people in my riding, Burnaby-Lougheed, are of Korean heritage, and I'm grateful to represent them as the first Korean-Canadian MLA in B.C.

Hon. Members, I ask for applause today for our war heroes and those who work in their honour. [Applause.]

Oral Questions

ELECTRICITY RATES

J. Horgan: Well, what a difference an election makes — one message before the election, another message after the election. Of course, what are we talking about? B.C. Hydro rates. Before the election the Deputy Premier said the following: "This isn't about politics. It's really about meeting a commitment we made which is we would take a look at hydro rates, find its costs, find its savings and do a better job." And then he said, "These rates make sense. They're going to be better for the consumer. We don't need higher rates" — before the election. After the election, new minister, and he says: "No one in government thinks that we can get by without rate increases."

Of course, we're not all finished with the election, hon. Speaker, as you know. There's still an election going on in Kelowna. No rate increases there, but 84 of us will have to go back to our constituencies. So my question to the minister is: when are the rates going to go up and by how much?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, my critic all last week was complaining and talking about how we should raise rates for B.C. Hydro so that B.C. Hydro can become.... I think he used the word solvent. It's not a word that I would use or agree with, but he did spend a considerable amount of energy last week talking about how rates should be higher.

[1350]

This is a new week. The tactics, obviously, have changed, and now the hon. member is talking about rates not going up. In fact, I didn't get the opportunity to actually listen to him on the radio this morning. I'm sorry that I didn't. But I did read the transcript. Clearly, what he's trying to do is trying to frighten ratepayers in the province.

In terms of what my job as Energy Minister is with respect to rates, let me just read what my mandate letter says: "Minimize rate increases to consumers and industry at B.C. Hydro while continuing to replace and build hydroelectric and transmission infrastructure." That's my job.

Madame Speaker: The official opposition House Leader on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: This is a quote from the minister. "We should have allowed hydro rates to go up on a more gradual basis." Completely contrary to what the Deputy
[ Page 208 ]
Premier said before the election and, again, contrary to what the current Premier is campaigning on in Kelowna. There, ratepayers don't have to pay for anything. It's all B.C. Hydro debt. It's not real debt. It's Monopoly money, as I've said before to the minister.

I'm delighted that the Premier has written a letter to the minister saying: "Keep rates down." I know that the Deputy Premier interfered in a rate hearing, cancelled it and arbitrarily lowered rates. Now we have a minister saying something else.

Could the minister responsible inform the 84 of us who have constituents who are going to see significant rate increases — not just residential but commercial and industrial, which will have a profound impact on job creation? You're not doing too well on that front as it is. When will we know what the rate is, and when will we know it?

Hon. B. Bennett: The fact of the matter is that the previous Energy Minister and the current Premier — who I can name currently, for a few more days — Christy Clark actually presided over a 17½ percent rate increase. So when the Energy critic actually stands in this House and suggests that somehow or other they lowered rates…. They didn't lower rates. They were actually there at a time when we increased B.C. Hydro rates.

Now, it sounds like the Energy critic wishes that we had increased rates more. Apparently, that's an NDP position — that we should have increased hydro rates before the election more than we did. But they were increased by 17½ percent.

As my mandate letter states, it is a balance between trying to keep a lid on the increase in rates…. And rates will have to go up. I've said that in the media, and I've certainly said it here before. I'll say it again. It's a reality. But only let those rates go up to the smallest rate of growth possible, while at the same time investing in the infrastructure that B.C. Hydro needs to invest in and that wasn't invested in, in the 1990s, so that we can maintain these 50-, 60-year-old assets that, clearly, the hon. member is not familiar with.

The John Hart dam right here on Vancouver Island is going to cost about $1 billion dollars, for that project. We have to do that work. B.C. Hydro has to do that work, and that will have some impact on rates. But we will keep them down as much as we possibly can.

Madame Speaker: The official opposition House Leader on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Perhaps the minister should pay more attention to the briefings. The John Hart project hasn't started yet. That debt has not yet been incurred. We are not going to be paying rate increases for something that hasn't happened yet, but we will be paying rate increases on smart meters. We will be paying rate increases on the northwest transmission line. We will be paying rate increases on a host of other misguided projects under this government's watch.

In 2010 the Clean Energy Act exempted almost everything — everything — from the B.C. Utilities Commission, except rates. And what did the Deputy Premier do? He intervened in that rate hearing and cancelled it and increased rates by 1.44 percent, which means over the past ten years a 41 percent increase in total by this government. And it gets worse.

[1355]

Again, to the minister: I know you've got new talking points. I know they're trying to bring you around to the Premier's point of view. But apparently, last week all of us in government knew there were going to be rate increases. We just don't know how big and when. So perhaps start with that simple question.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, B.C. Hydro has a three-year capital plan. There are a number of projects that are on the drawing board, like the John Hart project. There are a number of projects that are just very, very recently completed. And there are a number of projects that are being built today.

I think it's, first of all, important for the public to understand that B.C. Hydro's three-year capital plan target will be met. They will not be over budget. They have at least one project that is over, which we all know about — a project that we think is very important, on this side of the House, and a project that the opposition loves to talk about.

But there are other projects. There's a project from the Kootenays, called the Columbia Valley transmission line, which actually was under budget. There is also the Stave Falls spillway project, which was recently completed and, again, under budget. There are a number of projects that are ongoing today. There are probably, I would think, at least half a dozen projects that are part of the three-year capital plan for B.C. Hydro and that are trending under budget.

Overall, even with the northwest transmission line being over budget, they will meet their three-year capital plan.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY

C. James: As we've just heard, this government has a record of saying one thing and doing just the opposite. Here is another example. The Premier promised to share the economic benefits of this province with everyone, and just days ago the Speech from the Throne promised to secure a bright future for B.C.'s children, yet the latest numbers from Statistics Canada show that these B.C. Liberal promises mean nothing to families in British Columbia.

The numbers show that B.C. is tied for the worst child
[ Page 209 ]
poverty rate in this country. That's after coming dead last on child poverty in nine of the last ten years. Children don't live alone in poverty; families live in poverty. So much for families first.

Can the Minister of Children and Families explain why this government has no comprehensive plan to address these shameful statistics?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one on either side of this House wants to see a child or a family living in poverty, but what the opposition continues to neglect to say is that the child poverty rate in British Columbia has declined by 41 percent since 2003. It remains at one of its lowest rates in over three decades, and clearly, there is still a lot more to do.

The B.C. jobs plan is building a foundation for the economy of British Columbia to create an atmosphere for investment which will create jobs for families in every region of B.C. In fact, the jobs plan, since it was created, has seen more than 50,000 new jobs created in British Columbia. Under the jobs plan, we're making significant investments in skills training to make sure that families across British Columbia have the skills they need to take advantage of those jobs.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I'd just remind the minister that since the Premier's jobs plan was introduced, the province has actually lost private sector jobs. How is that a plan for families living in poverty?

Children need action today. The numbers show an increase of 6,000 children living in poverty in B.C. in just one year alone — 6,000 children. And those aren't numbers; these are children — children who are struggling, who face unstable housing, uncertain health. Every year we wait is a year lost to those children.

[1400]

Families are struggling today, and instead of helping them, this government is increasing MSP premiums. They're hiking hydro bills. Does this minister think that children should have to wait any longer to get action from this government?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I know that the member opposite and all of the members in the House understand that children aren't poor alone. They're poor because their families don't have good jobs.

There are two ways to tackle the issue of poverty. The first is to create jobs and grow our economy. The second is to create government programs. This is clearly where we differ from the opposition, in that we know that the only real way out of poverty is a job. In fact, since the jobs plan was introduced, not only are there 50,000 more jobs in the province, but there are 41,000 fewer children living in poverty than at any time under the NDP government.

CORE REVIEW AND
STATUS OF PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN

S. Simpson: What we know is that there are 6,000 more children today than there were a year ago living in poverty, and that's 6,000 children and their families. B.C. has had the worst record on child poverty in this country for the last decade.

While this government has refused to take any meaningful action for those families, they have pledged to move forward with a core review, a review that will look for programs in every ministry that can be cut. The last core review dismantled agencies like the Children's Commission and left 700 unfinished child death review cases to languish in a warehouse. Will the Minister for Core Review commit today to this House that not a penny will be taken from
programs for B.C.'s most vulnerable children as a result of his review?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The health and safety of children in this province is my top priority as minister. As with all ministries, it's important that we ensure that we are continuing to use all of our resources in the most efficient and effective way possible and improve on the services we continue to provide, in an ongoing way.

The core review process has not yet been fully developed, but as Minister of Children and Family Development, it is my job to ensure that any decisions made will not have a significant impact on the vulnerable children that we serve. We're absolutely committed to serving vulnerable people in this province and ensuring that we continue to deliver the critical front-line services that we all depend on.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, what we know is that what this government has on the table today for poor kids and poor families is woefully inadequate. It doesn't meet their needs today. This minister made no commitment with that answer that there wouldn't be more cuts.

The other thing we know is that a core review needs to be thoughtful to have value. It needs to look not just at expenditures but also at service levels. Ending a decade of neglect on child poverty requires a long-term strategy. The core review offers nothing. We've had a Minister for Core Review here, and there's been a little bit of vague rhetoric from this minister in the press — nothing substantive, no commitments, no promises — about protecting vulnerable people.

If the minister is serious, if he's truthful that this is what he's going to do, commit today that the terms of reference will ensure that not a penny will be taken from [ Page 210 ]
vulnerable citizens in this province because of your review.

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I stated and will continue to do, the health and safety of children is my top priority.

The core review process is about making sure government is structured for success. We made a promise to British Columbians that we would manage every penny and that we would balance the budget on their behalf. They asked us to make sure we would get to yes on economic development projects without needless delays. We were elected, in part, on that promise, and we intend to keep it.

Part of the process of a core review is to look at all government programs, all services and expenditures, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we do a good job of this process.

FUNDING FOR HEALTH AUTHORITIES

J. Darcy: Before and during the recent election the Liberals repeatedly claimed that health services for British Columbians would be maintained. The Finance Minister knows, as a former Health Minister, that health budgets will rise to match inflationary increases and a growing aging population.

In order to maintain the fiction that their budget is balanced, the Liberals have cut planned spending in health authorities by $165 million. The CEO of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has already said that his health authority is facing a $27 million shortfall.

Can the Health Minister tell this House how it's possible for health authorities to be short tens of millions of dollars in their budgets and yet still maintain services for patients? How is that possible?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the first question in this ministry, which I'm very proud to lead.

British Columbia has among the best health outcomes in all of Canada. On this side of the House it is outcomes that matter. On the other side of the House it apparently is how much money you can spend on a particular program.

British Columbia has a tremendous health care plan. We have a plan, going forward, to bend down the increasing costs of health care, which is the only way that we can have a sustainable health care system to look after the needs of each and every British Columbian. We are, over the next three years, spending $2.4 billion more in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

HEALTH OUTREACH PROGRAM
IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: This is not some theoretical argument about numbers. What we're talking about affects real people in profound ways.

In my community of New Westminster, Fraser Health has cut $80,000 from the Lookout Society's outreach program, a program that supports the homeless and people with mental illnesses, addictions and other medical conditions. It's a program that saves money by keeping patients out of costly acute care beds and out of the criminal justice system.

To cover the empty promises in the Liberals' bogus budget, patients in my community are having services cut. Will the minister ensure that resources to this program, which are going to be cut on July 15, are in fact protected, or will he then admit to British Columbians that the Liberals had no intention whatsoever of protecting health services for British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: This government is committed to ensuring we have one of the best health care systems in all of Canada. We spend $16.5 billion on health care; 42 percent of total government spending is on health care. But we know there are challenges, moving forward, to make sure that our health care system is sustainable.

[1410]

We are working with the health authorities to make sure that front-line services are maintained, and we will ensure that that happens. We also are looking for ways of finding efficiencies in the system through lab redesign, working with doctors, working with nurses to ensure that British Columbia continues to have the best health care system in all of Canada.

FUNDING FOR
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

S. Hammell: Last month, due to the Liberal government's budget cuts, there have been drastic reductions to mental health services. Funding to organizations such as the B.C. Schizophrenia Society and Mood Disorders Association were cut. In some cases community-based mental health programs were eliminated.

This will put more people on wait-lists, into emergency wards and into hospital beds. This will eliminate much-needed community support and preventive care. It will cost more. How can this government justify eliminating community-based resources when all evidence suggests they should be improving them?

Hon. T. Lake: Let's look at the facts. In 2011-12 the Health Ministry spent about $1.3 billion on mental health and substance abuse, which is an increase of 58 percent since 2000-2001.
[ Page 211 ]

We invested $57 million in the new Joseph and Rosalie Segal Centre in Vancouver, which is a total cost of $82 million. We invested $38 million in the HOpe Centre for Psychiatry and Education in North Vancouver. And we built — this government built — the Hillside Psychiatric Centre in Kamloops, which serves the needs of the Interior and does an exceptional job of looking after the concerns in mental health in the interior of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING AND SERVICES

S. Hammell: Hon. Minister, when you cut current services to vulnerable British Columbians, it's a cut. In the 2013-14 fiscal year the Liberal government cut the spending increase to the health authorities by $165 million, resulting in reduced funding to programs and service providers.

Despite claims from the other side of the House, this government is attempting to balance its budget by cutting vital services to some of the most fragile British Columbians. My question to the minister is: what other cuts to services are hidden in this bogus budget?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm not quite sure what part of "$2.4 billion increase" the member opposite doesn't understand. B.C. has one of the best systems in Canada.

We're the only province to receive an A grade for health status in a report from the Conference Board of Canada. We have the overall best cancer survival rates in this country, the longest life expectancy in Canada and a 58 percent increase in spending to address mental health and substance abuse issues in this province.

We will continue to invest in health care, but we will do it through a lens of health outcomes, not to see if we can spend the most in all of Canada, like the opposition would do.

THE ART STUDIOS THERAPY PROGRAM
IN EAST VANCOUVER

M. Elmore: The Art Studios in East Vancouver has been providing an innovative therapy and recovery program to people with mental illnesses for 21 years. The program is nationally recognized, has over 600 clients and serves everyone from youth to seniors.

[1415]

Not only has the program provided a network of support and a sense of family for people faced with unimaginable challenges; in many cases it's saved lives. So will the minister explain why, just a few weeks ago, the B.C. Liberal government cancelled this program?

Hon. T. Lake: We are continuing to invest in mental health — as I mentioned, a 58 percent increase since 2000-2001. Our ten-year plan to address mental health and substance use in British Columbia — Healthy Minds, Healthy People — is a road map to further improving mental health, reducing problematic substance use and addressing mental illness for all British Columbians.

Let's compare to the NDP of the 1990s. They had a $125 million, seven-year mental health plan that was announced and, lo and behold, never appeared in the budget. So while the NDP had a phantom mental health plan, we have a real ten-year mental health plan. On this side of the House we are proud of our accomplishments in health care in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington on a supplemental.

M. Elmore: Well, I can tell the minister that today 600 members who access the Art Studios in Vancouver-Kensington are faced with a loss of services, and it's due to broken promises of the election by this government to balance a budget. It's a bogus budget, and people with mental illness are paying the price for that.

Clients will tell you and staff will tell you that this is a successful program. But after 21 years of service to the community this government has decided that clients at the Art Studios, some of our most vulnerable citizens, are too expensive to care for. Will the minister explain how this government can afford to give pay raises to party loyalists but can't afford to fund therapies for people with mental illnesses?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, we are spending $1.3 billion every year on mental health and substance use. We've had significant improvements. Let me list a few of them for you.

The number of adult community mental health beds in B.C. increased 95 percent, with 4,714 new beds since 2001. The number of community substance use beds has increased by 196 percent, with 1,715 new beds since 2003. The number of general practitioners providing mental health and substance abuse services increased 1,764. We are training more psychiatrists, up 527.

We are proud of the health care system we have in British Columbia. Again, it is outcomes that make a difference in people's lives, not shovelling money off the back of a truck, which is what the NDP opposition would do.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present two reports from the Office of the Registrar
[ Page 212 ]
of Lobbyists related to the lobbying activities of Mr. Joe Fieder. The first report is the initial investigation findings by acting deputy registrar Jay Fedorak. The second report is the registrar's findings in respect of Mr. Fieder's request for reconsideration of the administrative penalty imposed by the acting deputy registrar.

Motions Without Notice

POWERS AND ROLE OF FINANCE AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, by leave, the following motions. These motions have been provided to the hon. Opposition House Leader, and, I believe, independent members of the House as well.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2013 on the results of those consultations; and

2.

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory officers:

(i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

(v) Merit Commissioner

(vi) Ombudsperson

(vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

(viii) Representative for Children and Youth; and

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to other matters brought to the Committee's attention by any of the Officers listed in 2 (a) above.

3. The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services shall be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2), and that the performance report in section 22 of the Auditor General Act be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

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

By leave, I so move.

[1420]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the reports of the Auditor General of B.C. deposited with the Speaker of the assembly during the first session of the 40th parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Those reports are enumerated in the motion that has been provided to members of the House.

By leave, I so move:

[1. That the reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia deposited with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly during the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament be deemed referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with the exception of the report referred to in section 22 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2), which is referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, and in addition that the following reports of the Auditor General of British Columbia be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

• Summary Report: Results of Completed Projects (December 2011)

• Development Initiative Trusts: An Audit of Legislative Compliance and Public Accountability Practices in the Three Statutory Trusts (April 2012)

• Audits of Two P3 Projects in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor (July 2012)

• The Status of IT Controls in British Columbia's Public Sector: an analysis of audit findings (July 2012)

• Follow-up Report: Updates on the implementation of recommendations from recent reports (October 2012)

• Summary Report: Results of Completed Projects and Other Matters (December 2012)

• Observations on Financial Reporting: Summary Financial Statements 2011/12 (December 2012)

• Securing the Justin System: Access and Security Audit at the Ministry of Justice (January 2013)

• An Audit of Biodiversity in B.C.: Assessing the Effectiveness of Key Tools (February 2013)

• Striving for Quality, Timely and Safe Patient Care: An Audit of Air Ambulance Services in B.C. (March 2013)

• An Audit of Carbon Neutral Government (March 2013)

• Audit of the Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project (March 2013)

• Public Sector Board Use of Information in British Columbia 2012: Progress Update Since 2009 (April 2013)

• School District Board Governance Examinations (April 2013)

• Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports (April 2013)

2. That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be the committee referred to in sections 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 of the Auditor General Act.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee

be empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee,

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

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

POWERS AND ROLE OF
CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I also move that the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the B.C. child welfare system and, in particular, to conduct the liaison work that is enumerated in the motion with the Representative for Children and Youth, thereafter referred to as the representative.

Again, with leave, I so move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be appointed to be empowered to foster greater awareness and understanding among legislators and the public of the BC child welfare system, and in particular to:

1. Be the committee that receives and reviews the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth (the "Representative") that includes a statement of goals and identifies specific objectives and performance measures that will be required to exercise the powers and perform the functions and duties of the Representative during the fiscal year;

2. Be the committee to which the Representative reports, at least annually;

3. Refer to the Representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child; and

4. Receive and consider all reports and plans delivered by the Representative to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee;

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

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO APPOINT AN AUDITOR GENERAL

Hon. M. de Jong: I with leave move that a special committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an Auditor General, pursuant to section 2 of the Auditor General Act and point out that the committee of selection, as with all of the committees referred to thus far today, indicated which members will participate in that process. This motion, if the House endorses it, will charge the committee with that task.

With leave, I so move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an Auditor General, pursuant to section 2 of the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c.2). The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee;

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

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I should say at the outset that I…. My regards to all of the members, and thanks to those who have thus far participated in the budget deliberations, most particularly members who have joined the
[ Page 214 ]
House for the first time and have provided their contribution to the discussions around that very important function, that being the collection of revenues by the Crown from British Columbians and the redistribution of that through various expenditure programs.

I should say as well — and I will assure the House my remarks will be very brief — that I am also grateful, as I think that the official opposition critic would point out, for the opportunity to have injected, procedurally, something new in the initial stages of debate. Members, I hope, will feel free to provide commentary or thoughts on the introduction of a more visual component to the discussion, either directly or through their caucus representatives. Perhaps it is something that a committee like LAMC, or some other agency of the House, may wish to consider in the future in terms of the reaction to what took place and whether it has a place in future deliberations, or at all, in the chamber.

Beyond that, let me say this, substantively. I listened, as I always do, with interest and care to the commentary, particularly that from the opposition, in the aftermath of the electoral process and the reintroduction of a budget that, I have to say, candidly, was met with very little surprise. That doesn't upset either me or the government, because it was meant to be a reflection of what the government had introduced back in February. It was intended to contain the same provisions, because that's what the pledge was.

[1425]

The commentary from most quarters in the opposition benches, I have to say, was predictable. Maybe it was asking a lot to think that perhaps in the aftermath of the electoral process, the election, that some of that commentary would change. It is, after all, the opposition's duty to critique and not endorse. But to persist, in the face of all reasonable evidence, in the kinds of categorizations that I heard repeatedly, I think adds little to the discussion.

I understand in making the difficult choices that governments are obliged to make to balance a budget that there will be disagreements. But to simply dismiss the effort as not being legitimate, I think adds little to the public discourse.

I suppose that having at no point over the last three or four months indicated even for a moment that it appreciates the importance of balancing the budget, having ignored and refused to even for a moment acknowledge that there is an important objective being served to do so, it would fall automatically that the official opposition would seek to denigrate the efforts of a government that does place great importance in balancing the budget.

We said in February that's what lay at the heart of a budget that was remarkable by pre-election standards for not containing a plethora of spending promises. Though I'm sure the opposition hoped and thought the government would never have an opportunity to follow through on that promise, here we are debating that document, that budget, which is balanced.

So in the days ahead — and there are not many days ahead, which is why I will bring my remarks to a close so we can get on with the task there….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: There was a day when I would have taken that bait.

There is important work ahead, and now we will move to the part of the process where members — particularly members of the official opposition, independent members — will have an opportunity to consider the budget with respect to individual departmental allocations. We will begin that this afternoon.

I hope even in the course of that exercise that members will accept that the government, members of the government caucus, were very, very clear and sought a mandate from the people of British Columbia to administer their budget, their revenues, on the basis of a certain set of principles. At the heart of that: the fundamental principle that said we would not spend more of their money than people send to us. That lies at the heart of the budget.

If it were easy, B.C. wouldn't be one of the only provinces able to boast a balanced budget. If it were easy, British Columbia wouldn't be one of the only jurisdictions in North America able to boast a triple-A credit rating.

[1430]

It is actually possible to quantify the benefits that accrue to British Columbians as a result of that triple-A credit rating: the lower borrowing costs, the debt-servicing costs — the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that are saved in debt-servicing costs that are now available to apply to programming and other worthwhile public endeavours. These are real, tangible benefits.

I hope, as the deliberations occur over the course of the next three weeks…. We heard again today about concerns around the health care budget, a health care budget that is growing by $2.4 billion. I listened and read carefully, because I understand the opposition's position — I think I understand it — that $2.4 billion is not enough. I think that's what they're saying. I listened in vain for any indication from the opposition as to how much was enough and never heard it — didn't hear it three months ago, didn't hear it two months ago, didn't hear it in the last two weeks.

I would suggest that the opposition at this point in time, in addition to the criticism that it is charged with bringing, has another obligation, and that is to provide, in ways that I guess they chose not to two and three months ago, British Columbians with more specific information about how much more of the public's tax dollars they intend to devote to these services or how much more of the public tax dollars they intend to take from other public services.
[ Page 215 ]

Those are the tough choices. Those are the tough choices that we are obliged to make to set our economy on a firm foundation and allow for the job creation that we believe lies at the heart of a prosperous British Columbia going forward.

It will be interesting to hear during the give-and-take of the estimates debate that will follow whether or not any of that information or views emerge from the opposition. The executive branch, for its part, will do its best, I can assure members, to provide answers to the questions that undoubtedly will follow in the days ahead.

I therefore move, seconded by the hon. Deputy Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[1435]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, is there agreement to waive the time?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

Motion approved on the following division:

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I've provided the following motion, which I move with leave now, to the hon. Opposition House Leader and independent members.

I'll summarize it: "Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes of the Committee of Supply for this session to sit in two sections, designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such committee room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the chamber of the assembly, subject to the following rules."

The rules are enumerated, and I am assured that they are the same rules as have been customary in this House, governing the conducting of the two committee rooms.

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

3. Section A shall consist of 17 Members, being 10 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 6 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved. For the first session of the Fortieth Parliament, the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and, Messrs. Letnick, Morris, Throness, Ashton, Hamilton, Sultan, Kyllo, Yap and Mme. Tegart, and Messrs. Horgan, Simpson, Farnworth, and Mmes. Karagianis, Hammell and Corrigan, and Ms. Huntington.

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

5. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.
[ Page 216 ]

8. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

By leave, I move that motion.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call estimates debate in Committee B, this chamber, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources; and, in Section A, Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FORESTS, LANDS AND
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Hon. M. de Jong: With permission, with the leave of all members, I'm going to suggest that the member for Cowichan Valley be authorized to participate in the committee proceedings in this Committee B from a chair other than his own, the chair being the one for Vancouver–Point Grey. I think it'll facilitate a smoother proceeding if he has that opportunity, and I seek leave of the committee for that purpose.

[1445]

Leave granted.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $340,367,000.

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to the beginning of the estimates debate for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I want to introduce the staff that are with me here, to start. I expect, given the nature of the issues that I expect want to be canvassed, that we'll be moving staff in and out of the chairs as required — a bit of a revolving door there. I appreciate the cooperation of the members opposite as that process happens.

I appreciate the advance advice that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke provided us on the nature of the issues he'd like to cover. I hope we've got the staff organized appropriately for it, but it may take us a little bit of shuffling and adjustment as we move through it, so I appreciate that cooperation.

With me is Dave Peterson, acting deputy minister for the ministry; Tom Ethier, who is the assistant deputy minister of resource stewardship; and Tom Jensen, who is the assistant deputy minister of timber pricing. That's the way we'll start, and if we need to adjust, we'll change as the questions and discussion come forward.

I appreciate…. As I said, I'm looking forward to the debate on the estimates. As you know, British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and naturally resourceful people who are committed to building a strong economy, building a secure tomorrow for British Columbia.

Our ministry is a critical part of the government's mandate to build that strong economy, because economic health is the only way that British Columbians can continue to afford strong public services — health care, education, skills training, social programs. They are only possible if we have a strong economy that can sustain them, so we need to continue to grow our economy and create the high-paying jobs for the people of British Columbia. That's the bottom line, and that's why this ministry will maintain its focus on the steps laid out in the B.C. jobs plan.

As Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I'm proud to be working with a group of professionals who are dedicated to achieving this objective and creating jobs, along with providing the environmental stewardship that ensures our children and our grandchildren will enjoy B.C.'s natural benefits. During this process you'll meet a number of those dedicated professional staff who provide that service to our ministry.

It's a diverse ministry, a wide range of responsibilities that include managing our forests, Crown land and water resources and overseeing provincial fish, wildlife, heritage and archaeology. As the single land manager for B.C.'s resource sector, we play a critical role in economic development of the province, leading a streamlined approach that integrates policy with operational resource management.

We've already made great strides within the ministry under the jobs plan. One of our key commitments was for the ministry to reduce the backlog in mining notice-of-work applications by 80 percent by August 2012 and to reduce the backlog in land and water authorizations, each by 50 percent, by December 2012. We achieved those reduction targets and went beyond them. We reduced notice-of-work applications almost 92 percent by August 2012, and we continue to focus on streamlining
[ Page 217 ]
the permitting processes for those authorizations.

[1450]

We've also achieved the targets on Land Act and Water Act authorizations. Our mandate is to continue to work on solidifying the operations of the ministry, making sure that we continue to address those authorizations, improving our permitting processes and strengthening the core operations of the ministry.

In fall 2012 the ministry also released Beyond the Beetle: A Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan as part of our government's ongoing response to the mountain pine beetle infestation and the response to the work of the mid-term timber supply committee recommendations. This action plan focused on forest inventory, fuel management, reforestation, intensive and innovative silviculture and a strategic inventory plan that will increase the area for re-inventory from 18 million hectares to 35 million hectares, with the highest priority being those areas impacted by the pine beetle.

Key priorities for the year ahead that have been set out in our mandate are to continue to work in partnership to diversify and grow important markets for the forest industry; to grow and diversify those key markets in China, Japan, India and Korea, building on the successes that we've achieved to date; to work and consult with communities about the mid-term timber supply committee report and a process to address recommendations around area-based tenures; to streamline mining application processes to ensure that they can be done on line and as quickly and as efficiently as possible; to review provincial permitting processes to eliminate red tape wherever possible without compromising safety and environmental standards; to examine the rules and the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales and develop recommendations for improvement; to work with the forest industry to develop the cellulose filament research opportunity in British Columbia; to work with guide-outfitters in the province to ensure certainty and continuity for this important sector; and to support economic opportunities throughout the province.

The allocations for the ministry's 2013-14 budget reflect those priorities.

I'm very pleased to be leading this ministry, because we've had, as I said, those successes to date. We've noted some very significant successes in the forest sector: increasing jobs — in 2011-2012, 3,000 new jobs; a 6 percent increase — and building the lumber export market. Particularly, exports to the U.S. were up 11.3 percent from 2011, and the value was up by 25 percent.

Softwood lumber exports to China in 2003 were $69 million. We've grown those by 1,500 percent to almost $1.1 billion in 2011, and that has held steady in 2012.

Production of wood pellets has increased almost two million tonnes, almost double the volume produced in 2010. Since 2002 we've signed forestry agreements with 175 First Nations, providing them more than $324 million in revenue-sharing and access to over 63 million cubic metres of timber, making significant strides in building capacity for First Nations involvement in the forest sector.

A great deal of progress has been made. Certainly, there is more to be done as we build on the improved returns and the opportunities ahead of us.

I look forward to the questions from the members opposite. We will endeavour to answer them to the best of our ability. Where we don't have the specific information, as we have done through the process before with the members opposite, we will undertake to provide the information requested as a follow-up. I found that that's a process that has worked well in previous estimate debates with the members opposite.

Again, I look forward to the questions.

[1455]

N. Macdonald: In a preamble to the 2012 estimates debate we made some important points, we felt, which the government chose to completely ignore. From what I can glean from the letter outlining her expectations that the Premier sent to the minister, this government's plans are to go against the people's will on some specified initiatives in the letter and to completely ignore those pressing challenges that we must confront if we are to leave something of our natural renewable resource heritage for our children to work with.

Accordingly, some of the points made in the preamble to the 2012 estimates bear repeating — that the sound management of B.C.'s forests is a matter of utmost public importance. Its management, moving forward, will be even more so, given known challenges around forest inventory, biodiversity decline, climate change, our vitally important water resources and escalating competing demands on our forest land base, most notably in the energy and mining sectors.

The Forest Practices Board has sounded the alarm on cumulative impacts on the landscape. More recently, last month the CEO of the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, in a report to members…. I'm sure the minister has seen the B.C. Forest Professional Magazine. I'll quote from that.

This is from Sharon Glover in the magazine's June 2013 edition. It goes:

"It's time for us to restart the conversation about cumulative impacts. Results to date of current processes for planning are of concern. It's time for a more holistic view of our forested land base and all that we can achieve on it. As the stewards of our resources, the government needs to optimize the use of its land, water and resources for the economic, social and environmental benefit of the people of B.C."

That's in the most recent edition of B.C. Forest Professional, by Sharon Glover.

When one considers the central purpose of bringing natural resources, planning and management under one ministry, this is a condemning indictment of the B.C.
[ Page 218 ]
Liberal government's performance — a failure, I think, that has been only too predictable, given the emptiness of substance in ministry service plans for, I think it's fair to say, well over a decade.

It has been said that the annual ministry service plan report has never been so slim and empty of content since our men and women went to the front during the last world war. The primary reason for this failure is that the ministry, given its stunningly broad mandate, is grossly under-resourced in staffing and operational funding.

Historically and for understandable reasons, much of the focus during sessions such as this has been on the financial side of the equation. How much revenue is coming in? How great are the expenditures?

Often the focus on the financial side tends to be coarse and misses the key points. For instance, in which regions are the revenues generated? In which regions are funds spent related to the ministry expenditures? Which programs receive funding increases, and which do not? Finally, are projected revenues and expenditures up to providing what the public considers essential services?

I made similar points during the 2012 estimates debate, but since then I have seen little progress in dealing with the enormous challenges posed by the mountain pine beetle and climate change.

Now, we hear routinely about the number of trees killed over the 17-million-plus hectares of land and about the tremendous reforestation challenges that such tree mortality poses. What we rarely hear talk of is the implications that such tree mortality pose for our province's vitally important shared public water resources.

Yet it is this ministry that bears stewardship responsibilities for both our publicly owned forests and freshwater resources — a responsibility given added weight and public concern by this government just this April, when it transferred those responsibilities for allocating public water resources to energy company applicants from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to the Oil and Gas Commission, effectively putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

It strikes me as key, then, that we have a full understanding of both revenue streams moving forward and how investments in forests will benefit both the land and water.

I want to emphasize, in my approach to the estimates before us — in fact, the approach that my colleague from Cowichan Valley and I will take — that it's important we realize that British Columbia's Crown land base is immense and is a public asset of the first order. British Columbians, of course, own 94 percent of the land and all of the province's freshwater resources.

[1500]

The challenges ahead are enormous, given the rate of climate change, but while today's management challenges may differ from those a century ago, the key responsibilities to protect the public interest remain. What Minister of Lands William Ross said nearly 100 years ago, to the day, remains so today. The government, on behalf of the people, has a responsibility to hand down to future generations their "vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

Here we are talking primarily about the province's renewable resources, for which this government has progressively cut funding by up to 52 percent over the last 12 years while having increased the total provincial budget by 56 percent and while the provincial debt has climbed from $33 billion or so up to upwards of $63 billion.

When viewed from this perspective, the health and well-being of our community is tied very closely to the health of our forests. If our forests are healthy, then the air we breathe and the water we drink are clean and safe, and the communities we live in are safer and more resilient because the lands surrounding them are resilient as well.

Realizing this vision is not easy, however, and it is made far more difficult if the government persists in old and, frankly, dangerous ways of thinking within very short electoral cycles. If our forest-dependent rural communities, in particular, are to have a future, the province needs to embrace longer-term visions, goals and strategies in keeping with the healthy rotation cycle of our forests. These visions, goals and strategies should be embodied in a clear and transparent provincial plan that sets out how key objectives relating to our forest, land and water resources will be met.

My concern with the estimates document before us is that, as our Auditor General recently pointed out, there is no long-term plan and no long-term objectives against which to assess government's planned expenditures in the key areas of our timber and water resources.

Beyond that, there is no coherent long-term plan that lays out a framework for where we, as a province, obviously need to go, which is to a future where we extract far fewer raw resources but ensure that the fewer resources we do extract provide optimum benefits to the people of British Columbia and that the resources we conserve provide optimal ecological services to sustain our society.

Without this long-term vision or plan and supporting goals, this government has no incentive to find innovative revenue sources to fund the work necessary to maintain our renewable natural resource and to leave our children something to work with.

Having framed that, let's get to the questions. The way this will work, Minister, is that my colleague and I will go back and forth, but the stream that we have prepared will be consistent. So you won't have to move staff around. The first question deals, of course, with revenue.

Let's look first at what we have in the documents here. Can the minister confirm that the revenue projection from Forests for this fiscal year is $593 million and that the updated actual revenue from Forests for 2012-2013 is $562 million?
[ Page 219 ]

[1505]

Hon. S. Thomson: To confirm, the revenue for 2012-13 was $537 million. The projected revenue in the plan for 2014-15 is $657 million.

I've just had that corrected. Sorry. The budget estimate, '13-14, is $593 million.

B. Routley: Just before I get into my questioning, I wanted to say that it is really something for me to be in this Legislature and to think back now some 42 years that I first started in the forest industry, back in the days when the Youbou sawmill that I worked in had 650 employees working in it. When it closed in 2001, that mill was down to about 200 employees.

We've seen that movie played out all over British Columbia. Literally thousands of forest workers, whether it be in all of the various kinds of mills, but also in logging, have lost their jobs. Forest and resource communities all over British Columbia have suffered the impacts of this tremendous change.

So we have some important questions about the revenue in this document. We're going to go through some of the baseline material, look at where we are today and then, we think, ask some thoughtful questions about where we need to go in the future.

But I do want to mention that since our last estimates, I actually requested some information which you provided, and that was about the number of mill closures. You sent a letter May 29, shortly after estimates in May. I think it's worth reading into the record the dramatic impact just on the coast alone.

From 2001 to 2011 — that's the period of time that you had numbers for — we've gone from 179 mills on the coast of British Columbia down to 111. That's a loss of 68 mills, with all of the thousands of workers and their families that were impacted by that.

The total loss of mills in all regions, and that includes the northern Interior, southern Interior and the coast, is 151 total mills closed since 2001 till 2011. It's dramatic and certainly something that is good to know — that there's a supercycle coming. We've heard those good-news stories since I started in this House four years ago. We heard speakers talking about the potential of a supercycle in the forest industry, which has yet to fully materialize, but hopefully, we will see some improvements.

With that, I would like to start the questioning, from my point of view, with: can the minister further confirm — by the way, this should be an easy one; you answered it already — that in the 2012 estimates the projected revenues from forest in 2013-14 were $557 million, and in 2014-15 they were $606 million.

[1510]

Hon. S. Thomson: For '12-13 the revised estimates were $517 million. The actual was $537 million. For '13-14, as I stated, the estimate is $593 million.

B. Routley: Can the minister confirm whether or not in the 2013 estimates the projected revenues from forests in 2014-15 are $657 million and in '15-16 are $693 million?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

B. Routley: Speeding things right along.

So based on actual revenue from the forests of $562 million in 2012-13 — at least I think that's what you said; you might have said a different number — the projected revenue for 2014-15 has increased to $657 million — a change of plus $51 million, plus or minus 8 percent. And for 2015-16 forest revenues are projected to increase by $87 million, or plus 13 percent.

My question for the minister is: how does the minister account for this upward change in projections, and what variables, precisely, have changed?

[1515]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite may know, the revenue forecasting process is very, very complex in terms of lots of variables that go into determining those. It's done by professionals within the branch and worked through in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance.

The forecast is based on current economic assumptions regarding U.S. housing starts, the exchange rate — lumber, pulp and other commodity prices go into the equation — harvest levels, overall harvest, seasonality patterns, the Asia market. A whole number of factors go into those calculations. As you know, U.S. housing starts are up. Exports to the U.S. continue to slowly return to modest levels. Exports to Asian markets, particularly China, have levelled over the past few months. That's built into the equation.

There are a significant number of factors that go into building the revenue forecasts, but essentially, the increased revenue is built on improving markets, increased harvest levels and continued growth in export markets.

N. Macdonald: The minister's answer appears to confirm that over a three-year period we'll witness a 13 percent increase in forest revenues. I heard what the minister gave as an explanation. I understand that.

I guess the question I would have is: what average percentage increase in stumpage does the ministry forecast for the Interior? Then, separate from that, what average percentage increase in stumpage does the ministry forecast for the coast? Does the ministry also factor into revenue forecasts…?

I think the ministry talked about a higher rate of cut, but is it not possible in some of those areas, if we break them apart, that we're talking about a slower rate of cut and lower allowable annual cuts in the AAC? Here I'm
[ Page 220 ]
thinking about the 12 worst-affected Interior timber supply areas and response to a known timber supply shortage as a result of the mountain pine beetle infestation.

[1520]

Hon. S. Thomson: I am advised…. In terms of the stumpage, as you know, there are quarterly updates to stumpage, both in the Interior and the coast, and those quarterly adjustments — at least the next ones — are factored into the forecasts. In the Interior it's anticipated that it will be about a $2 increase. On the coast — probably a more modest increase than that.

In terms of the stumpage, as you know, there are updates done, both on the coast and the Interior. Those updates, as they are done…. One is scheduled for the Interior in July. Another one is scheduled to follow that on the coast. Those calculations are not built into the forecasts, which means that if the…. It shows that our forecasts are conservative in nature.

As you know, the market pricing system reflects a market. So if the updates are done and presuming that there's not a negative harvest response to those potentially increased rates as the market pricing system updates are done, then that would potentially reflect an increased revenue to the province, which, again, goes back to the point that the calculations that have been built into the plan are conservative in nature.

B. Routley: A popular perception is that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations relies wholly on revenue from forest. Yet for the last 12 years it has not generated revenue sufficient to cover needed expenditures on the land. I would like to explore the truth of this perception.

The 2013 estimates before us detail expenses by the ministry and revenues by source, not by ministry. So the revenues we have been discussing so far in this debate are from forests, largely derived from stumpage and from B.C. timber sales. Over the past six or so years expenditures for the ministry closely match forest revenues.

My question for the minister is: what is the real, all-inclusive revenue for the ministry for fiscal years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16? A hint might be that you could find some numbers that are different on the service plan of the total ministry's revenue.

[1525]

Hon. S. Thomson: The question was: what was the total revenue forecast for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations? For 2013-14 it's $1,245,181,000; forecast for '14-15, which I think the member opposite was looking for, $1,252,565,000; and for '15-16, $1,334,828,000.

N. Macdonald: Given the total ministry revenues that the minister just listed and quoting from the ministry service plans and the respective ministry expenses…. If we just go to 2012-2013, I think the minister said $664 million. For 2013-2014 it was $561 million.

So just comparing the numbers that the minister provided and that we've talked about before, would the minister agree that the government has chosen to reinvest in the land about 53 percent, on average, of the ministry's present annual total revenues?

[1530]

Hon. S. Thomson: The calculation that the member opposite has done, in terms of the revenues collected within the ministry at the amounts that we referenced and expenditures, and the percentage calculation that was done…. I'm not going to argue about the percentage calculation, although I haven't calculated it exactly. It's more to recognize that the revenue we collect within the ministry for a variety of purposes also goes to fund important functions of government. It goes towards funding health care, education, social services.

That's about the process of building a balanced budget — to get revenues, where they are appropriate, and making appropriate investments within the ministry to undertake our obligations and our functions and also having the resources of this province contribute towards the services of government that citizens of the province want and require.

B. Routley: On page 18 of the three-year fiscal plan in the document entitled June Budget Update 2013/14–2015/16, under "Natural resource revenue" in table 1.8, the footnote to the entry "Other resource" lists "Columbia River treaty, other energy and minerals, water rental and other resources."

My question for the minister is: what specifically are other resources?

[1535]

Hon. S. Thomson: There would be a number of other…. The specific question was around what might be included in other resources. Those would be items like angling permits, hunting permits and licences, Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act licences and permits, land registry fees. A number of items like that would make up what is being referred to there as other resources — the sale of maps and air photos, a number of miscellaneous fees, licences and permits. Those forms of things would be in that category of other resources.

B. Routley: Thank you for that answer. How much revenue does each of those categories that you have mentioned under "Other revenue" generate?

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to provide a breakdown of those: water resources, $482 million; Wildlife Act fees
[ Page 221 ]
and licences, $20.2 million; Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act licences and permits, $19,000; land registry fees, $25,000; and land tenure revenue and other income and interest earned in relation to those, $123 million.

B. Routley: The water rental. How much revenue is derived from water rental in the fiscal year? I think you just gave us the answer for 2012-13, but what about 2013-14, 2014-15 and in 2015-16?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the figure of $482.067 million that I provided was the estimate for '13-14. Forecast for '14-15, $464 million, and forecast for '15-16, $470.149 million.

N. Macdonald: Mr. Chair, if you would kindly direct the minister to table A9, "Revenue by source," on page 120 of the three-year fiscal plan of the document titled June Budget Update 2013/14–2015/16. The minister will see that revenues from forests were $1.276 billion and $1.087 billion for fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 respectively.

My question is: what revenue sources have changed and by how much when one compares those revenues with the forecast revenue for fiscal year 2013-14? Is the difference confined to stumpage and B.C. Timber Sales revenues? Or are other factors at play, and if so, what are those factors?

Hon. S. Thomson: I wonder if I could, in order to make sure I provide the accurate answer, just get clarification of the numbers that the member opposite — the reference he was making. I just want to make sure I'm looking at the correct spot here.

N. Macdonald: This is from table A9 in the revenue by source on page 120, I understand. It talks about revenues from forests of $1.276 billion — hopefully, I have that correct — and $1.087 billion for the fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08.

[1545]

Then the question, of course, is just on the differences. Is that confined to stumpage and B.C. Timber Sales revenue, or are there other factors? And if there are other factors, what are they? Can the minister describe them?

Hon. S. Thomson: Without going…. I don't have all the specifics of the revenue sources in '06-07, '07-08, but I think, as the members opposite know, when we went into 2008 and '09, that was the significant downturn in the industry. So those changes would be reflective of both decreased stumpage, as a result of the stumpage reacting to the market-pricing system as we went into the downturn, and reduced harvest levels.

I'm also advised that…. That's why I say I don't have all the details. Given the restructuring in the ministry, there may have been some revenues from other ministries, in terms of some of the restructuring, that might impact it a little bit, although I don't know to what degree. I think it would be primarily related to stumpage and harvest levels.

[1550]

B. Routley: As the minister knows, there is a great deal of concern at present over the availability of sufficient volumes of timber to sustain today's sawmilling capacity, particularly in the Interior. The fire that completely destroyed the Babine Forest mill in Burns Lake exemplifies this. Subsequent to this fire, a cabinet document leaked in April 2012 confirmed timber supply shortages and outlined drastic measures to ensure that the Babine mill was rebuilt.

These measures included, among other options or proposals, (1) to log forest reserves in old-growth management areas previously off-limits, (2) to supersede the statutory powers of the chief forester and to override his independent professional oversight of timber supply and forest stewardship of publicly owned forests and (3) to roll over forest licences into tree farm licences, or TFLs, without the licensee meeting the normal criteria for conversion.

In an obvious attempt at damage control, the government convened the timber supply review committee, which I served on. The government appointed two past chief foresters as special advisers to the committee. The committee confirmed that interior British Columbia faces, indeed, critical timber supply shortages that will lead to mill closures.

Yet a full month before the minister publicly released a response to the committee's recommendations and the minister gave Hampton Affiliates a letter of intent, in September 2012, the minister was committing to a conversion of this American company's forest licences to a TFL.

In the mini-omnibus Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, the government covertly tried to pass enabling legislation that would allow cabinet to authorize conversion of forest licences to TFLs. A public outcry in early March 2013 forced the government to withdraw the offending sections of Bill 8. Yet in the Premier's mandate letter to the minister dated June 10, 2013, she outlined the expected outcomes, and we read that the government plans once again to introduce enabling legislation to permit the rollover of forest licences to TFLs under the pretext of area-based management.

I remind the minister of what Vaughn Palmer did not say in his recent column on the issue — the Vancouver Sun, June 26, 2013. What he did not say is that area-based management can happen under any form of tenure, including the present TSA system of management. I'll repeat that. Area-based management can happen under any form of tenure, including the present TSA system [ Page 222 ]
of management.

Two, the Special Committee on Timber Supply did not, in fact, recommend the conversion of volume-based licences to area-based tenures as the Premier contends in her letter to the minister. Rather, the committee gave significant and thoughtful cautionary recommendations and stated that if — and that's a big if — conversion to more area-based tenures is desirable, this is because the committee found during its public hearings that there is still no public consensus on the relative merits of area-based tenures and there is still significant concern about the potential near privatization of our largest public asset.

[1555]

This concern stems in part because of the unsavoury history of tree farm licences in this province and the immediate concerns about locking up large tracts of land for timber use when this might not be in the present best interests of British Columbians or in the future interests of our children here in British Columbia. Many view TFLs as a corporate giveaway of public assets with no, or only limited, strings attached. Others point out that the most atrocious examples of bad forest management have occurred on tree farm licences.

My question for the minister is: does he acknowledge extreme timber supply shortages in the Interior? Does he intend to table TFL-enabling language in this House, and if so, when?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. Certainly, I understand and agree and note that we have a significant issue of mid-term timber supply through that region. That was the purpose for tasking the committee to bring forward recommendations on how we might address that.

The committee and the members — both members opposite were members of that committee — did some good work over that time period and brought forward recommendations. We responded with Beyond the Beetle: A Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan, addressing those recommendations brought forward by the committee.

With respect to area-based tenures, that was a recommendation of the mid-term timber supply committee. As I committed earlier this spring and as is noted in the mandate letter, the ministry will launch and engage in a public engagement process this summer to raise awareness about the differences between the volume-based and area-based tenures and will solicit the feedback from communities, First Nations, the forest industry and the general public. The results of that public engagement will inform the future policy direction.

As the member opposite clearly pointed out, there were concerns raised — lots of misinformation, lots of perceptions about what it was and wasn't — and we need to make sure that we engage in that public process, as I committed we would do. As I said, that process will inform the policy direction.

[1600]

N. Macdonald: I think of greater concern to the House and to members of the Special Committee on Timber Supply is the need to respect the public interest on the issue of area-based tenures.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In its response, titled Beyond the Beetle, a mid-term timber supply plan that the minister references, their response to recommendation 5.1 of the committee's report to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations reaffirmed this point.

I think it's important to read the quotation from the report that the minister references. "One requirement for any proposed conversion will be ensuring that the public interest is addressed, through the support of…local community, First Nations, stakeholders and the public."

As the minister is aware, from the thousands of e-mails he and the Premier received in one day, in protest against sections of Bill 8 dealing with the conversion of forest licences to TFLs and his government's decision to withdraw the offending sections, it would be a long stretch to assert that reintroduction of legislation enabling corporations to roll over forest licences to TFLs is in the public interest, according to a broad swath of the public.

My question for the minister is: if the public outcry against Bill 8 in March of 2013 does not convince him that the forest licence rollover to TFLs for corporations is not in the public interest, then what do British Columbians need to do to convince him?

Hon. S. Thomson: I want to reference back to the recommendation that came forward from the committee, which was to increase the diversity of area-based tenures using criteria for conversion. Make sure that we…. It was quite clear in the recommendations that we needed to do it in a way that reflected public interest. I think the committee heard, through all of the submissions, that there were significant benefits to area-based management.

I know that that's the genesis and why the recommendation came forward. You know that we currently have about 20 percent of B.C.'s public land under area-based tenure, ranging from woodlots and community forests…. We have First Nations woodland licences, tree farm licences. So, clearly, there is a basis for it. There are provisions for it.

As we have committed, and I think that the members opposite know and were part of some of the concerns that were raised…. I hope what I'm not hearing from the members opposite is that they don't support the public dialogue to re-engage the public — and not just the public but others as we've committed to in the process, which includes First Nations, stakeholder groups, the industry
[ Page 223 ]
— in continued discussion on the benefits of area-based tenures. As I said, that will inform the policy direction.

[1605]

I think I've always made it clear, even in the discussion beforehand during Bill 8 and the subsequent decision to hold that at this time, that the steps that were taken clearly needed to be in the public interest.

I hope and expect that the discussion and the consultation process that we've agreed to take will clarify that and confirm it and allow us to bring forward policy direction in the area, because I think there is, as clearly recommended by the committee, a potential approach that would contribute to increasing mid-term timber supply in the future, which was the genesis of their recommendations.

B. Routley: On March 12, 2013, the minister commented in the House on the withdrawal of certain sections from Bill 8 dealing with forest licence rollover. I quote the minister from Hansard:

"As a result of the need for broader public consultation on this, as was mentioned by the Attorney General, in committee stage we'll be setting aside those sections of the legislation directed at area-based tenure change and initiating a process, a broader public consultation, this summer based on the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply special committee and this proposed legislation."

Will the minister confirm that this process of broader public discussion has not yet started or taken place?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. I think the question specifically was: can I confirm that the process hasn't started yet? And I think that's true; it hasn't. It hasn't started yet in terms of that process. While we have had some discussions with some organizations — including groups like the professional foresters and others — about how that process might best take place, we haven't determined the most appropriate process for that. We intend to do that.

I think we would have got that process started earlier, except for the current session that we're involved in. I think we also need to be cognizant…. As we go out in that process, we need to make sure that we go out in a time period where the public will be available for that engagement. I think the early parts of August and things are probably not the most appropriate time to do that. We would be criticized that we're running the process at a time when people may be more focused on other things.

We want to make sure that we do it right. We're working on the most appropriate options in order to do that. As I said, we're fully committed to ensure that we engage a process because it is a very important public policy discussion. Clearly, we need to do it in a way that makes sure people understand what it is and what it isn't that is being proposed.

N. Macdonald: I'm sure the minister will allow me to be somewhat cynical about these processes, because I did participate in a process with the Timber Supply Committee — which, in my view, wasn't one that the government took seriously. I don't see the connection, even of the unanimous recommendations, to decisions the government made, in terms of investments in the land, when in practical terms it led to cuts of between $35 million and $40 million. Process is important.

Now, in terms of the minister, in terms of the summer not being the right time, this is the time the government chose — the summer, right? It's not me who's saying we should be doing it in the summer. It's what the government suggested needed to happen. I guess the question is: if not the summer, then when? How long a process are we talking about? And what, within the budget, has been budgeted for that process?

[1610]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, just to confirm again, we're working on the options and potential options about how to best undertake that process. We don't have a specific budget developed. It will be managed within program budgets.

My expectation is that the time frame we're looking at would probably be getting into September, which depending on your definition of summer, still includes the summer. I don't think summer ends until somewhere into September, if we want to get on to the fine points.

Again, I think the important point here, to the members opposite, is that we are in discussions around the options. We do need to…. I am talking to important groups about the best way to undertake that, to ensure that we get that informed consultation process. As I said, we're fully committed to do it, to make sure that we do it in a way that allows for that process and allows for an informed discussion. It is not my intention to undertake it in a way that would not provide for that opportunity.

A. Weaver: The minister has mentioned that he's engaged discussions with important groups, has mentioned the professional foresters. My question is: have you yet discussed this process development with any environmental or other NGOs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite, I think for the first question.

No, not in a formal way yet, recognizing that we are just getting back into the process here, just really getting started. The discussions even with some of the other organizations have been more on the informal basis at this point, just sort of saying…. We haven't put specific options in front of them. I've just asked them to say: what would you think would be the best way to do this?

Certainly, we will have those discussions. As I said, we want to make sure the process is undertaken in a way that everybody will be comfortable that it provides for that informed discussion. That'll be critical, because I think
[ Page 224 ]
part of the challenge on the last process was perceptions and misinformation about what was being proposed and what wasn't and how public interest would be confirmed or would be part of that process. It didn't happen in a way that might have been most productive, so we want to make sure that we do that.

[1615]

I think there is no intention on my part not to have that discussion and not to make sure that it is done in a way that has the best chance of an informed discussion. I have had some very casual conversations with representatives in that area but nothing formal yet.

B. Routley: You'll appreciate that we get asked questions that only the minister can answer, so this question falls into that category. Ahead of any public discussion, has the minister already had backdoor discussions with West Fraser about granting that corporation the opportunity to roll over some of its forest licences into a TFL — quid pro quo, if you will, for West Fraser losing volume in the Lakes TSA if cabinet grants a TFL to Hampton Affiliates, as promised in the letter of intent?

Hon. S. Thomson: The short answer is no. There has been no…. The member opposite tries to infer that there has been some kind of quid pro quo backdoor discussions. The answer is clearly no. Very clearly, the process would have been designed to ensure that any consideration was transparent and in the public interest with notification and things.

I think that the member opposite should know that from time to time over a number of years, not just since the mid-term timber supply committee report, people have talked about some of the benefits of area-based tenure, and other interests and companies have come forward and talked about that — the Sinclar Group and Dunkley, for example. Dunkley held up as a very good example of what can be done under area-based management.

From time to time in the past there has obviously been interest expressed. But no, there has been no quid pro quo, no backdoor discussions, as the member opposite infers.

N. Macdonald: Next I'd like to drill a little deeper so that the public, the owner of the biodiversity of our forests and our water, can gain a better understanding of whether or not this ministry is asserting the financial interests of the Crown, as it is required to do under law.

Let's begin with a question for the minister on licences to cut timber. How much revenue — and this excludes stumpage — will the ministry generate this fiscal year for each of the following types of licences? I'll give you a number of them here: timber licence, forest licence, woodlot licence, timber sale licence and pulpwood agreements. This is excluding stumpage.

[1620]

Hon. S. Thomson: I was just checking here. We don't have that specific breakdown quickly and readily available for the member opposite. We can undertake to provide that and table that information when we resume tomorrow morning or as soon as possible. But I don't have the specific breakdown with me here.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. It's possible that the same will have to happen with the next couple of questions. As has been practice in the past, it's worked well if the minister can provide the information as quickly as possible.

Continuing on that, if you're getting that information, how much revenue — again, excluding stumpage — does the ministry expect to generate from each of these major licences in fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016? On top of that, what is the total AAC of timber associated with each type of agreement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify, you're asking for that information for that list you just provided of the various forms of licences. Yeah, we'll undertake to provide that as well.

N. Macdonald: My next question for the minister concerns revenue generated — again, excluding stumpage — from small business agreements. How much revenue, excluding stumpage, will the ministry generate from the small business forest enterprise program — SBFEP — non-replaceable and replaceable timber sales licences and from small business forest enterprise program non-replaceable forest licences all combined in this fiscal year?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, in response to the previous two questions, we'll include that information in the response.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. If you could also provide how much revenue, excluding stumpage, the ministry expects to generate from these small business agreements combined in the fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16. I'll just presume the minister will provide those as well, and then we'll move on to some other areas of revenue.

The next question for the minister concerns revenue generated — again, excluding stumpage — from various miscellaneous agreements. Here again, possibly, the minister will have to provide the information later on. How much revenue, excluding stumpage, will the ministry generate from licences to cut, free use permits, road permits and Christmas tree permits combined in the fiscal year as well as 2014-2015, 2015-2016?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, we'll add that request to the
[ Page 225 ]
list and provide that information. I thought we might have just reduced the workload a little bit with your first question, when you mentioned just the one year, and then you added in the extra years to it. So I thought…. But I fully expected that that was what was going to happen, and we'll make sure we provide, to the degree that we can, that information for all of those categories and for those respective years.

B. Routley: My next question relates to tree farm licences. I believe the ministry has some 34 tree farm licences on its books. Would the minister provide the revenue, excluding stumpage, it will generate from TFLs this fiscal year?

[1625]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, we'll undertake to provide that information. This is drilling down into a level of detail, in terms of aggregating up the revenue sources, that we can provide. We just don't have it specifically with us here at this point. We're developing a list, and we'll make sure we provide that information for you.

B. Routley: I understand that it'll take some time, and I assume this question will get added to the list. How much revenue, excluding stumpage, does the ministry expect to generate, from all TFLs combined, in the fiscal years 2014 and 2015-16?

Hon. S. Thomson: Sorry, I presume there was a question there. So again, we'll add that to the list of information that we've undertaken to provide.

N. Macdonald: I was presuming that the minister was going to take that on as well.

During the public outcry against sections of Bill 8, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, that dealt with enabling corporations to roll over forest licences to TFLs, the government argued that forest management on TFLs is area-based and preferable to volume-based management. But what has always been lacking in this debate is any substantiation of that claim. Now, there are many different types of area-based management, but of course, the debate on Bill 8 focused on the rollover to TFLs.

The question I have for the minister…. There are a couple here. The first is: how many hectares of the province are in TFLs? Here, I think one would expect a basic forestry statistic like this to be readily available on the ministry's website. I apologize if I couldn't find it, but I had to go back to 1994, where the ministry pegged the TFL area at 7,537,387 hectares, of which 4,221,687 were considered to be productive for growing timber.

Perhaps the minister could update the House with the comparable statistic for 2013.

[1630]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I know that the member opposite probably did look as deep as he could on the website to find that. The numbers are, as you know…. Particularly the production portion of it is a dynamic number. I'm advised that we can produce that number for you, and we'll undertake to do that as quick as we can. It's just going to take a bit of calculation, but we'll undertake to ensure that you get that information.

N. Macdonald: I guess a further question. One would hope that this would be more readily available. What is the total combined AAC for all of the TFLs?

Hon. S. Thomson: The total AAC in TFLs: 12.5 million cubic metres. I can also provide the response, because I think the question previously was around the total hectares in TFLs. The total area in hectares: 5.6 million.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister.

Would the minister please confirm that the provincial annual allowable cut for TFLs is determined on the same volume basis used to determine the AACs, or annual allowable cuts, on timber supply areas — TSAs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes.

N. Macdonald: We spent quite a bit of time in the Timber Supply Committee talking about area-based management. As the minister knows, that refers to a number of different tenures. Here we're more focused on TFLs, which is one type of area-based tenure.

[1635]

What we found in those lengthy discussions is that there really was no evidence to support the assertion that there is any enhanced management of forest lands under TFLs or, really, TSAs, except under innovative forest practices agreements because of incentives.

If the minister can show otherwise, could he please advise the House and the public as to where there are quantifiable examples of corporate tenure holders spending more on enhanced forestry efforts on TFLs than the same corporate interests spend on TSAs? Where is that evidence? When we were with the committee, we asked again and again, and it wasn't presented.

Hon. S. Thomson: Through the process of the mid-term timber supply committee work, I think there were many submissions that talked about the benefits of area-based management — additional investments in silviculture and forest management resulting in increased productivity. A couple of good examples. One I referenced before with the Dunkley TFL. There is specific information that shows the benefits of that approach to area-based management there. We know West Fraser, in TFL 52, plants higher densities and achieves additional productivity.
[ Page 226 ]

So I think there is good evidence in terms of the approach to area-based management, particularly in relation to the other forms of area-based management as well. Also, it's important to point out that I think that's information that needs to form part of the public consultation and dialogue process as we go out in the consultation process that we've committed to do.

N. Macdonald: Here I presume that the minister is not referencing anything that would have been done under innovative forest practices agreements, so it's separate from that. I do remember many of the discussions that we had with the committee. Certainly, many of the additional fibre that was found simply came through doing a better job with inventory and so on.

Nevertheless, even if the minister has accurately represented in an anecdotal manner some benefits, I think the minister would accept that, anecdotally, one could find examples of poor management within TFLs, right? So I think to have a debate where one simply lifts anecdotes about a particular thing that happened is hardly the due diligence one would expect from the ministry.

[1640]

Within the committee process that we had, we asked for academic research, work that would be done. It is now a year since we asked the ministry at that committee for any evidence they were aware of. We were told very clearly, and it's there in the minutes, that there was no evidence the ministry could provide of academic research that supports the assertion that is behind a rollover to the TFLs.

I guess the question is: a year on, having surely prepared packages of evidence to support what was put forward in Bill 8, can the minister provide any academic evidence to support the assertion that is part of what the Premier is instructing the minister to do?

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, clearly, there is work underway, as part of the package that will be utilized in the consultation process, around empirical evidence of the benefits. We've referenced a number of examples. There are studies that indicate the benefits of that additional silviculture investment.

I think the important point, though, is to reference back to the committee's recommendation where it talked about "before considering a conversion" of the volume-based tenure, whole or in part, to area-based.

[1645]

In considering those conversions, it would have to take into account — this is where we talk about the public interest — commitment to sustainable forest management, commitment to silviculture investments, community and First Nations support for the process through a public consultation.

Clearly, in considering any applications that would have come forward in this process, before any invitations were given to consider this, there would have to be demonstrated evidence of the additional management and additional investments that would take place that would contribute to that increase in mid-term timber supply and create that additional volume. That will be part of the basis of the further consultation that needs to take place, as we've committed to do.

N. Macdonald: It has been a year since the question was asked, and the minister says there is evidence but can't produce it. So there's no academic evidence. Even what the minister referenced….

I'm not a forester, but even I know that when you're talking about planting in higher densities, you're really talking about stocking standards, right? And stocking standards…. Am I correct, Minister, that that can be done in a TSA — that you can set higher stocking standards and have all of those things happening without rolling over into a TFL? Is that correct?

[1650]

Hon. S. Thomson: I think, arguably, you could answer that question by saying: "Yes, you could." I think the principle, though, that we're looking for in the area-based management approach is looking at the overall management regime in any areas that you might consider.

That goes directly back to the recommendations of the committee and the reference from the committee — that by looking at past performance, commitment to sustainable forest management, commitment to investment in forest management, including but not limited to silviculture investment…. What we're looking for in this approach to area-based is a more comprehensive, overall management approach to those areas where we would clearly see those benefits.

I think that understanding of what we're looking for and those processes is, clearly, why the committee made the recommendation they did. They did, I know…. I can't see the committee making the recommendation for that if there weren't, clearly, benefits to that approach. That's why they've asked us to look at it and, also, to be able to provide the enabling legislation and regulations to be able to do that. It's developing that more comprehensive approach to area-based management.

We think it's something that's worth considering, but we also agree that it needs to have that further public consultation process. The work that is being looked at will inform part of the discussion documents and information that go out in that process — will include all of that information and will include examples and evidence of where that approach benefits and works.

N. Macdonald: Here is the question. I'm open to any of these ideas, and I was open on the committee. But there is a requirement on government to approach this with some rigour and to be able to provide some proof
[ Page 227 ]
to broad assertions.

Quite frankly, I'm troubled about what sort of process you are going to have when you cannot go to the public with any sort of independent proof of things that, I think, are going to be asserted at these processes. It reminds me of the Fraser Institute, where they have a conclusion, and then they build proof to reach that conclusion every time. It sounds like you're going to have the same sort of process.

If you cannot identify, after a year of being asked where the academic proof is, that this is a preferable system — that rolling over into TFLs is going to produce better results — you have no…. This government has produced no academic proof of that assertion.

Now, the minister has also asserted that, in certain cases, anecdotally, he can claim — within TFLs in Dunkley, West Fraser, for example — there are improvements. Can the minister provide for this House studies that the ministry has done, over the breadth of TFLs that are available, where there is conclusive proof that rolling over into TFLs has produced the results that the minister is asserting they have produced?

[1655]

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've indicated, as part of the process around public consultation and going out with the information, clearly, that's information that will be required. We're committed to provide that as part of the discussion paper. We have information, and the evidence will be part of the discussion paper and information. The commitment is that that will be included as we move forward with the consultation process.

N. Macdonald: Will the minister table the information they have today that the minister is citing as proof?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm again, the commitment that I made is to ensure that this information is part of the public consultation package or process as it goes out. I will undertake this evening to determine the current status of that work and to see what portion of it I may be able to table directly at this point.

But I also want to be clear that I want to make sure it is done in a way that ensures that the information is complete, because it will be part of the package. So we'll undertake to check that.

[1700]

Again, I want to restate the commitment that the information we have been addressing here and talking about will be part of the consultation process and package with that process as we go out to undertake to engage with both public and industry organizations, with other interested parties and organizations and communities and First Nations — when we undertake that process.

N. Macdonald: I'm sure the minister can understand that when they make sweeping statements and, I think, more comprehensive management, benefits like that, that the minister alludes to…. So there's a statement from the minister, and then there's no proof to back up that assertion.

Just a simple question: does the minister have proof that more money is spent on enhanced silviculture in TFLs than on TSAs in general? Is there concrete proof that the minister can point to that backs up the assertions that are being made here?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to go back to the commitment and the point that I made that this information will be part of the package for the consultation process. I did indicate that I would review, this evening, the status of the report and that information. If I can table that without compromising the process going forward, I will undertake to do that.

But I also want to make it clear, because I think there's a basic point here that while the options going forward are forward-looking, when we talk about looking around the opportunities for area-based tenures…. While we will have examples of where it has been beneficial, I think the important point — and what we made clear, and I hoped I made clear in all of the discussion earlier this year around that — was the fact that this is not about, as some people try to portray it, wholesale conversion.

This is about finding those areas and those opportunities where there could be commitments around enhanced forest management, enhanced silviculture, which would provide the basis to provide that opportunity that clearly would be in the public interest, would clearly be through a transparent and fully open process.

[1705]

So we're not, in terms of providing the information, looking back at a whole sort of average. The member opposite did indicate that there is evidence of TFLs that would not have performed to the standard, and I think that's correct.

What we're looking at is providing the enabling legislation which would allow us to have the policy in place that would allow us to go forward with these opportunities. I think that's entirely consistent with the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply committee.

N. Macdonald: I mean, this is what's different about this consultation. The Premier has put in place instructions to the minister in terms of what he is supposed to accomplish as relates to the TFLs. And here we are, a year after questions were asked about any evidence that what's being proposed is actually there, and the minister still can't produce any measurable difference between what happens in the TSA and what happens in the TFL.

So the question is: if it's not in the public interest and the minister cannot provide proof that it's in the public interest, then whose interests are served by proposed roll-
[ Page 228 ]
overs of forest licences to TFLs?

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite asked whose interest is being served by considering this. I think that very, very clearly, the interest that's being served is the interests of workers, the interests of communities, the interests of everybody involved in the industry through that area. The purpose of this, and the purpose of the recommendations of the committee, was to look at options that would increase mid-term timber supply availability, knowing the impact of the mountain pine beetle that we're dealing with.

So as part of the overall recommendations, this was a recommendation that the committee felt could contribute to that. I know that the recommendation was done in the context of being able to contribute to additional volume. Being able to do that means that when we go through all the community adjustment and potential rationalization that will occur as a result of all this, if we can fill in some of that mid-term timber supply, then the ultimate benefit and the interest that's being served is the communities', is the workers', is the indirect benefits in all of those communities. That was the purpose of the mid-term timber supply committee work.

Clearly, there is an interest in looking at this. This is not, as some people perceived it, about wholesale conversion. This is finding those areas and sweet spots where that approach would work, would contribute to that. Again, as I pointed out, the process and vision are that it would be done in a fully transparent manner, it would have to have all the support, and it would have to be able to clearly demonstrate the public interest.

N. Macdonald: What the minister will know and what staff can confirm is that this area-based management can take all sorts of different forms — right? The discussion that we had within the committee talked about many different forms.

[1710]

The government in the past has talked about increasing community forests, talked about First Nations licences and all sorts of area-based management. The minister will know that area-based management can take place within an existing TSA as well. But there is this focus on TFLs, and I think it's fair to say that the government is using area-based management as a distraction or a red herring to convince the public of the dubious or nonexistent benefits of TFL tenure.

The minister has an obligation to make the case with proof, rather than simply asserting that something is so, and, a year on, cannot provide any evidence that a TFL tenure is the way to get at this. I think many would think that the real hidden agenda of the government is not tenure reform to achieve area-based management in the public interest but the creation of more TFLs in the private, corporate interest.

We're going to move from this now, I think, unless there's something new to be said, because it's going to play itself out elsewhere. But is the minister aware of the problems that it creates, not only in terms of public policy but also for the forest industry if this issue is handled as poorly as I fear it's going to be handled?

Hon. S. Thomson: Clearly and for sure, I understand the obligation that's required to do that. That's why we committed to the further consultation process. When that decision was made, I think generally, while it was a difficult decision for me to make, it was a decision that was welcomed by many, in terms of ensuring that we take that step and we do it. That's our commitment: to go through that, through the process.

As I've indicated, the evidence will be part of that discussion. It will have to be, in order for it to be a successful process. I certainly, given the experience of the initial approach, understand that that needs to be done.

You know, I'm a little concerned, with reference to the points being made by the members opposite. I'm just trying to step back a little bit and really question whether the members opposite — as it was a unanimous recommendation of the mid-term timber supply committee report — really believe in this approach around area-based management or not.

I'm getting a sense that support for that may have shifted away from the recommendations that you were a part of in making the recommendations. I hope that's not the case, because I think it does require a good, informed public discussion. We've committed to do that, and I hope that the members opposite will be a positive part of that discussion.

N. Macdonald: Diversity of tenures is different than more TFLs, right? The idea of having area-based, I think, is a discussion worth having, but the government is fixated on TFLs.

In terms of believing in the process, I can tell the minister that I want to believe in these processes. I do want to believe. The minister will remember that when we were leaked a document that had all sorts of items that were damaging to the government, damaging to the industry and damaging to the B.C. brand — that leaked cabinet document — we did not come into question period and try to surprise government. The minister was not here that day, but we went to Minister Bell. We gave them the document, and we gave the Premier the opportunity to be prepared for the questions that we had. And we offered at that time to participate in any process that the minister or the government put together.

[1715]

When that time came, despite our worries, which we laid out in a letter to the minister and which the minister ignored, we participated fully and constructively in reaching — and we, as opposition, pushed to get to — a
[ Page 229 ]
unanimous set of recommendations.

I think the minister will remember that coming out of that, we had recommendations on inventory, on silviculture, on a whole host of areas that…. Instead of getting the supports that they need, the government chose to cut $40 million from the exact areas that we recommended unanimously that investments should be made in.

So, first, it's my job to be skeptical. That's what I'm supposed to be doing. But it's pretty easy to be skeptical about processes when over the past eight years — and this past election — again and again, the intent to act in a constructive way seems remarkably naive.

Again, with this process, I have big questions about what the public process will look like, if there's an agenda that will be driven, which I frankly think is going to be the case. So let's leave it for there. That's a discussion that will take place.

But as I said before, if the government gets this wrong, it is not simply the opposition that will be disappointed. It is the B.C. brand that could be damaged. We saw that with the reaction that came very quickly to Bill 8. The last thing in a time of recovery that this industry needs is another war in the woods.

If the minister thinks that there's a level of trust in what the government is doing there, it simply isn't so. It's one thing to say "transparency." It's one thing to talk about these things, but it has to be demonstrable. It has to be something that, if I were to participate or to watch, I would walk away saying: "Oh, yeah, that was an honest effort."

That will be the test for the government. Of course, the government is going to do what the government will do, but that will be the test. People who are participating — are they going to be fed a line or walk away feeling they're being fed a line with an agenda that's set, or is it something that's going to seem honest and sincere?

I can tell you, so far — unable to produce academic support for assertions, to seem to have a preordained outcome — these are all troubling signs for what's coming.

Let's switch to stumpage, then. Help me to understand a few of these things. In order for stumpage revenues to increase, it seems to me that one of three things has to happen. Either markets have to improve, logging rates must increase or the overall quality of the trees selected for logging must go up.

To better understand the revenue projections before us, could the minister provide us with a breakdown of projected stumpage revenues from the interior of the province and, separate from that, from the coast for this fiscal year, for 2014-15 and for 2015-16? For the minister as well, hopefully, that's information that could be provided to the House as quickly as possible. If we have that breakdown between the Interior and the coast, those are the numbers we're looking for.

[1720]

Hon. S. Thomson: We're just getting that specific information for you, but I have here directly the information for '13-14: on the coast, $72.1 million, and in the Interior, $385 million. I'll provide '14-15 and '15-16 as soon as it's provided here.

B. Routley: The ministry's annual financial statements show very clearly that total stumpage revenues have been declining for some time. Can the minister tell us why this is the case?

[1725]

Hon. S. Thomson: There are a number of factors. As you know, the industry has come through one of the most difficult downturns in the industry. The factors: less harvest; less volume; lower prices, which reflects itself in the market pricing system; in the Interior, particularly, the concentration on the pine harvest; BCTS, which is a contributor — less volume being sold through BCTS through that time period.

Again, as we pointed out earlier, and as you referenced, the trend is recovering. We're starting to see in the quarterly updates, as I mentioned, the stumpage values come back up. So a whole combination of factors.

What's important to note is that that was what the market pricing system was designed to do: to reflect the market and to make sure that the industry was in a competitive position internationally. It is what has allowed them to be in a position to take advantage and recover — the recovery currently.

I can also provide the information on the coast and Interior forecasts. For 2014-15, coast at $79 million, Interior at $405 million, and for 2015-16, coast at $89 million and Interior at $424 million, approximately.

N. Macdonald: Can the minister tell us how much of last year's stumpage revenues reflected a billing and subsequent paying of just 25 cents a cubic metre? Of course, 25 cents a cubic metre is the minimum stumpage, and for those that are following the debate, a cubic metre of wood is a telephone pole.

Can the minister tell us approximately how much of the ministry's projected stumpage revenues in the coming year are expected to fall into this category? And at the same time, what percentage of volume was harvested and minimum stumpage paid on? So those two figures: how much of the ministry's projected stumpage revenues and what that represents in terms of percentage of volume that minimum stumpage was paid on.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[1730]

Hon. S. Thomson: For 2012-13, percentages of volume: on the coast, 70 percent; and in the Interior, 34.4 percent.
[ Page 230 ]

N. Macdonald: Minister, thank you for that. That's on volume, I presume.

The revenue. If the minister could also tell us how much it represented in terms of the percentage of revenue. I had two questions. One was on volume, which I think the minister answered, and just the percentage in terms of revenue — again, both the coast and the Interior.

Hon. S. Thomson: For 2012-13, again, the total value on the coast for under-minimums was $2 million, and the total value on the stumpage at greater than minimums, $67 million. For the Interior the comparable numbers are $3½ million for under-minimums and $293.6 million on volumes that were greater than minimums.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Minister. We'll continue with the stumpage. But just coming back to a previous topic, if the minister is getting information, is it possible for the minister to get information on the investment per hectare on TFLs and the investment per hectare on the regular TSAs? And if the minister wants to include any of the other types of tenures…. But those are the two, primarily, that it would be interesting to see.

With that, I'll just presume that the minister, as always, will endeavour to do that. If it's possible, I'll turn it over to my colleague for his question.

B. Routley: As we know, trees on the coast of British Columbia are vastly different from trees logged in the Interior. The Interior, for that matter, has also seen a decline in the value of overall timber profile because of the mountain pine beetle.

For the most part, tree health on the coast is quite good, and the fact that many overseas companies are now paying huge sums for raw logs to be shipped to them is an indication of just how good the quality of much of the coastal timber profile is.

[1735]

In light of this, could the minister explain to us why it is that on some coastal TFLs and TSAs today, up to 40 percent or more of all of the trees logged result in the lowest stumpage charges possible, just 25 cents a cubic metre?

Hon. S. Thomson: The quick answer, the short answer, to the question is that it's as a result of the higher cost of harvesting in many areas of the coast. That includes road development costs, higher costs of silviculture, higher costs of logging and transportation. All of those costs move it into the negative indicator rate and, as a result, result in minimum levels of stumpage.

It's also as a result of, generally, the industry having to move into those higher-cost areas as they continue to log on the coast. So it's not surprising that much of it is on minimum stumpage rates.

N. Macdonald: Minister, can you tell us how long the minimum stumpage rate has been set at 25 cents a cubic metre?

[1740]

Hon. S. Thomson: The minimum stumpage rate has been at that level since 1987.

B. Routley: Given that one of the key roles of the minister's office is to take into account public good and to ensure that sufficient revenue is brought in from the sales of products from within his ministry, can the minister tell us whether or not, in preparing stumpage revenue estimates that the ministry…? Have they considered whether or not it's feasible to raise minimum stumpage charges? For example, some people have suggested to us as MLAs that even if you were to increase the minimum stumpage some 400 percent, that would mean only a dollar at a minimum for every cubic metre of wood logged on Crown land.

A metre — and I know the minister knows this, but for those that are listening — is roughly the size of a telephone pole, and there are roughly 35, 40 cubic metres on a highway logging truck. So you're looking at a small amount of money still. My question is: given that there are changes coming — you know, the supercycle that the minister and others have talked about — have you given any consideration to looking at that?

Hon. S. Thomson: We've been, obviously, monitoring the stumpage rates and harvest volumes and everything very carefully. Our key objective is to ensure that we continue to see the harvest levels of activity, because that's what creates the jobs. That's what creates the other revenues to the province in terms of taxes and other economic activity. That's why we're starting to see the investment come back into the industry — close to a million dollars in investment in the last two years in capital investment. So that creates additional revenues for the province.

[1745]

As the market continues to improve, we are going to see a smaller and smaller proportion of the volumes on minimum. So it's always working to make sure that we have that balance, to ensure that we have a competitive industry.

The current market pricing system that we have in place is what has ensured the industries in that position move forward as the market improves and the recovery comes.

I just want to clarify the point that the member opposite made when he talks about many people predicting the supercycle to come. I think we all on both sides of the House will hope that that happens. I've always been, in my comments to the organizations, the meetings, a little more cautious on that, to say that we're in a period of
[ Page 231 ]
market improvement and we think it's going to be sustained. But there's still lots of recovery to take place yet for the industry and, I think, lots before we have what people may say is the supercycle.

We're certainly working to continue to build the markets and diversify the markets, and we're certainly watching the stumpage or the volumes in relation to stumpage revenues. It's something we continue to monitor. And as I said, less and less proportion as things improve will be on minimums. We're already seeing that start to happen.

A. Weaver: I was wondering whether the minister has considered the introduction of differential stumpage fees for those logs which are exported offshore versus those logs which are processed locally, to promote B.C. jobs over foreign jobs.

Hon. S. Thomson: No. The current approach is to collect on those volumes that go export, the export fee-in-lieu. That's the manner in which we collect revenue for those logs that go export. That's the additional charge that we collect there. It's through the fee-in-lieu process and not through a differential stumpage.

[1750]

N. Macdonald: My next question touches on another aspect of revenue collecting and revenue analysis. Can the minister tell us how, generally, the ministry ensures that the provincial treasury receives adequate compensation from companies logging on public forest lands?

Hon. S. Thomson: The revenue is determined, as you know, through the market pricing system. That process is determined through the B.C. Timber Sales process, which is part of our softwood lumber agreement. As you know, approximately 20 percent of the volume is auctioned through the BCTS process. That sets the market pricing system from which stumpage is generated. It's all based on the market pricing system, which is set and determined under our softwood lumber agreement and obligations.

B. Routley: Prior to the introduction of cruise-based pricing — it is now the common form of determining the value of trees before they are logged and serves to set what stumpage payments logging companies make to the province — it was commonplace for public servants employed by the Ministry of Forests to go into the field and verify the accuracy of log scales done by the companies.

These public servants were and are known as check scalers. They actually check randomly selected loads of logs that had been scaled or measured by people employed by or under contract to logging companies to ensure that their measurements were accurate and that the public got a fair return for the trees logged on public lands.

I might add there that when I first started in the forest industry, one of the companies, B.C. Forest Products, got caught by check scalers down at Shoal Island with not enough…. Their check-scaling proved and showed that the company hadn't been paying sufficient stumpage. There are, by my assessment of the current on-line provincial government directory, currently 21 men and women employed in a check-scaling capacity in the ministry. Can the minister please explain to us what check scalers are now doing?

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: For 2012, for the calendar year, there were 525 active scalers and 1,273 check scales performed in 4,060 active months. That is based on…. That's one check scale for every 2.65 active months. So 0.1 percent of the loads were check-scaled, and 7.8 percent of loads were replaced by the check scale. There were 870 active scale sites and 2,064 scale site inspections performed.

N. Macdonald: When the minister is talking about the volumes that we're dealing with and having — I'm not sure if I heard the minister correctly — 21 women and men that do this work, or in that neighbourhood, it's just hard to believe that there's any rigour to that.

Can the minister tell us whether, in his opinion, the current cruise-based system ensures that the public gets a fair return? And, I think, more importantly, rather than simply an assertion, what evidence is there to support what the minister's answer is going to be? I really look, here, for evidence to support any assertion he makes about the cruise-based system, ensuring that the minister lives up to his obligations to get a fair return for the public resource.

Hon. S. Thomson: I just wanted to make clear to the members opposite, around cruise-based billing…. It's important to point out that on the coast the percentage of cruise-based harvest is only 9 percent on the total, and 91 percent is scale-based. In the Interior that percentage is higher. It's 49 percent in the Interior, and that's primarily because the cruise-based process is focused on the pine harvest, where the stands and everything are much more uniform.

[1800]

On the coast, in particular, it's something that we're moving into very carefully. We're targeting it only at the low-value and the low-quality timber, as I said, primarily in the mountain pine beetle stands in the Interior and, to a very limited extent, on the coast.

B. Routley: Can the minister tell us whether or not public servants working for his ministry are aware of any instances where, as a result of cruise-based pricing, the public may potentially have been shortchanged by
[ Page 232 ]
this system?

Hon. S. Thomson: The answer is yes. There are a couple of examples that we're aware of. It's important to point out that those two specifically…. Those cases are before the courts.

N. Macdonald: Could the minister tell us the two cases and what sort of expectation we have for learning of an outcome? Maybe the minister could even say what the possible fines are — what sort of ranges we're talking about. Specifically: what are the two cases? Where are they? Then also, where it is in the system. And what range of fines are we talking about?

Hon. S. Thomson: The penalties in these situations…. As I said, these two that I referenced are before the courts. The penalties are the differences in stumpage.

[1805]

These were determined…. When you compare the cruise to what was scaled, discrepancies were identified. We work with C and E — compliance and enforcement — and the Ministry of Finance when these situations arise, in pursuing them.

I think, given that the two cases are before the courts, I'm not prepared to provide the specifics or details for that reason, other than to say that the system is designed to detect those discrepancies. Where they're found, they are pursued. An example of the fact that these are in that process shows that on the risk-based process, we do detect those. And where they do, we will pursue them.

N. Macdonald: So I just want to understand. The presumption is, and the presumption always was, that this system would be moved from the pine beetle area, where we're generally talking about minimum stumpage — right? — to areas on the coast. The minister has talked about 9 percent. I'll ask a question on that later.

But let's presume that these trials aren't secret trials — right? So let's have who's involved in these. Then I think it's fair to say that if all that happens after taking them to court is that the correct stumpage is paid, that's not heavily punitive, I would say. If the intention is to change behaviour, that seems a fairly good deal to have as the worst outcome — that you actually pay what you're supposed to pay.

Tell us who's involved here. It would be interesting, as well, to know: are we talking about either of the two active on the coast, or are both in the Interior? That's primarily where I'm interested, but as I say, these trials aren't secret, so the minister, I'm sure, can name names here.

[1810]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, I think the question was: were these two examples referenced in the Interior or on the coast? The two examples are on the coast. Again, since these are in process before the courts, I think I'll limit the response to that — that those were discovered. Actions are being taken, being pursued, and as both of those are before the courts, I'm going to leave it at that.

The Chair: Member, as the minister has advised that these cases are before the court, I would caution the member to proceed with caution with respect to discussion of the question of these cases.

N. Macdonald: Fair enough. I'll take that under advisement. But who's involved is not secret, and who's involved is not going to have anything to do with what goes on in the court, right? These are not secret trials, and presumably, it's written down in all sorts of places as to who is actually involved.

I mean, it is interesting that with the very small percentage of cruise-based activity that takes place, both cases where something was found are on the coast, right? I think the minister said only 7 percent of the actual….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: It's 9 percent. The member corrects me. Nine percent is on the coast, and there we found two.

Let's spend a bit of time. First, I think it's valid to know who the companies are. That's fair enough, right? That doesn't…. I mean, we've got lawyers here. Unless somebody tells me that's going to impinge on somebody getting a fair trial, then — fair enough — tell me the names of the companies involved.

Secondly, I'm just curious: if the penalty is simply to pay the proper stumpage, and we're mainly dealing with cases of minimum stumpage, what other charges would go to the businesses that don't do this properly?

Do they have to pay for the process? Do they have to pay court costs for the public? Or are we actually dealing with getting minimum stumpage and already getting so little in revenue that in taking them to court, the company is not penalized to any extent if the public wins, and we have the cost of taking them to court as well? Are you seriously telling me that that's the process to make sure that the public interest is safeguarded in collecting what's properly supposed to be coming to the Crown? Is that what's happening?

Let's have the names of the companies, and let's have, as well, a further explanation of the process here.

[1815]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, going back to my previous answer, as I indicated, both of these situations are before the courts. I'm not going to comment further, as they are before the courts. What this does point out — and I think it goes back to my original point — a small percentage of the total on Vancouver Island, on the coast in particular, is under the cruise-based billing.
[ Page 233 ]

These examples show that the processes are in place. Where there are infractions or steps taken to get around or to utilize the cruise-based system to their individual advantage…. Those are caught. We work with compliance and enforcement and Ministry of Finance in pursuing those. The fact that these cases are there shows that we do have integrity in this system.

As pointed out, we use it to a much higher percentage in the Interior, where the stands are uniform. We're moving slowly on the coast to make sure that we maintain the integrity of the system as we utilize it — again, proceeding very carefully and cautiously in that direction.

N. Macdonald: Well, I think what would give us some confidence is if we have some basic information. I mean, there might be a reason — a legal reason that I don't understand — why you wouldn't name the businesses. Maybe you're in the midst of doing an investigation. I don't know. The way that the minister framed it is that it's in front of the court, which I presume is public. Now, maybe there's something I don't understand, but there we are.

I think the bigger concern is that the minister has talked about this system moving onto the coast. The minister has acknowledged, without answering many of the questions that I had, that both of the cases show that with the small number of people that actually check on whether cruise-based is legitimately collecting the revenues that the Crown deserves, there have been problems on the coast.

So the question is…. Maybe the minister could tell us when we can expect to see cruise-based pricing widely employed on the coast. It's always been the assumption that's going to take place.

[1820]

If the minister thinks, as he's asserted, that I should have or the public should have confidence in the checks and balances that are there, I can assure you that is certainly not the case from the limited information that the minister has provided. I guess that the question is: when does the minister anticipate the government moving this system onto the coast? And what are the real checks and balances that are going to be, hopefully, in place to ensure that companies pay adequately the value of each and every tree cut? And how are public servants going to ensure that this is the case?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, just to be clear, where we've moved to cruise-based processes more significantly is in the Interior, as I pointed out in the percentages. Again, that is in targeting low-value, high-volume stands, particularly in the mountain pine beetle area.

We're not planning on significantly increasing cruise-based processes on the coast. It has the potential to increase, but prior to any further expansion we need to carefully look at utilization and impacts on government revenue. Audit controls must be fully understood. So we're clearly, as I said earlier, moving ahead cautiously and carefully. We do have an audit process in place to make sure that as we move forward with it, it will be done in a very careful manner to make sure that all of those checks and balances are in place.

B. Routley: The minister is aware that revenues paid by logging companies are tracked in a provincial database and that that database shows the volume, species and grade of trees logged throughout the province of British Columbia.

Could the minister explain how the information in that database, known as the harvest billing system, may have changed in terms of its accuracy since we've had cruise-based timber pricing in British Columbia?

[1825]

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. S. Thomson: Noting the hour. Does that mean you want me to hold the answer to the question till tomorrow?

The Chair: Minister, you can provide us the answer, then move the motion afterwards.

Hon. S. Thomson: Okay. Very quickly, then, just to note that under the cruise system, it's the volume and the species that are entered into the harvest billing system. That's what's changed. When that system is used, that's what goes into the harvest billing system, and that's the basis of billing.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.
[ Page 234 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $2,487,215,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have opening statements?

Hon. D. McRae: I want to start by introducing and thanking the ministry staff that are joining me here today. To my right is my deputy minister, Sheila Taylor. Joining her today is, to my left, Wes Boyd, the ADM responsible for the management services division. To my back right is Sharon Moysey, ADM for our regional services division. Behind is Molly Harrington, the ADM of the ministry's policy and research division.

At the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation we have more than 2,000 dedicated employees who work with individuals and families across British Columbia, helping them achieve their full economic and social potential. Before we get into the budget, I want to thank all the ministry staff for their compassion and all the hard work they do on behalf of British Columbians.

I have had the opportunity, in the month-plus that I have been minister, to tour around the province, to a small degree, to meet staff who are delivering front-line services. I must say that the effort, energy and passion with which they serve the individuals in British Columbia is very, very enlightening. I was so pleased to have an opportunity to meet several of them. I look forward, as I continue my time in this ministry, to meeting more and more staff members providing services across the 85 constituencies in British Columbia.

At the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation we help individuals and families in their greatest time of need and challenge. We provide individuals and families with income and disability assistance as well as the employment program of British Columbia to help people find and keep a job.

We are also responsible for driving social innovation in the province of British Columbia. By providing temporary help to those who can work and longer-term aid to those who have a more difficult time working or who can't work, our government is ensuring that the needs of all British Columbians are being respected.

As a government, we are committed to developing a white paper that will explore key issues that affect people living with disabilities in British Columbia. This paper will be developed as part of a consultation process that will culminate in a provincial summit.

As well, we support more than 15,500 individuals with developmental disabilities and their families through Community Living British Columbia. I'm pleased to say that work is ongoing to improve that support.

Beginning today, there is a new, simplified process for youth with developmental disabilities who are applying for persons-with-disabilities assistance. Youth with an existing assessment by a registered psychologist or a certified school psychologist will no longer have to complete the PWD designation form as part of the application process.

One of the things I learned about this ministry very early on in my tenure here is that a 23-page form that perhaps is going to tell us what we already know is something that we can actually simplify for families and the individuals involved. It is the right thing to do, and I'm very pleased today that we are able to make that announcement. This change is a result of the ongoing work government is doing to improve services and supports for people with developmental disabilities and their families.

The focus of the budget for 2013-14 is to meet the ministry's commitment to provide responsive, innovative and integrated social services to British Columbians who need assistance. The number of people relying on assistance has remained relatively stable over the past year at around 180,000 individuals.

The budget for the ministry operations for 2013-2014 is $2.49 billion, approximately $30 million more than last fiscal. As part of this commitment, we intend to do everything possible to improve services to people receiving assistance.

Policy reforms have been well underway since last fall with the introduction of a suite of balanced changes. We will continue to look at ways to make ministry policies and programs work for B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens.

This year's budget provides income assistance for individuals and families in need — $1.68 billion. The government believes that people who can work want to be self-sufficient and contribute to their communities. In order to help people find and keep a job, this ministry is committed to investing $344 million in employment services, including apprenticeship training, of which more than $280 million will be recovered from the federal government.

Also launched in April 2012, the employment program of British Columbia provides the supports and services to get people, including those with specialized needs, back into the workforce.

[1455]

WorkBC Employment Services Centres have provided employment supports and services to more than 94,000
[ Page 235 ]
individuals since launching last year, and more than 77,000 people, or about 82 percent, have received case management services. Almost 50 percent of those who have received and completed case management services through WorkBC Employment Services Centres have found employment. The success rate speaks to the dedication, commitment and innovation of both the service contractors and the job seekers.

I'm also encouraged by the growing possibilities offered through social innovation. In this province we know about innovation in creating partnerships. This year we intend to raise awareness of social innovation's potential for making a difference by leveraging partnerships among business, government and non-profits, including the formation of community contribution companies. This will help B.C. as a North American leader in social innovation.

Regarding Community Living British Columbia, our government is fully committed to improving supports for people with developmental disabilities and their families. The work to implement the recommendations from the deputy minister's review of CLBC is well underway, and this supports sustainable and long-term strategies to strengthen supports for people with developmental disabilities and the services they rely on.

CLBC's 2013-14 operating budget, which includes contributions from the B.C. government, is $756.7 million. As well, in 2012-13 we committed $80 million over three years to develop new approaches to employment and day programs, to improve transition planning and to other key changes and innovations in support of the deputy minister's recommendations.

The integrated case management is a long-overdue computer system replacement that is needed to support critical services that are vital to thousands of British Columbians. ICM, as it also is known, has been used by SDSI for more than two years, and it's working well. The expenditures for 2013-14 are budgeted at $38 million, and phase 3 was rolled out last March. ICM's capital budget is $182 million. The project is on track, on time and on budget for completion by the 2014 year-end.

This budget focuses on helping British Columbians build a better future for their families and communities by providing responsive, innovative and integrated social services.

I look forward to the questions from the members opposite.

At this time I'd like to take a few minutes aside. Today is my daughter's birthday. She turns ten. There's a slight chance she might be inside watching TV today. I hope she's not, but if she is….

I want to wish you, Gracie, happy birthday. We're proud of you, and I'm looking forward to seeing you in four days.

M. Mungall: First off, I'd like to echo the minister's gratitude to ministry staff. I know how hard they work. Whether it's here in Victoria or right across the province, from the front line to the deputy minister, we're very fortunate to have such a wonderful civil service here in B.C., so a huge thank-you to all of the staff.

I also recognize that within the MLAs in the room this afternoon we have some new MLAs. They may have heard of estimates debate as being characterized as perhaps not the most action-packed and thrilling activity one can participate in or listen to and watch, but I will commit to do my very best, as I'm sure the minister does, to challenge that characterization and make this, at the utmost, entertaining and informative.

The reason why I think it's important to do that with all estimates and particularly with the Ministry of Social Development is that we're dealing with some very important issues for some of the most vulnerable citizens in our province — people living in poverty; people living with disabilities, mental health issues. They are often the people who are struggling the most just to get by. We're here today talking about how the government can best support them and what actual activities the government is undertaking to do that.

I'm very pleased that I have the opportunity to take the lead for the opposition in asking these questions and finding out for the public interest what it is that British Columbia is doing for some of our most vulnerable citizens. I will start by asking some questions.

First, before I actually ask a question, I'll let staff know — I know that there are many ministerial staff who are here; they're probably wondering when it is going to be their turn, when they are up to help with answering the questions — that I'm going to be starting with some just general questions on the ministry and ministry administration and so on, and then moving on to income assistance.

[1500]

I just had a ministry briefing today, so I'm hoping that all my questions around income assistance and various issues around that, for example…. I'm new, like the minister, so I'm still learning all the names of everything.

Income assistance, PWD, the tribunals that review complaints and so on — my understanding is that they're all within that one branch. I'll do my best to try and keep things within the branches that were outlined to me today, but if I don't do that, I apologize in advance. I'm not trying to make your lives more difficult; that's for sure.

My first questions, then, will be about the ministry staffing levels. I'm wondering if the minister can please outline for House the breakdown of his office budget. We'll start there, and then I'll come to the staffing levels.

Hon. D. McRae: For the ministerial office we have a budget of $560,000 for budget year 2013-2014. We have five staff working within the minister's office.
[ Page 236 ]

M. Mungall: I'm wondering, of the five staff, if all five of these are full-time positions.

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is yes.

M. Mungall: Has this changed from last year's budget?

Hon. D. McRae: We have had a lift of $80,000. We have a chief-of-staff position this year, like all ministries do. However, we have not filled yet, or she has not come yet, the position of ministerial assistant.

M. Mungall: How many of these staff are order-in-council appointments? The minister has already answered the other couple of questions I had.

Hon. D. McRae: All minister's staff, office staff, are orders-in-council.

M. Mungall: I want to go to the mandate letter. I'm specifically looking at the white paper. Specifically, it was the second commitment that the Premier asked of the minister: "Deliver on the platform commitment to create a white paper on how to improve the lives of those living with disabilities in British Columbia."

I'm wondering if the minister can explain in detail, for the public — I know he mentioned it in his opening remarks — the intention of the white paper.

[1505]

Hon. D. McRae: Sure. In the mandate letter what the vision is, is that the province of British Columbia wants to be the most progressive jurisdiction for the people and families living with disabilities in Canada.

With the white paper, we are committed to having a consultation with this sector. We will begin the consultation sometime in the fall. After the consultation is complete — sometime within, probably, the next 12 months, I would think — we will finish it with a conference or a summit to be held as well. That'll probably happen sometime in 2014.

M. Mungall: My understanding is that there will be consultation with the public. I'm just wondering if then the white paper will be drafted and then there will be a summit for further response from this sector.

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is yes.

M. Mungall: Great. Thank you. The short answer is: keep me on my toes.

That being the case, I know that the purpose, the minister said, is the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabilities. I'm wondering: what's the standard? When you say "progressive," that's very subjective. Do we have something that's a bit more objective that can give British Columbians an idea of where the government is headed with this white paper?

Hon. D. McRae: The government doesn't actually have a pre-set outcome with this white paper. What we are doing is designing it to go have consultation with those individuals across the province of British Columbia who are receiving services.

In the consultation period, though we're still in the preliminary stage, the vision is that we will actually go out and listen to people receiving services, stakeholder groups, both in person and on line.

I know the member opposite…. Earlier in our first term in government, we had the opportunity to sit on the Finance Committee, and we had an opportunity to take government outside of Victoria, outside of the Lower Mainland, and visit smaller communities. While I don't think it'll have the same scope as the Finance Committee, the reality is I thought that was a very useful set of circumstances. I think we received over 3,000 on-line submissions. We received video submissions, and we definitely received in-person submissions.

It was a great opportunity to hear about concerns and successes across the province. So as we design the consultation process for the white paper, I look to use the Finance Committee as a bit of a model.

M. Mungall: If the Finance Committee is a bit of a model, I'm just wondering if the minister, then, intends to see a bipartisan approach to the consultation.

Hon. D. McRae: This isn't about politics. This is about delivering services to the 700,000 British Columbians who receive some form of services from the government. For that reason, it'll be more along the lines of having a conversation with the individuals who receive the service, not about a bipartisan act.

This is about hearing individuals who receive services, the stakeholder groups that represent some of these groups and seeing how we can become literally the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada.

M. Mungall: First, I have to take issue with the minister's point that having a bipartisan approach to seeking this consultation, which does impact over 700,000 people in this province, is somehow political.

I would argue that absolutely it's not. In fact, it's that bipartisan approach that ensures it's not political but that it actually has multiple views represented and multiple views that are receiving the information, as well, interpreting and analyzing that information and then putting something back out for the entire Legislative Assembly to digest.

If the minister believes that the Finance Committee is a good structure, as he alluded to in his previous answer, then perhaps a bipartisan approach is the way to go in
[ Page 237 ]
terms of developing the consultation process with the general public. Perhaps he can comment on that.

Hon. D. McRae: I guess there's a difference too. I want to be very clear here.

The Finance Committee is a legislative committee. It's there because we have rules and laws in British Columbia so that it has to exist, and it exists, by construction, with members from both sides of the House.

I just want to make sure I'm very clear to the members opposite. I am looking at the consultation piece, and the consultation piece I want to use as our reference point is that we actually reach out to stakeholders across the province of British Columbia and we take submissions in a variety of manners.

[1510]

It is a white paper. It is not a formal report delivered to the Legislature, like the Finance Committee delivers. The white paper will be available to all British Columbians to comment on. The white paper is — like all white papers are — designed to identify an issue and provide some solutions to government about how best to support people in our efforts to become the most progressive jurisdiction for persons with disabilities in Canada.

M. Mungall: Well, I guess time will tell to see if people's views are accurately represented in that white paper.

Moving on to the remainder of the mandate letter, I'm just wondering if the minister can outline the steps taken to fulfil the other areas of the mandate letter, having already discussed the white paper. Can the minister outline the steps taken to fulfil those, and what amount has been budgeted for each?

Hon. D. McRae: We'll see how we go here. If you want some more clarity, by all means, member opposite, please don't hesitate to ask.

There are six points within the mandate letter. The first one — like, I'm sure, is in almost every, if not all, mandate letters — is to balance my ministerial budget. We talked about that earlier within my opening remarks. We talked about the white paper.

As the member opposite knows, for CLBC questions, we can go into greater detail. I believe it's tomorrow that the member opposite and her colleagues wish to investigate that one. However, I do wish to let the member opposite know that the government does contribute $728 million annually to assist CLBC in delivering services across the province of British Columbia.

Number 4, where it talks about completing and monitoring the CLBC reforms and report out to cabinet, I'm sure the member opposite is familiar with the deputy minister review. There are 12 key recommendations within that review, and they are underway and being implemented as we speak.

Point 6, the implementation of "the next phase of our social assistance reform, as presented to Treasury Board." This ministry provides about $1.69 million to provide forms of social assistance across the province of British Columbia.

The one thing I also do want to point out…. I'm very hopeful about this. We are leaving 2008 and '09, where we had the greatest recession, not just in my lifetime…. I am an aged 42 years old. Actually, I'm obviously much more aged than I thought. I'm 43, now that I think about it. This is the worst recession we've had in 70 years in the developed world. So yes, numbers did increase during that time.

However, I am very confident that not just British Columbia but North America is going to see continued economic growth, going forward, even though there is going to be, obviously, some other pressures from jurisdictions — both Europe and the United States.

But the opportunities in this province — to have more people engage in the workforce — is something I'm very excited for and very excited to be in this ministry to help lead, go forward, to make sure we train people to integrate into the workforce with the necessary skills and opportunities to become employees within society, and to make sure they can raise their families and have a quality of life that all British Columbians deserve.

[1515]

M. Mungall: The minister didn't give us the budget totals, so I'm just reminding him about that. He's correct to say that CLBC will be…. We'll get more detail tomorrow morning. For now, I'm wondering if we can focus a little bit on No. 6, which is: "Implement the next phase of our social assistance reform, as presented to Treasury Board earlier this year."

Can the minister discuss No. 6 in a little bit more detail, specifically: what is the social assistance reform? What is the next phase? What is the cost to the public taxpayer around this?

Hon. D. McRae: We have a budget for income assistance of about $1.69 billion. The changes will be working within that $1.69 billion.

If the member opposite will allow me, I'm just going to do some reading for you, and I'll give you a list as well.

"The changes announced in June as part of the families-first agenda" — June, I will assume, is last June — "are designed to help vulnerable individuals and families attain better financial outcomes, assist people with disabilities to lead more independent lives and help people capable of work avoid the cycle of income assistance dependence." There are many major changes. I'll give you some examples here.

I have here seven. I'll tell you what. I'll give you the first four. If you want me to keep on going with them, I will keep on…. I'll give you all of them. How's that, then?
[ Page 238 ]

(1) A $200 monthly earnings exemption for all expected-to-work clients to give employable individuals a chance to build job skills and experience, take advantage of short-term or temporary work and better provide for the families while receiving assistance.

(2) An $800 monthly earnings exemption for individuals receiving disability assistance.

(3) An exemption of income tax refunds so individuals and families on income and disability assistance will be able to keep their full income tax refund without it affecting their benefits.

(4) Restoring a number of medically necessary medical equipment and supplies for clients on income and disability assistance, including ventilator supplies, bariatric scooters, orthoses and apnea monitors.

(5) Access to dental care for children of families on hardship assistance so parents can take their children in for regular dental checkups.

(6) An extension of income assistance to parents without legal status in Canada who are fleeing abuse and cannot leave the country with their children.

(7) Mandatory income tax filing rules for those on income and disability assistance, which will ensure individuals and families are getting all the tax credits they are entitled to. Appropriate exemptions will be in place to protect anyone who may be exposed to risk, such as fleeing an abusive partner.

Lastly, annualized earnings exemptions for individuals on disability assistance will provide the flexibility to calculate earnings on an annual basis so that individuals with disabilities can maximize their earnings during times when they are feeling healthy and able to work.

[1520]

M. Mungall: Thank you to the minister. Rolling along, these are mostly just very standard questions that the opposition has of each ministry. My second question is, then, around the asset sales.

Are there any asset sales from this ministry budget? Were there any ministry assets that were considered for sale and rejected?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is no.

M. Mungall: I just realized, since being the first up for estimates, that I should have taken full credit for all of these questions I'm about to ask, rather than saying they're standard opposition questions.

Did this ministry receive Treasury Board approval for access to the contingencies and new programs vote? If so, what ministry program did this fund? Did this ministry access the contingencies budget in the previous fiscal year?

Hon. D. McRae: No, we did not access the contingencies.

M. Mungall: Just looking at the planned spending. Will the minister please identify all areas of the ministry budget where planned spending in the 2012-13 to 2014-15 service plan for the '13-14 fiscal year has been reduced in the current service plan. If so, can the minister explain how these reductions were achieved?

[1525]

Hon. D. McRae: If I get the question right, the question was: where are we seeing changes in the fiscal plan? Have we reduced in areas? In the area of temporary assistance, we have. Based on what we expected in terms of caseload and demand, temporary assistance has gone down by $43 million.

But I do want to point out to the member opposite that we do have a statutory obligation to provide these services, and we will relook at it if necessary. However, we have also increased disability assistance this year over last by $32 million.

Just for clarity, temporary assistance has gone down by $43 million, and that is based on our ministry's sort of expectation of caseload demand. However, we do have that statutory obligation to provide services, and we could relook at it if necessary. However, we have increased services — funding — for disability assistance by $32 million at the same time.

M. Mungall: Just looking at the anticipated core review process and discretionary spending that is tied to that, has the ministry made any cuts to discretionary spending?

Hon. D. McRae: No.

M. Mungall: Have any grants been cut in this ministry?

Hon. D. McRae: No.

The Chair: Short and sweet.

M. Mungall: So the government has identified $30 million in cuts in this fiscal year under the core review process. I'm just wondering what cuts there will be in this ministry, if any, and what existing program funding the minister has identified for the core review.

Hon. D. McRae: I have it on good authority that we'll get our letter of instruction in September. I'm sure the member opposite could also canvass the minister who is responsible for the core review when his ministry is up for estimates as well.

M. Mungall: I'm a bit concerned because, of course, here we are debating the budget, the entire budget of the province — this ministry's budget in particular — and
[ Page 239 ]
yet we have no indication of how the core review may be impacting this, although we do know that there is a plan to see $30 million in cuts in this fiscal year. I think that British Columbians are very concerned if those cuts are going to impact some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

With that said, I would just like to see if the minister could just get on the record in terms of if he anticipates that he'll have to be making any cuts to service levels in his ministry as a result of the core review.

[1530]

Hon. D. McRae: I think that, again, those questions would be better directed to the Minister Responsible for Core Review, but I think that there's always an opportunity in this ministry or any ministry to perhaps deliver services to individuals receiving some form of service from the government in a better manner.

I'd like to highlight…. Just today we made an announcement. Right now students who are actually in grade 12…. They're under the age of 18, and they are transitioning to adulthood. One of the hurdles they had to jump and their families had to use and our staffers had to actually evaluate was a 23-page form that persons with developmental disabilities had to fill out.

However, because the school system does a very admirable job, young people often have had an assessment done by either a certified school psychologist or a registered psychologist, and we have agreed today to say that if you have had this assessment done already, it meets the test and we do not need to have you fill out this 23-page form once again to try to prove to the Ministry of Social Development — as you leave one ministry and come to a new one — that you do qualify.

So again, I'm very pleased to say that when we can cut down things like paperwork, it is good for families. It is good for individuals receiving services. It is good for workers in our ministry to make sure they are actually doing what they should be doing — dealing with clients, dealing with individuals who receive services, not working on paperwork. And 23 pages of forms — I'm always glad to see that be reduced.

M. Mungall: Well, I think that the minister opposite has set the stage of what all opposition members can anticipate in their budget estimates. Any time we ask a question about core review, we'll be directed to go and speak to the Minister Responsible for Core Review, so I'm sure he can anticipate a long lineup of opposition members asking their questions.

My next question is in relation to gaming funds. If the minister can let British Columbians know what programs are funded by gaming funds in this ministry instead of by operating funds…. If they're able to identify their revenue source for certain programs, that would be great.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: I think I have an understanding of the question. Services that are provided by the Social Development Ministry do not rely on gaming grants. However, non-profits delivering services for Social Development and Social Innovation or, potentially, for CLBC, could receive gaming grants but not to deliver the services that we are mandated in this ministry to deliver.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much. It was the answer I was anticipating.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: There you go.

Moving on, then, to some of the transfers. What funds have been transferred from other ministries? I know that with the ICM…. There's a partnership between this ministry and MCFD for delivering ICM, so perhaps that's where we see transfers from other ministries.

[1535]

But regardless of that, if the minister can elaborate on what funds have been transferred from other ministries and what programs those transfers fund and if any…. Actually, I was just about to ask a third question.

Hon. D. McRae: We're not that good. Two is max.

M. Mungall: Yeah, I'll leave you the two.

Hon. D. McRae: The ICM is a five-year process. Capital cost is $182 million. Whether it is provided for workers within the Social Development Ministry or the Children and Families Ministry, it all falls under the Social Development Ministry. So we pay for it all.

In regards to some transfers you asked about, the labour market agreement is $15.5 million that we receive from the Jobs Ministry. I also want to point out that from the federal government we receive $300 million for the labour market development agreement — $280 million for service and $20 million for administration.

M. Mungall: The minister just mentioned the labour market development agreement, the LMDA. I'm wondering if he can comment as well on the LMA, the labour market agreement. And then there's a third one, which is the labour market agreement for people with disabilities. He didn't comment on those federal transfers as well.

[1540]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the LMA, the labour market agreement, that's a transfer of $15.5 million. The LMAPD, basically, is $30 million federal dollars, which goes to the Ministry of Finance, not the Ministry of Social Development.
[ Page 240 ]

M. Mungall: My understanding, though, is that the labour market agreement for persons with disabilities, while it goes through the Ministry of Finance, does fund programs that are delivered out of this ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is: yes, sort of. It funds a range of programs across multiple ministries for people who are eligible.

M. Mungall: Just moving on to fee increases, have there been any fee increases or new fees imposed? For what, and what is the cost of those fees?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is no, but this gives me an opportunity to highlight a program that I think this government is very proud of. I think we are the only jurisdiction in Canada that provides the bus pass program, for 80,000 British Columbians. The fee has not gone up for many years. For $45 annually individuals can ride TransLink or B.C. Transit in the province of British Columbia. I think it is a program that we are very proud of in this province, and I'm pleased to be part of a government which delivers such a program.

M. Mungall: I'm just going to move on to some other questions, as you might have guessed from me standing up at the mike.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Just trying to keep it light — light and entertaining. Well, the minister is hoping that I ask questions about roller derby and his attendance at his local bouts. I'm going to forgo those questions and ask the following.

There has been a firing…. Pardon me. A hiring freeze. I'm sure the staff would love it if it was a firing freeze. There's been a hiring freeze throughout government. I'm just wondering about the impact of that hiring freeze on this ministry.

[1545]

Hon. D. McRae: For this ministry, like all ministries, we want to make sure we use our resources prudently but that we're getting great service for the individuals who need services. I am pleased to say to the member opposite that in the last six months we have hired approximately 200 — maybe over 200 — individuals, front-line workers to make sure that we can deliver services to those British Columbians who definitely need service through this ministry.

M. Mungall: Are those 200 new hires filling existing positions, or are they new positions?

Hon. D. McRae: Filling existing positions.

M. Mungall: Great, thank you very much for that clarification.

I'm just wondering how much was spent on contractors providing services to the ministry in the last fiscal year and if that's gone down or up from the previous fiscal year.

Hon. D. McRae: I hope the member opposite will be okay…. We could spend a lot of time trying to get the cost, dollar amount, but perhaps, if it's okay, we could provide that information as soon as possible. We'll provide it to you either in oral or written format.

In regards to service providers, I'll just tell the member opposite that the Social Development and Social Innovation Ministry has 73 separate service providers. As another example, indirectly CLBC has 1,200-plus service providers delivering services across the province of British Columbia. If the member opposite would like a fiscal breakdown, we'd have to spend a fair bit of time to accumulate all that information, whereas we could probably provide it tomorrow or soon thereafter, if the member is okay with that.

M. Mungall: Those general numbers are fine for me. I do have a list of third-party contractors with the ministry, but I don't have a list of what each one's funding levels are. Because I was only given this, this morning, I'll just let the ministry know that I would like to get those totals if it's possible.

[1550]

It doesn't have to be right away — today or tomorrow. Just know that I would like to get those. We'll figure that out, and we'll work that out over the next few weeks that we're here in the Legislature.

I'm just wondering, though. I know that not all of the contracts are done through an RFP process — it's my understanding — because some of them are ongoing. Or perhaps I'm wrong on that. Maybe the minister can say: of these contracts, how many are tendered? In what way are they tendered, and are there any that are just direct-awarded?

I know that the ministry has a lot of contracts. We don't have to go with the details on every single one but maybe a ballpark figure around as to direct-awarded, as well as tendered. Perhaps you can look at if there are any major contracts that were recently tendered and what the process was for those.

I know that there are a lot of smaller contracts with employment services and so on, but I'm thinking that if you had…. Well, I'm sure you guys have a definition for what is considered a very large contract. If you could just get on the public record specifically what has been tendered, what has been direct-awarded and how much that's been.
[ Page 241 ]

Hon. D. McRae: As I stated earlier in some of my answers, but for more clarity, 73 employment-program-of-B.C. contracts are let. It is an open, competitive bid process through B.C. Bid. They were signed in the year 2011 for implementation, I believe, in 2012 for five years.

All contracts from this ministry from last year will be released as part of the public accounts process, and this ministry follows all procurement rules of government.

[1555]

M. Mungall: Were there any contracts that were direct-awarded? That was the other part of my question — if there were any direct awards.

Hon. D. McRae: As per the procurement rules in British Columbia, we can direct-award contracts under $25,000. There are some. We don't have a list of them all, but we will strive, if the member opposite would like, to list all the contracts that have been direct-awarded in the ministry. It would just take a bit of time, but if you do wish them, they can be provided.

M. Mungall: Great. Thank you to the minister for offering to provide me with a list of all of the direct-award contracts. I'll think about that one, because I'm sure, like him, I've got a lot of paperwork that I have to go through, and it's summer.

My next question, then, is about consultants. If the ministry has hired any consultants, what are the values of those contracts?

Hon. D. McRae: As the member opposite, I'm sure, well knows, consultants are hired. Some are over $25,000, and we follow the procurement rules, obviously, for that. Some are under $25,000, so they would fall under the list in terms of direct award. That, again, if you so desire, could be made available to you as well.

Again, I think it's perhaps, if I may…. You know, since the information can be given and if you wish it, it is there. If you were to wait for us to find the answers, it might take us an extended period of time, and maybe our time here could be used for, like we're doing now, just having the questions back and forth. But by all means, if the member opposite wishes the answers, we can provide them.

M. Mungall: I'm sure that the minister's staff are taking notes on information to get at a later date. I know that I'll be doing that. I don't have as much staff, so I'll be doing that afterwards when I go through the estimates, making notes of everything. Absolutely, we can do it that way.

Just wondering, though, of the consultants that the minister is aware of, if any of them were specifically for communications and public relations.

[1600]

Hon. D. McRae: We do not hire, as the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, direct communications consultants. GCPE does actually hire these kinds of individuals. If they were to, and we would benefit, there might be a chargeback to us.

M. Mungall: No consultants for communications, but I am wondering the advertising budget that this ministry has.

[1605]

Hon. D. McRae: We did spend money. However, we're still waiting for the answer. It will be coming very soon. If the member opposite would like, we can move onto another question, and when I get the answer, I can just revisit this. We'll be able to do it, I think, while we're actually sitting in this room, at this session. We're either willing to wait, or we can move onto another question if the member opposite so desires.

M. Mungall: We can come back to these questions. I have a few other questions around advertising. So maybe once you have more information, I can come back to those either later today or tomorrow.

I will ask questions, then, around….

[Interruption.]

M. Mungall: Oh, it looks like the answer might have just popped up on somebody's BlackBerry.

Hon. D. McRae: I have no idea what you're talking about.

M. Mungall: I will move on…. Well, maybe I'll just sit down and let you check.

[1610]

Hon. D. McRae: Under the LMDA — just two sets of numbers here — in 2012-2013, we spent $1.7 million. In 2013-14 we have spent $1.019 million. For the members opposite, this is federal money which we are allowed to spend, and the dollars are for a Work B.C. marketing campaign, which is to ensure all clients access available services that they need. It's an awareness and support program.

M. Mungall: I'm sorry. Did the minister say…? If he can just repeat the numbers. Then, I'm just wondering, in those numbers….

The minister said that they were for the Work B.C. marketing campaign. I'm wondering if there was any other advertising done and specifically if it was what we would consider as non-essential advertising — it wasn't necessarily advertising any particular service that the ministry delivers, but it was advertising government in
[ Page 242 ]
general — or if there was anything other than the Work B.C. centres that were being advertised as well.

Hon. D. McRae: No, we don't do advertising as you were referencing. The numbers again. In 2012-2013 we spent $1.7 million. In 2013-14 fiscal we've spent $1.019 million — again, it's federal moneys — for the Work B.C. marketing campaign and to ensure that clients access available services that they need.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering what the advertising agency on record is for this ministry, then.

Hon. D. McRae: Those contracts are let through GCPE, or government communications, and they have the names. We just have the expenses.

M. Mungall: Great. Thank you. If it all could be so easy. We just send you the bill, right?

I just have a couple of questions about audits and if any audits have been done of any area of the ministry or ministry programs or agencies. I know that there is the CLBC. We can leave that out. Anything else?

[1615]

Hon. D. McRae: We have three audits that happen.

First of all, we have the Auditor General, who's presently auditing the disability assistance program. It's in the initial phases. I think they're just doing their scope of work right now, and they'll be going forward. There is the annual audit for public accounts, which is the same for all ministries and conducted by the Auditor General. The LMDA, which the member opposite talked about earlier, has an annual audit which is required by the federal-provincial agreement we have. That audit is conducted by the B.C. Auditor General as well.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering if any of these audits are available publicly.

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite knows the disability assistance program audit is just underway, so that obviously is still in the initial phases. Last year's annual audit is available through public accounts, and through the public accounts process this year's will be available at some time forward. Last year's LMDA agreement is also available through the Auditor General, and again, as we go forward, there will be a new one coming forward at the end of this fiscal as well.

M. Mungall: Great. I just have one more question about the administrative side of things. I was just reading in the service plan — and as well, it was mentioned earlier today in my briefing on paper — that the management services division also manages the ministry's lean coordination office. Just wondering what that means exactly. I did see it in the service plan — to manage the ministry under lean principles, or something like that, was what it was saying. I'm unfamiliar with that term.

[1620]

Hon. D. McRae: In 2012 the B.C. government adopted the lean process improvement as a way to enhance customer service. We didn't invent lean; we actually borrowed the concept from Toyota. The idea with the lean process is that you actually talk to your front-line workers, those who deliver services. In the case of Toyota, you're obviously building vehicles. How can they better build these vehicles to deliver a better product?

In our ministry, how can we make sure our front-line workers are working with the individuals we serve in a way that's going to be better for all involved? I must say that the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation is a leader in government in implementing the lean philosophy and supporting projects that are focused on improving services to clients.

To date the ministry has completed three major lean projects, and I must say thank you to the staff across British Columbia who provided input. We are also working on four more. The completed lean projects have increased service efficiency and enhanced client experiences with the ministry and are a staff-driven continuous improvement process.

I must say as well that I had the opportunity to visit East Van and meet some of the front-line workers at some ministry offices when I was touring there. One of the things I committed to doing as well, as minister — not in the first two weeks of my tenure but in a couple of months when I have had a bit more time under my belt…. I'd like to go back and hear directly from them as front-line workers how I can as a minister, but how government as well can continue to provide better services for the clients they serve. It's the right thing to do.

You know, ministers like myself — we may be serving for one, two or three years. I've met people who are working with clients and individuals in their 30th year when I was touring. I think their knowledge and expertise are absolutely invaluable, and I'm very pleased as a minister to constantly defer and listen to some of the individuals on how they feel we can provide better service for individuals receiving Social Development services.

M. Mungall: Well, Toyota not only comes up with great vehicle ideas but apparently great organizational ideas as well. Other than the minister talking directly, himself, to front-line workers, I'm just wondering: what are some of the structures and the process, then, that front-line workers and staff throughout the ministry are able to have input into and then see that input actually take meaning and take form?

Hon. D. McRae: What happens, obviously, is that the
[ Page 243 ]
individuals working in the ministry who spend a lot of time and are very knowledgeable in a number of programs are being asked…. They work with either their direct managers or perhaps it could be as high as an assistant deputy minister or the deputy minister. Where can we make service improvements?

To the members opposite, I'll give three examples. I mentioned we had done three lean projects that were quite successful. The first one that we're quite proud of is the bus pass. The project reviewed the process for issuing new and renewed bus passes for eligible clients. Basically, what we did through this process…. The short form version is we reduced the time to make eligibility decisions, without impacting quality, by 44 percent.

[1625]

Cheque run was the second one. This project reviewed the process the ministry uses to make payments to clients. One of the options there, one of the things we were able to do…. We reduced mail costs by eliminating redundant processes that did not provide value to clients or the ministry.

Thirdly, telephony. Without actually looking to my deputy minister or assistant deputy ministers, I think we receive something like 1.5 million phone calls in a year.

Telephony is the project completed in partnership with the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services. It reviewed the ministry's call centre model. Basically, one of the things we did there…. We implemented a three-tiered service model for calls with high, low and medium complexity, which has increased the efficiency and reduced wait times for clients wanting Social Development and Social Innovation services.

M. Mungall: Thank you to the minister for that.

I'm going to move on to some detailed questions around income assistance, but before we go there and while staff do the switch-up run for the minister, I'm wondering if we could take a five-minute break.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

M. Mungall: My first question. We're going to be focusing on income assistance for a while.

My understanding is that when someone applies for income assistance, even if they have a disability, rarely are they ever allowed to go straight to the PWD disability, we can call it, form of income assistance. First they are on social assistance, which more colloquially is referred to as welfare. But prior to even being able to apply, they have to do a work search and so on.

I'm just wondering why the ministry decided to increase the work search from three to five weeks.

[1635]

Hon. D. McRae: A couple of things, if I may. An applicant could have a three- or five-week work search involved. This is not for people who are PWD. This is for income assistance.

The five weeks was a reform or change that was brought in, in 2012, with the criteria being an individual who has never been on income assistance before. However, there are exceptions for the rule.

You could go directly onto income assistance if you are fleeing an abusive spouse or relative; if you are a sole applicant with a dependent child; if you have a physical or mental condition that in the ministry's opinion precludes an applicant from completing a search for employment; you cannot legally work in Canada is another one; if you have reached the age of 65; if you're applying for medical services only; or you're in a hospital or continuing care facility. So there are some exemptions to the rules.

Traditionally it was three weeks. We expanded it to five weeks. Again, the five weeks is only for people who have never been on income assistance before. People with disabilities do not have the three- or five-week work search criteria.

M. Mungall: That has generated a few questions. Actually, back to my original question. Yes, the minister did increase the work search period for new applicants to income assistance from three to five weeks. My question is: why was that decision made?

[1640]

My understanding is that before someone can even apply for PWD they have to apply for income assistance first. Therefore, anybody applying for social assistance from the government would have to do a five-week work search.

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite is correct to some degree as well. Many people do apply to PWD through income assistance, but you do not have to go through income assistance before you get on PWD, and in fact, like I said, there are opportunities for exemptions.

Just some other stats. About 600 people are on a five-week work search at any one point in time in the province, and the good news is by having that five-week period, 75 percent of the individuals actually do find employment and do not actually, in the end, need income assistance. So 25 percent of the 600 at any one time will end up going into an income assistance program. But the idea, of course, in this province is that if there is an opportunity to go on to gainful employment, that is the most important thing for anybody of any circumstance in British Columbia, where they can become self-supporting and not need income assistance from the province.

M. Mungall: I'll ask the question again, and I'll keep
[ Page 244 ]
asking it until I get an answer. Why did the ministry decide to go from three to five weeks for the work search period?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, to member opposite, remember that I stated earlier that the five-week work search is for people who have never been on income assistance before. We're trying very hard to make sure that people don't get into the cycle of needing income assistance, and so since a five-week work search results in 75 percent of people finding employment, it is better for the individual and the families to be working rather than on some form of income assistance. Our approach ensures that people who can support themselves move to employment while also making sure that income assistance is available to people who need it right away.

[1645]

There are opportunities as well, in circumstances, for hardship, so it's not a some-or-nothing kind of opportunity. We actually have programs as well that deal with people in specific circumstances when they need help right away.

M. Mungall: It's quarter to five now. We can do this for another hour, where I ask…. There was a decision that was made. The ministry used to have a three-week period where people had to look for work before they could be eligible for income assistance. It is now five weeks. That is a two-week difference. Why?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not trying to be cute at all here. The reality is that we want people in the province of British Columbia to work. So one of the things is that we know if there is a five-week work search, we have a 75 percent chance of you, the individual, finding employment. This means you do not need income assistance. This means that you are having gainful employment, which is probably a way for you and your family to be better off. The idea of going to five weeks for those who have never been on is to keep them out of the income assistance cycle if we can possibly avoid it. The numbers are: 75 percent of people find work. It's succeeding.

M. Mungall: Right. If it was to allow for more people to find work, if they had an extra two-week period as opposed to three weeks, then what were the numbers of people finding work when it was a three-week work search?

Hon. D. McRae: To the staff's best recollection, with a three-week work search there is about a 50 percent finding of employment. So 75 percent, obviously, is substantially an improvement upon this.

M. Mungall: Has the ministry done any comprehensive research to determine if the five weeks is the reason why there are a greater number of people doing a successful work search or if there is, perhaps, some other reason — for example, increased job opportunities — or if there is something else that is contributing to this?

[1650]

Hon. D. McRae: There are three things that have occurred. On April 1, 2012, we opened the new employment centres across the province of British Columbia. There are 73 of these. So there are supports there for people.

Policy reforms occurred in October of 2012, and yes, we are reviewing these changes as we go forward. I guess we're now nine months into, and we are not able to make a comprehensive decision as to whether our decisions are perfect. We will continue to review, and the economy of British Columbia is improving, and there are more employment opportunities. In fact, I think half the people who come to the employment offices receiving services end up getting employment, so there are some real opportunities there.

Again, too, there is one other piece. Two more weeks of looking for employment is a better opportunity to find employment, especially in a growing job market.

M. Mungall: The reason I'm asking these questions is because I want to determine if there is any analysis that went into this decision or if it was just an arbitrary decision in the government's effort to save money.

The reason why this matters is not just about people being able to find employment. It's a five-week period. That's more than the usual month. In that time frame people are finding themselves high and dry when it comes to being able to pay their bills, their rent. They're struggling. When people apply for income assistance, they're already hitting bottom, and the government is making it even more difficult for them in this situation by extending that period to five weeks. They just don't know how they're going to pay their bills.

It's great that we're having these success rates with employment. I'm hoping that these job opportunities that people are accessing are meaningful, that they're able to pay good wages, living wages, so that people are not living in poverty as a result. Indeed, the fastest-growing segment of people living in poverty are the working poor.

When a decision like this is made — and it's from three weeks to five weeks — the public needs to know if there is a real analysis behind this. If there is, can the minister please share it with the public now?

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite uses the terminology "high and dry." I don't think we do leave individuals high and dry. Applicants who have an immediate need for food, shelter or urgent medical attention and who have not completed a work search will receive hardship assistance while they complete the required work
[ Page 245 ]
search.

However, there are two points I wish to bring back to the member opposite. One, we are nine months into a program. We constantly review all programs within our ministry to make sure we're delivering services in a manner that is fair, equitable and consistent, so we will continue to analyze this. As well, the five-week work search program results in 75 percent of people finding employment. So for the last nine months I think we do have a success there.

Yes, it could always be better, and we will always look at our systems and see if they are a way to deliver services. Earlier I talked about the lean process, where we had three systems in the ministry where we had made significant changes to deliver better front-line services. I talked about the four ongoing lean processes as well. Why? Because we can always deliver services a little bit better. But at the end of the day, I think it's very important that we have 75 percent of people in five weeks on a job search that find employment.

M. Mungall: I stand corrected around the hardship money that government does provide people. However, one can argue that it's never sufficient, and not everybody gets it. That's another important point.

[1655]

The minister has yet to answer my question, though, on what analysis went into making this decision — if there is a report, if there is any type of review that was done to determine moving it from three to five weeks and if he can make it available to the public.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to say a couple of things here. In 2008 and '09 we were in the height of the Great Recession. It was a very challenging time in the province of British Columbia, like it was across Canada, across North America and the developed world. They were different employment times.

One of the things we are firm believers in is it is far better for individuals to actually have income from employment, not through government assistance. There's an opportunity. The work climate had changed from 2008 and '09 to 2011 and '12. We, as a government, believe there is more opportunity for individuals to not go onto income assistance. We also are a firm believer, as a government, that five weeks of work would actually produce better results.

Well, the result, I can say, is when we had a three-week job search program, approximately 50 percent of individuals found gainful employment. When we went to a five-week work search — again, we're talking new applicants who have never been on income assistance — we found that 75 percent of individuals were now working.

I also want to say to the member opposite: by all means, it is not something that we will never look at again. We continually look at this as a government to make sure we are serving both the individuals and the taxpayers of British Columbia to the best possible means, like we said earlier, with a balanced budget. We want to make sure we pass and live within our fiscal means. This is an opportunity. We are getting 75 percent of people working. It is better than it was before, but the employment situation in the province of British Columbia is better than it was before as well.

[1700]

M. Mungall: I just want to make sure that we get the facts on the table here, and this is what the minister is saying. First, government, basically on a hunch, decided to go from three to five weeks with the idea that perhaps, maybe, it would increase…. The amount of time people had to do a work search would, therefore, increase the percentage of people who were finding work.

Well, they were then lucky that that was the case, because there was no analysis that went into this, is what I'm hearing from the minister. They have no analysis of why there has actually been an increase in people finding work and if it is indeed their hunch that is the reason. And they are going to continue to monitor as we go along.

So what I'm hearing from the minister is that there has been no real analysis into doing this, into changing from three to five weeks. That being the case, I don't understand how this government is deciding upon public policy that impacts people's lives, if you're only on a hunch and luck. Does the minister think that's fair to the public?

Hon. D. McRae: It was a policy decision made by government. We believed that the changing economic environment in British Columbia, as we went forward from the Great Recession of 2008-2009, got us in a situation where there was more employment available to citizens of British Columbia. And yes, we were correct. We realized that if we had a chance to keep you from coming onto income assistance, it would be better for you and better for your family if you actually had a meaningful job.

People — 75 percent of individuals — after five weeks had found meaningful employment. That means we were successful. But we do continue to monitor this policy and see how it reacts accordingly in our job market. It is working today. If it changes, we will also be monitoring that and reacting to that accordingly.

M. Mungall: Since the jobs plan was announced, 31,000 less jobs in the private sector in this province. Whether or not the labour market is what's having an impact on this number is hard to say. There has been no analysis. Anyhow, needless to say, I'm a bit disappointed with how this decision was made.

I would like to ask a question about how people are determined employable when they are applying for income assistance. What is the determination that makes
[ Page 246 ]
somebody classified as employable when they are applying for income assistance?

[1705]

Hon. D. McRae: This government likes to think that everybody, potentially, is employable. However, being realistic, we also recognize that there are exceptions to the rule. For members opposite, I will read a list of criteria that may provide some exemption from this three- to five-week job search.

Again, single parents with children under the age of three. A person with criteria as a person with persistent multiple barriers; seniors 65 and older; a person residing with and caring for a spouse with a physical or mental condition that precludes the person's employment; single parents caring for children or foster children, children in an out-of-care living arrangement or a child in the home of a relative with physical or mental conditions that preclude the parent's employment; single parents with children, foster children, children in an out-of-care living arrangement under the Child, Family and Community Service Act or children in the home of a relative under the age of three; persons in special care, private hospitals or extended health care facilities; persons participating in treatment or rehab that interferes with employment; persons separated from an abusive spouse or relative within the previous six months where it interferes with employment; and persons who do not meet citizenship requirements.

So there are exemptions to the rules, and I think they are very fair.

M. Mungall: If I heard the minister correctly, this is just people who are exempt from the five-week…. I'll let the minister get up and correct.

Hon. D. McRae: These are people who are exempt from employment plans.

M. Mungall: I am wondering, though, in terms of those who are on income assistance, if the minister has this information. How many are people with children?

[1710]

Hon. D. McRae: I believe the question was: how many families are on income assistance? Presently, in March of 2013, which was the last time I have stats, between two- and single-parent families we have 21,360 families on income assistance. This is an improvement from the year before, where we had 21,777, so a decrease of almost 2 percent. I'm also pleased to say since 2001 we've seen the number of families on income assistance decline by 53.6 percent.

M. Mungall: I believe the minister said there has been a decrease in families on income assistance — I'm sorry; was that by 53 percent? — since 2002. When did the bulk of that decrease occur, and what does the minister account for that decrease? What's the reason for it?

Hon. D. McRae: The reason it has deceased is because the economy has improved, and there are more jobs for families in British Columbia today.

M. Mungall: Well, there's a message box answer if you ever heard one, hon. Chair.

My next question is: how are income assistance rates assessed and reviewed, and how often are they reviewed?

[1715]

Hon. D. McRae: Income assistance was last reviewed and increased in 2007. It was set at $610 monthly for a single, employable individual. If the member opposite asks, which I think she will, that then ranks us fourth out of the ten provinces of Canada.

M. Mungall: There has been no review, then, since 2007.

Hon. D. McRae: No, there hasn't.

M. Mungall: Does the minister anticipate that any review will be forthcoming either this year or in the next two years that the service plan covers?

Hon. D. McRae: As the member opposite saw today, we had another vote on the balanced budget of 2013. We ran on a campaign of balancing the budget, so our children and our future generations are not indebted for choices we make today and yesterday. I am excited that the province of British Columbia will be in a better fiscal situation as we go forward.

There are a lot of things that we can be discussing as we go forward and grow the economy of British Columbia. I'm not sure whether the members opposite agree, but the opportunity with liquefied natural gas is a chance to not only pay down debt but to perhaps have opportunities for our children and grandchildren that have not been explored.

So I think anything is in the realm of possibility as we come out of a situation…. One of only two provinces in Canada that are balancing a budget; one of only two jurisdictions in North America with a triple-A credit rating — we campaigned on that, the electorate spoke, and that is why we are in government.

M. Mungall: I'll just restate my question and hope to get a yes or no answer. Does the government anticipate to review social assistance rates? Does the government anticipate that it will review social assistance rates either this fiscal year or in the next two fiscal years that are discussed in the service plan? Yes or no.
[ Page 247 ]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not going to commit to the member opposite that we will be reviewing the rates in the next two years. However, I am very excited. The fact is that we are growing the economy of British Columbia. We are balancing a budget.

There are conversations that may exist in the coming years. So for that reason, you know, anything is possible at this stage, but more importantly, we want to make sure we balance the budget and live within our means. We'll leave it at that.

[1720]

M. Mungall: In 2007 people on income assistance and on persons-with-disabilities assistance received a $50 lift in the shelter allowance from $325 a month to $375 a month. That was six years ago now, in 2007. Back then people complained, rightfully so, pointing out that very few places in British Columbia have a rent of $375 a month.

In fact, we have one of the highest housing costs. We have the highest average housing costs across the province in British Columbia, and Vancouver — I believe next to Toronto — has the highest housing costs of anywhere in the country. Noting that being the case and that $375 was a hardship for people in 2007, we can only assume, with the cost of inflation and so on, that it's likely the case now.

In fact, I did a little research and came across the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation — the CMHC — review of what the housing costs are in British Columbia. In April, 2012, which are the last numbers that they have, the lowest average rent for a bachelor was $436. The highest average rent for a bachelor was $854. Looking at a two-bedroom, especially for somebody who has children, the lowest average was $639, and the highest average was $1,210 in Vancouver.

That being the case…. There is no plan to do a review of social assistance rates, and possibly over the next three years we'd be left with, still, $375 a month for the shelter portion of social assistance. It seems to me that it would be — what is that now? — nine years that the shelter allowance would be at $375 a month. How does the minister justify not raising the rates or not even reviewing the rates when we take into consideration that you can't get a single apartment anywhere in British Columbia for $375 a month?

[1725]

Hon. D. McRae: I would like to point out that we are the third-highest maximum shelter rate provider in the country. We are at $375, as the member points out. The highest in the country is Saskatchewan with $415. But we don't just do shelter subsidy. We also provide up to 70 supplement programs. Furthermore, clients are also eligible to receive additional income from federal and provincial tax and child benefit programs. This ranges from $30 per month for a single, employable client to well over $1,000 a month for a client with three or more children.

M. Mungall: I've pointed out that $375 is far below what anybody can get a place for in this province, that the government has decided, regardless of that fact, that they have no intention to review the rates and that just because everybody else is doing a poor job, well, B.C. is going to do a poor job too. That's just not acceptable. My question is to the minister: does he think that $375, therefore, is acceptable?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, one of the things that the B.C. Liberal government and this party believe in is that the best thing we can provide for an individual is a job — a job for them to go forward. It is very difficult to legislate an end to poverty. So $375, like I said earlier, is the third highest in Canada. It is literally $40 behind Saskatchewan.

The reality is that we want to see if we can get people off income assistance. It is designed to be a temporary measure. It's not meant to be a long-term solution. A long-term solution is making sure you have the job skills to re-engage back into employment in the province of British Columbia.

Again, one of the other pieces that I want to take on as an initiative, as minister, is that if you're on income assistance, there's a 25 percent chance you do not file federal and provincial income tax. This means that you are not receiving some of the supports you need in terms of tax credit and tax-return rebate that would assist you in your monthly living.

One of the things I'd like to see as well is: can we get a much higher percentage applying for their federal and provincial taxes? Not that they're going to pay taxes, necessarily, but the reality is they are going to be eligible for more supports. I think a fundamental difference between the two parties in the last election was that we want to grow jobs and grow employment in the province of British Columbia, and the other side wants to try to legislate it.

Again, I just don't see how the $20 a month that the opposition put forward would have made any substantial changes. The $20 a month is more money — it's $240 a year — but the reality is that it would only move us from third to second in the shelter assistance rates.

M. Mungall: That's quite the argument — to go to what the New Democrats proposed in the election and say: "Well, hey, that wasn't that great. So what is your complaint about?"

Well, the minister is the one in government here, right? The minister's decisions are what are being held accountable today in this estimates process. The minister has to speak to what his government has chosen to do over the last 12 years and what they plan to do over the next four years.
[ Page 248 ]

[1730]

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

With that in mind, I'm guessing that the minister finds the $375 acceptable, finds the $610 a month acceptable, despite the fact that there's ample evidence to show that there's nowhere in British Columbia that you can get a place for $375 a month. The lowest average rent for a bachelor in this province is in Williams Lake at $436 a month — well above the $375 a month. With that said, I am wondering how the minister and how this ministry came to $375 a month and why they decide to still stay there if they're not doing any reviews at all.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Well, hello, Chair. Welcome to the chair, Chair.

According to the best available data from StatsCan on the actual rent plus utility costs paid by individuals with families in British Columbia, our shelter allowances are sufficient to rent about 20 percent of available rental units in Vancouver and over 25 percent of units in smaller towns and cities in British Columbia.

We know that finding good, adequate accommodation on our shelter rates is challenging for many of our clients in Vancouver and Victoria. However, we also know the vast majority of our clients are adequately housed and find adequate accommodation with the current rates.

We also do know that the small percentage of people who do not have accommodation are, to the best of our ability, closely monitored by Social Development staff, and assistance is provided as necessary. I'm sure there is a certain individual out there who has slipped through the cracks. However, if they come forward and need some form of assistance to find housing, ministry staff is more than willing to work with that individual.

There's also a wide variety of housing options available to ministry clients within the maximum shelter rate provided by the ministry — for example, subsidized housing, shared accommodation, secondary suites and sublet condos. This non-conventional stock of housing comprises about 50 percent of the rental stock in Victoria and Vancouver.

The Chair: Member.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Nice to see you there.

A Voice: You're doing a great job too.

The Chair: Thank you.

M. Mungall: Fantastic.

Where's that data coming from?

A Voice: Stats Canada.

M. Mungall: It's Stats Canada data? Is the minister saying that this is coming from Stats Canada? Are these possible units…? Are they possibly substandard units? I mean, we have a real issue in this province with people being underhoused and in substandard housing.

The reason Nelson was targeted for federal dollars to address homelessness was because we had such a high stock of substandard housing. On these low-cost rentals, is there any assurance to the public that people are living in adequate housing, or are they living in substandard conditions just because the minister has decided that $375 is an adequate level for a shelter allowance?

[1735]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure that the member opposite is aware, but the regulation of housing, including residential tenancy, is with the Minister Responsible for Housing. That same minister is also responsible for the administration of the Residential Tenancy Act.

However, I did mention earlier that we also provide 70 different support programs for people either on PWD or income assistance. Amongst those programs there are just three I'd like to highlight to the members opposite.

The first one is the Moving, Transportation and Living Costs, which provides a monetary supplement to cover necessary moving, transportation and living expenses in certain situations when there are no other resources available. Reasons for issuing the supplement include a confirmed job or imminent threats to physical safety, including, as well, fleeing an abusive relationship.

We also provide security deposits — a repayable monetary supplement to assist in securing rental accommodation. Clients are limited to a maximum of two outstanding security deposits unless, of course, they are fleeing an abusive relationship; or they are required to move because their rental premises are being sold, demolished or condemned; or they are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness.

We also have a utility security deposit, which is a repayable monetary supplement to assist with the cost of securing service for electricity or natural gas. The amount paid is the minimum amount necessary to obtain the service.

M. Mungall: It looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I think that the majority of people who are on income assistance, as well as members of the public, recognize that $375 is just not enough. It just isn't. I mean, I don't know how you can get around that, but obviously this government is well determined to do that.

My next question. I was reading the service plan. Some of the things I thought…. A lot of things were interest-
[ Page 249 ]
ing in the service plan. A couple of the things I want to highlight here.

[1740]

It noted that people staying on income assistance for a longer period is up and that unemployment is 75 percent higher than pre-recession levels. Then take that into consideration with Statistics Canada job creation stats showing that we're actually down in B.C. in private sector jobs by about 31,000 since the B.C. jobs plan was announced.

I'm just wondering if the minister sees a correlation here, and if so, if he's looking at reviewing the income assistance time limits, allowing people to stay on income assistance longer than current.

Hon. D. McRae: Maybe the member opposite is not aware of this, but if she is, my apologies. Time limits for individuals on income assistance were removed, actually, in October of 2012 as part of the reform package we brought in. However, the individual does have to have an employment plan. Also, from that, there is still a certain amount of time that we do track people that are on income assistance.

M. Mungall: No, I did not know that. Thank you to the minister for answering that question. I'm sure there are many people who are very pleased to see that.

My next question is: what is the average income assistance caseload per staff person? Does this meet ministry targets?

[1745]

Hon. D. McRae: Presently there are 136,000 active income assistance cases in the province of British Columbia. This has been declining since 2011. We have 1,500 staff in the regional services division. We use a caseless model, where staff are not assigned specific files to work on.

M. Mungall: Maybe I'll rephrase and see if this generates an available answer from the ministry. Maybe they just don't have the stat. I'm just wondering: on average, on any given day, how many cases is a staff person, a front-line staff person, in the ministry working on?

Hon. D. McRae: You know, we're dealing with a wide range of individuals needing a wide range of services and supports. Some interactions could be literally, like, minutes. Some might take days for a staff member to provide the services that are necessary. It's hard to give a specific answer in this particular case. It's how much time you need to spend with that particular client to get the task at hand completed.

M. Mungall: Then my understanding is that the ministry doesn't have a target rate where they're saying, "Okay, we want a maximum" — just hypothetically here — "or an average of ten cases per staff person" — active cases per staff person, right? I mean, if something only takes a couple of minutes, that's not an active case, right? I'm thinking of something that takes, you know, weeks.

Are there no targets that the ministry has? There's no standard that the ministry has so that we know when somebody may be overworked? Or perhaps somebody is not…. Nobody is underworked ever, right? That's why I don't even want to go to say that. So that we know that people aren't overworked and so that we have a better understanding of how we are serving clients to the best of our ability.

[1750]

Hon. D. McRae: It's really hard, I think, in this ministry to actually create averages, caseloads in a day. Some issues, like a bus pass application or a bus pass question, literally could be minutes. That's why I talked earlier, to the member opposite, about the telephony situation, where we triage issues that come forward — so high, medium and low range, in terms of how long it takes to deal with individuals.

Some issues — like I say, bus passes — may be resolved in minutes, hopefully. Other issues — for example, say a young person who is 17 turning 18 and transitioning into PWD from the school system — could take many, maybe even days. Why? Because it takes that long, sometimes, working with that individual and families to make sure they receive the supports.

But for the member opposite, just to give her, sort of, some time frames we work with. For example, we try within this ministry to make decisions on eligibility for income assistance within five business days. Persons with disabilities designation determination — we try to do that within 90 days; eligibility for persons with persistent multiple barriers, known as PPMB, within ten business days; reconsideration, within ten business days of receiving a request for consideration; and family maintenance referrals are reviewed and opened within ten business days.

Again, we offer a very wide range of services, and we try our very best to make sure we deal with people in a timely and respectful manner.

M. Mungall: I guess what I've been trying to get at is to assess the workload of the front-line staff. Historically, we would think about caseload — right? — and caseload per staff person. So the minister has pointed out that that has changed and has moved more to what's called the client-centred model.

Under this model, then, how is it assessed? How is a staff person's workload assessed? That's just, actually, what I'm trying to get at.

[1755]

Hon. D. McRae: The cases model is designed to share the workload across the workforce and avoid staff burn-
[ Page 250 ]
out from a dedicated caseload. We also have, in the past, conducted employee engagement surveys, where staff self-assesses workload to make sure that they are working within their means.

As well, I mentioned earlier to the member opposite that we have embraced the lean process, where we have actually done better to make sure our front-line services are being better delivered for both the individuals receiving the services and our staff who deliver those services — three underway which are rather successful, and we have four more which are underway.

Again, one of the things I'm really excited to see and be part of is that we do have a very dedicated ministry staff who are out there. They are delivering the services. They can make great recommendations on how we can better deliver these services. For that, I'm impressed that this ministry has taken a government leadership role in the lean process.

M. Mungall: I appreciate that the minister brought up staff burnout. We all know that that has been a huge issue in the social service sector across the province, whether it's government or non-profit. I appreciate that the government has recognized that and is doing its best to address it.

My next question is: what's the ministry's process for reviewing its delivery of service to income assistance clients, and are clients included in the service delivery reviews?

Hon. D. McRae: The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation is committed to providing quality service delivery and is continually working to improve the way our clients receive services.

Clients can access service a number of ways, including telephone, which I mentioned to the member opposite. The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation receives about 1.5 million phone calls a year.

We have an on-line application tool, which means individuals do not actually have to come down to an office. We get about 75,000 applications a year this way.

Obviously, face to face, for those who wish it and desire it, is still available; and mail and fax, as well; and, to a limited degree, e-mail. If the member opposite is wondering why I say limited degree e-mail, there are some privacy concerns that need to be worked out to make sure that individuals are treated fairly and with security, as needed.

[1800]

The ministry has also launched what we call the channel strategy, which guides us towards a provincially integrated, efficient, standardized and technology-enabled service delivery that supports a positive client outcome. Stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of the channel strategy, and the ministry has actively solicited and incorporated feedback from staff, advocacy groups and clients through the planning and implementation stage of this initiative.

Just for more detail, the channel strategy stakeholder engagement plan was developed to obtain information and feedback to inform the channel strategy, identify service delivery efficiencies that will enhance client satisfaction — that's important — and determine and monitor client satisfaction on an ongoing basis.

Consultation with stakeholders has begun. Focus group sessions were held with advocacy organizations from January through March of this year and with clients from February through March of this year as well. There was an optional feedback survey that was added to the self-serve assessment — an application, and clients will also be involved in the usability testing for the on-line portal. Lastly, a plan is under development to monitor client satisfaction with all the channels.

M. Mungall: Just on the last point that the minister said around a plan underway to monitor client satisfaction. Recently in the news media…. We get these phone calls, I'm sure, in everybody's constituency office. We all get these phone calls when people have had a really negative experience with social assistance, whether it was the application process or a reconsideration or so on — a very negative experience. They felt like they weren't treated like a human being. And there are always two sides to every coin, right? Sometimes the staff people will feel like they weren't treated like human beings by that particular individual as well.

I just want to make sure that we're always reviewing that so that we're treating people with dignity. I'm sure the ministry and the minister have every intention to do that and — it being a large ministry with thousands of staff — are finding ways to monitor that. So I'm happy to hear about that last point, that a monitoring process is being put in place.

With that said, going back to the service plan and looking at it, one of the things that jumped out at me was the percent of reconsideration decisions that are made within the time frames. The baseline was 82 percent in 2001-2002. In last year's service plan, the 2011-12 service plan, the number forecasted for that year — they had not yet had the data — was 65 percent, then jumping to 100 percent the following years.

Looking at this year's service plan, what we see is 90 percent forecasted for this year, which is a 10 percent reduction in forecasting from last year. Nonetheless, that's not really my question. My question was: what caused that jump from 65 percent being the forecast all the way to 90 percent or 100 percent? That's no incremental improvement. You're looking to make a big improvement. I'm wondering what's causing that.

[1805]

Hon. D. McRae: We're talking about reconsiderations here. Our goal, obviously, is to have reconsiderations
[ Page 251 ]
done within ten business days. Since January of 2013 I'm pleased to say that we were able to actually reconsider successfully 97 percent of the cases that come before us.

Why were we able to do this? Well, we consolidated two branches of the ministry to increase the number of staff members doing reconsideration. We also assigned a senior manager to oversee the branch. As well, we revamped procedures and training for staff and have seen some substantial improvements.

I would also like to point out to the member opposite that, while we haven't reached 100 percent, one of the major issues in not making the ten-day period is the individual themselves, who, in seeking reconsideration, will often need to provide us with some form of data, and so that will add some extra time to it. But I think that's to the benefit of the client and the reconsideration process in general. I think it works for both parties in that manner.

M. Mungall: Excellent. I am noting the time and that generally we finish estimates at quarter past the hour. It being ten past, I'll just ask a couple more questions and then hold the rest for tomorrow.

These questions…. I just want to let the minister know that I've asked some community groups around the province to share with me some of the questions that they might have for the minister, and that's exactly what these are.

I wanted to provide that opportunity to some of the community groups who have been working on these issues for several decades.

This comes from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. The first question that they have for the minister…. One could argue that we have already canvassed some of this, but I think it's important that their question does get on the record.

"People with disabilities who receive the persons-with-disabilities benefit and the persons with persistent and multiple barriers to employment benefit are living in abject poverty. Since 2001 PWD has increased by $120, while the cost of basic essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, health, personal care and shelter has increased by more than 17 percent.

"During this period the cost of food alone increased by nearly 25 percent. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, as part of the Disability Without Poverty network, produced a paper in 2012 calling for an increase to B.C.'s disability benefit rate, which is currently $906 a month. Entitled Overdue: The Case for Increasing the Persons with Disabilities Benefit in B.C., the paper was written with Inclusion B.C., formerly the B.C. Association for Community Living; Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division; Community Legal Assistance Society; and the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.

"Overdue shows how the PWD rate is inadequate and results in PWD recipients living in poverty. We are calling for a $300 a month increase to PWD for a total of $1,200 a month; secondly, PWD to be index-linked to help ensure it keeps pace with the rising cost of living so that inflation does not continually erode the ability of PWD recipients to afford shelter, food, clothing and other basic needs.

[1810]

"Thirdly is the introduction of a shelter assistance program similar to SAFER, which is Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, to help close the gap between the cost of housing and the amount people with disabilities can afford."

The question is: will the minister commit to working towards implementing these recommendations?

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. We have worked with that organization in the past and continue to work with them. We thank them for their input.

There are challenges in government. Like yourself, member opposite…. We were both elected in 2009, and there are challenges. There is a limited amount of dollars the government has to spend.

I know that when I was Minister of Agriculture, there were demands on the resources within that ministry. For example, the tree fruit growers were wanting a replant program. It had value and was important, by all means, and we struggled to find the dollars. But you know what? We do our best.

When I was Minister of Education, last spring we brought forward a seismic mitigation program — 45 schools to be seismically upgraded across the province of British Columbia at a cost of about, from my memory, $580 million.

There are always demands on government resources, and there always will be demands on the government resources.

The coalition's ask — and by all means, I respect their right to ask — comes at a cost of $300 million a year if we were to go forward. We try to provide a suite of services for residents from all regions of British Columbia and from all walks of life.

[1815]

We were able to make some policy enhancements in October 2012, ones I would like to highlight again. We increased earning exemptions for persons with disabilities to $800 for families where one adult has disabilities and $1,600 for families where two adults have disabilities.

I know from my experience, both in the campaign that we just went through but also before and after, that individuals have come up to me, specifically about this ministry initiative, and said: "Thank you very much. It's made a big difference." Is it a solution that will solve all problems? No, but it was a change that the individuals were asking for. They like it, and there is a way to really make a difference.

There is also a $200 monthly earning exemption that was introduced for employable clients with families and young children. Tax returns and family bonus retroactive payments were made exempt. Asset levels were increased, and trust disbursement levels were increased to PWD clients.

As well, like I mentioned earlier, we provide a range of 70 different support supplements for individuals within this ministry — everything from co-op share purchasing, the Christmas supplement, family bonus top-up, funeral
[ Page 252 ]
supplement, school startup supplement, special transportation subsidy and, like I mentioned earlier, the bus pass, and the identification supplement. We provide a large range of services for individuals across the province to make sure that they are supported by this government.

Yes, I understand the organization would like more. I know our PWD rates are competitive across the country. However, compared to Alberta, which has recently raised their rates, there are some comparisons often being made there.

The best thing we can do, as well, is again, whether you are a person with disabilities or you're on income assistance…. If you're able to work, can we create a climate in this province where we make you more self-sufficient, whether it is through the earning exemption piece or whether it is through actual full-time employment? There are some opportunities there. I'm looking forward in the next four years….

As a new MLA in the last four years, when we came through literally the worst recession in 70 years, it was challenging. It was challenging for families. It was challenging for individuals. It was challenging for governments.

We are bringing forward a balanced budget. We are hoping to grow the economy as we go forward, providing opportunities for young people, for older people in the province to ensure they have a quality of life that allows them to live with dignity and fairness in all regions of the province.

As a minister who provides employment services and provides services for persons with disabilities, I'm looking forward to seeing the province go in a position that provides better supports.

As well, with the white paper we will have those consultation pieces in the fall going forward to figure out how we can become the most progressive jurisdiction for PWD individuals in Canada. I think it is the right thing to do.

I'm looking very forward to individuals coming forward in the consultation piece, sharing their thoughts and ideas with government. I'm sure the resulting white paper that comes out of it will be much discussed both by government and individuals across the province going forward.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:18 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada