2014 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 3

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I rise today to introduce Maureen McGrath, who's the chair of the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Nurse Continence Advisors Association, and Adrian Wagg, president of the Canadian Continence Foundation. Will the House please make Maureen and Adrian most welcome.

C. James: I have two constituents who are visiting the Legislature today. The first is a retired teacher, Jacob Kreiser. Since the MLA finds out everything about everybody, I found out that Jacob actually taught with my mother in the greater Victoria school district. Welcome, Jacob. He's here with his son Vince Kreiser. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: All of us are blessed to have fantastic staff. I'm very delighted today that in the gallery we have my administrative coordinator, Kim, and her husband, Chris Haslett. Kim is a very important part of the team in our office, and although she is fantastic, she's soon going to be taking leave for a very good reason.

We were very excited when Kim told us that she was expecting a baby, and you can imagine double our pleasure when she found out that she and Chris are expecting twins. We want to congratulate them, wish her very well and thank her for the excellent service that she provides in our office every single day.

M. Karagianis: I have two introductions to make today, if you'll bear with me. The first is a young woman from my constituency. She lives in the far regions out near Royal Roads University. Her name is Cindy Yee. I understand that Cindy has become more interested in politics after listening to me speak on a radio program. I'm very happy that I have inspired someone to pay more attention to what we do in this House. Please make Cindy very, very welcome.

The second introduction I'd like to make…. If you look around, the gallery is full of a group of very amazing individuals. Every one of them is hard-working. They do an extraordinary job every single day on behalf of the members here in the opposition seats. They help us look good, do our job better and, in fact, are the ones who lift most of the weight in our constituencies. They are the constituency assistants for the opposition members. We'd like to welcome them all and say thank you very much for the hard work you do.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have the pleasure today to introduce a couple of constituents from the constituency of Chilliwack-Hope. They are, in fact, my mother and father and my nephew. Patricia and Grant Homewood and Caleb Kehler have joined me today to have a tour of the Legislature and see us in action. Caleb is in grade 5 this year and studying government in school.

K. Corrigan: At Christmastime this year we did the big family vacation to Mexico and took all four of our kids and their partners. My son Patrick and his fiancée, Kaleigh, took the opportunity to get married at a surprise wedding, which was also attended by Kaleigh's parents.

I was mentioning it today and wanted to announce it because this weekend we are actually going to have the big reception. I'm so proud to welcome Kaleigh into the family — she's been there for a long time, but it's official now — and also to welcome Tom and Joanne, her parents, into the family. Congratulations to Kaleigh and Patrick Corrigan.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We're going to be joined in a few minutes by 60 grade 5 students and parents from Surrey Christian School in my riding. I would ask all the members to make them welcome.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to welcome today to the Legislature my beautiful partner, Angelina Cantada.

[1340]

She's here for the day and accompanied by her good friend from San Francisco, Carol Gancia. It's her first visit here to the Legislature, first time to Victoria. She enjoyed the ferry ride over on our marine coastal highway. I ask everybody to please give them a warm welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Dietitians Day. Dietitians of Canada is a national professional association of 6,000 registered dietitians, and I have 19 of them in the gallery today.

I wish that the House would welcome Sonya Kupka, who's the regional executive director; Gerry Kasten, a fellow of the Dietitians of Canada; Monika Liefhebber; Vesanto Melina; Lisa Forster-Coull; Janice Macdonald; Lynda Corby; Darlene Ravensdale; Margaret Woodlock; Sophia Baker-French; Anne Simmons; Jodi Holland; Annika Treffner; Christine Thompson; Kathie Ruggieri; Nicole Fetterly; Esther Stevens; Kelby Shelrud; and Sara Rodrigues.

Could the House please welcome these valuable health care professionals to Victoria.
[ Page 2136 ]

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce Wanda Morris, who is here today. She's the executive director of Dying With Dignity Canada. Wanda is here to meet with the opposition caucus to discuss the issues of dying with dignity. It's actually something that 80 percent of British Columbians agree with, but not all of us agree on what that actually means, so we are really looking forward to our discussion with Wanda. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

D. Routley: Can the House help me welcome an old friend of mine, Lisa Winfrey Read. Lisa is a teacher from Duncan. I've known her since I was a small boy.

Her brother Jesse Winfrey is an ex–Duncan city councillor. He's a chef with the Vancouver Island Health Authority, and we have been friends since kindergarten.

We had the distinction, as wolf pack members in Cub Scouts, to be the only Cub Scout group evicted from one of the churches in Duncan and put to the very back of the line when there was a royal visit to Duncan. I'm not sure that's something Jesse would want to celebrate with me. I'm sure he would appreciate that, though. He's got a great sense of humour.

Jesse and his sister Lisa, who joins us here, have been great friends. Lisa is one of those teachers who has affected the lives of so many wee ones, and the community is so much the better for her service. Please help me make her welcome.

A. Weaver: I have a number of introductions. First, I'd like to introduce four amazingly talented students from Pearson College, which is located in the riding of the member for Juan de Fuca. Erica Cooper is from the riding of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, the member for Prince George–Valemount. Second is Linda Warden, from the member for Penticton's riding. Jessica Collins is from Westminster, in the U.K, where of course the British House of Parliament is located. Charles Kofi Fosu is from Ghana. These four students are visiting the Legislature as part of their project week with the United World College, Pearson College.

The second person I'd like to introduce is an incredibly talented Canadian, an artist, an activist and a writer. Her name is Franke James. Anybody who has been following climate communication in any aspect of this area across Canada or, frankly, in the U.S. will recognize the profound impact Franke James has had on the communication of the importance of taking climate into account in policy decisions.

Again, I'd like the House to please welcome both the Pearson College students and Franke James, who it's a great pleasure to be able to host here in the Legislature.

M. Bernier: One thing I enjoy about sitting at this end is that we usually get to save the best for last, so I'm really excited to stand today. The district of Tumbler Ridge in my riding is known for being one of the best coal-mining communities in this great province. But as we found out today, it is also known for some of the best dinosaur fossil finds in the entire world. It was a great time we had this morning to hear about this.

With that, I'd like to introduce two members who came down all the way from the district of Tumbler Ridge, in my riding, to Victoria to explain this to us today. We have with us the mayor, Mayor Darwin Wren, and Councillor Rob Mackay, who came down from Tumbler Ridge. I'm hoping that the gallery will please make them welcome.

[1345]

J. Kwan: I look up in the galleries and, of course, I see the wonderful face of my constituency assistant's partner, Trevor, who is here visiting us today. I'm just delighted to see him here enjoying the sights but really coming in to watch question period to see how this place ought not to function.

More importantly, I simply just want to say an early congratulations to Trevor and Jason for their wedding that's coming up this summer.

Welcome, Trevor and Jason and everyone else.

J. Darcy: It's my great pleasure to welcome someone to the House who is often here in the galleries, I think, almost every day. But I think he deserves a special recognition. Mr. Lynn Klein is an ambulance paramedic by trade, historically, who is a great historian in his own right of the B.C. Ambulance Service — and also of many other great developments in this province — and the brother of the former Premier of Alberta — although, as Lynn and I have discussed, we won't necessarily share a common perspective on that.

We certainly do honour his contribution to the Ambulance Service, his contribution to documenting the history of this province and his avid attention to the goings-on in the Legislature almost every single day.

J. Horgan: I know it's a tradition, when grandchildren are born, to stand in this place. Before my two sons start panicking and looking at each other, instead, I'd like to introduce my grand-goddaughter born to my goddaughter Cara Walsh and her husband, Sean Walsh. Last week Ivy May Walsh came into the world, and she's awesome. Would the House please make her very, very welcome.

Ministerial Statements

20th ANNIVERSARY OF
MLA FOR ABBOTSFORD WEST

Hon. C. Clark: Madame Speaker, I rise to make a statement today. As everyone knows, you are the longest-serving member of this Legislature, and we congratulate you for that and thank you for your long years of service.
[ Page 2137 ]

But today I rise to pay tribute to the second-longest-serving member of this Legislature. And I rise today because it was 20 years ago this week that the member for Abbotsford West was first sworn in as a member for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I want you to think back to about 20 years ago. Forrest Gump was the number one movie at the box office. Tiger Woods won the U.S. Amateur. If you look at photos from back then, you'll certainly see that the fashion was apparently big glasses, silkscreen ties — and hair.

That first election in which he was elected was a by-election, and it wasn't exactly a landslide. He was elected the first time by 42 votes. Since then, the support of his constituents has increased enormously because he has proven himself to be the definition of what it is to be a great constituency MLA.

He has delivered major projects, including a new hospital, a new cancer clinic, an airport expansion. He has also done all of the quiet work that it takes to be a great representative — all that casework that nobody hears about, except for the grateful constituent, who will always remember the hard work of their MLA. With this MLA, the member for Abbotsford West, on the job, they always got the job done.

As an opposition member, when I first met the member, I often sat with great delight, watching the chagrin on the faces of the members opposite when he proved to be such a highly effective and entertaining critic of the then government, delivering what were devastating critiques with that sly smile we have all come to know and love so much. Well, maybe not everybody.

From his first cabinet appointment to today, he has left an outstanding legacy. He began the process to open up new markets for our forest sector in Asia. He introduced the tough new drunk-driving laws that are saving lives every week and every month in this province. He got health care spending under control. And he has delivered two consecutive balanced budgets.

[1350]

In other words, he has shown what it is to be an effective MLA, how to be a great minister of the Crown and how to make the province better. If that was all, that would be enough legacy for most of us, but there is more.

Occasionally a member in this House shows themselves to be a real student of Parliament. They come to embody the traditions on which our system is founded. It's not about being a tactician; it's about respect for the Westminster style of government and all of the history that that entails. That is what marks some in this chamber as true parliamentarians. The member celebrating 20 years today has led by example in that realm as well.

A great parliamentarian, a great MLA, an outstanding cabinet minister. Will the House please join me in congratulating the man with the wry smile and so much less hair, the member for Abbotsford West, for 20 years of long service to our province and hoping he serves the people of British Columbia for many, many more years to come. [Applause.]

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and respond to the ministerial statement from the Premier, though after hearing what she had to say about my colleague's accomplishments over the last 20 years, it really looks like he should be Premier. [Laughter.]

Those of you on that side of the House need to think back, as the Premier said, to those 20 years ago, because I don't know how many realize just what a momentous evening it was, that by-election back in 1994. The Premier listed Forrest Gump, for example, and a number of other things about the '90s, but what I remember at that time in 1994 was that we were government and we still had seven more years to go.

What was truly remarkable about that evening — and I think what does the member credit and speaks a lot to his staying power over the last 20 years — was that that was a pivotal by-election in the political history of British Columbia with Social Credit and the return of Social Credit to the political scene after the devastating loss in 1991. Would the B.C. Liberal Party cement its role as the party that would occupy the space that Social Credit had done?

The Liberals had a young, bespectacled candidate who had a carefree hair style back then, and he won by 42 votes. Think about that — 42 votes. Who says your vote doesn't count? It does. Anyway, he made his way into this chamber, and 20 years later he still has the carefree hair style.

I can say that over those 20 years I have got to know him in capacities as a colleague, working with him as House Leader, as a minister on that side and as an opposition critic on this side. We have jousted on many issues over those years.

One that I think does come to mind that is clearly in the "you could get away with this but not now" was the day that he presented what he thought was a bomb of a question — literally a ticking package — in this chamber. That was very much his style at that time. Over those years we have seen him mature — both physically but also politically.

I think the Premier is right. It really is remarkable when you are able to represent a constituency for 20 years, because the average tenure is about seven years in British Columbia history, and 20 years is a remarkable achievement. Clearly, he has earned the trust and the confidence of the voters of, initially, Matsqui, and Abbotsford West. All of us on this side would like to join with the Premier and his colleagues and congratulate him on 20 years of service to the province. [Applause.]

[1355]

TRADE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH KOREA

Hon. C. Clark: I have another ministerial statement. I know that the members opposite have been notified.

British Columbians have asked members of this House to set aside our differences, to work together so that we can grow the economy for everyone. They know that the only way to pay for the services that British Columbians depend on is to build a healthy and growing economy. A major part of our plan to get there is to increase trade with the emerging economies of Asia. Because of our proximity, because of our natural advantages, we've had tremendous success, partly due to the work that was begun by the Member for Abbotsford South that we have spoken about today, in expanding our trade relationships there.

In South Korea, we have not been on a level playing field. Our competitors in the U.S., Australia and the EU have had free trade agreements, and they have prospered because of those agreements. I'll give one example of the difference. Our lumber exports to South Korea have actually declined over the past three years, while our exports to China and Japan have been setting historic records. We needed a level playing field, and we've had some very good news on that front.

Today the Prime Minister is in Vancouver. The federal government has announced they have reached a free trade agreement with South Korea. South Korea is Canada's seventh-largest trading partner, but trade with Korea is more important to British Columbia than any other province in Canada. Over half of all Canadian exports to South Korea originate in British Columbia. They're actually our fourth-largest trading partner.

We've had tremendous success in brokering trade deals and agreements with Korean companies like Samsung, KOGAS, Korea Institute for Science and Technology. Now, with these barriers removed, we can go even further. We can create more opportunity. We can create more jobs. The news today from the Prime Minister and the federal government on the Korea-Canada trade deal is great news for all British Columbians.

B. Ralston: I'd like to thank the Premier for her statement. In my visit to Korea last fall I was impressed with the dynamism and vibrancy of the society and economy of Korea, particularly the capacity of its citizens for hard work.

British Columbia, of course, has strong ties to South Korea. Canadians of Korean origin are an important and growing community here in British Columbia. The growing influence of that community is reflected here in this Legislature. A member of the official opposition, the member for Burnaby-Lougheed, elected in 2013, is the first Canadian of Korean origin to ever be elected to this Legislature.

Growing trade with the Asia-Pacific and, in this case, South Korea is an important part of our economic future here in British Columbia. Overall, as the Premier has noted, South Korea is British Columbia's fourth-largest trading partner. South Korea is an important market for B.C. resources, and there are other opportunities for growth as well — to attract more international students here from South Korea and also to attract more tourists here from Korea to grow our tourism industry.

We look forward to the expansion of trade with South Korea and the future of shared economic prosperity it will bring us here in British Columbia.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — ARMSTRONG-SPALLUMCHEEN
STUDENT ASSISTANCE ASSOCIATION
(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2014

G. Kyllo presented a bill intituled Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2014.

G. Kyllo: I move that a bill intituled Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2014, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

G. Kyllo: The Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Society was dissolved by the registrar of companies for failure to file annual reports for ten years. The society was unaware that it had been struck and continued to operate. The Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association was incorporated in British Columbia on June 29, 1965, under the Society Act.

The purpose of the society is to provide non-interest-bearing loans to qualifying graduating high school students from both the city of Armstrong and the township of Spallumcheen who are registered to take post-secondary education.

[1400]

The society wishes to transfer its current assets of approximately $65,000 to Pleasant Valley Secondary School in Armstrong, which will continue to manage and disburse those funds for the same purposes. The society cannot transfer its assets unless it is restored. It wishes to be restored for a period of one year so that it can effect the transfer of its current assets.

Madame Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, Armstrong-Spallumcheen Student Assistance Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, [ Page 2139 ]
2014, introduced, read a first time and and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NUTRITION MONTH
AND WORK OF DIETITIANS

J. Thornthwaite: March is Nutrition Month. Today is Dietitians Day, a day in which we recognize the expertise of B.C.'s registered dietitians and the critical role they play in the health of our province. As a former RD with 22 years' experience working in hospitals, industry, education, private practice and community health, it gives me great pleasure to talk about the important work dietitians do and how they are acting in concert with government to improve health outcomes and the quality of life for British Columbians.

By the way, dietitians have at least one university degree, and the title "dietitian" is protected by law, just like for doctors, nurses and pharmacists. Dietitians alter people's relationship with food. They translate nutrition information into practical advice, allowing clients to take control of their health, make daily healthy food choices and recover or prevent chronic illness. RDs support the assessment of patients upon admission to hospitals or care facilities. They determine if patients have any health risks and draft appropriate nutrition care plans to support them.

By relying on their leadership in this area, we can significantly reduce the amount of time patients require care and minimize the chances of recurring illness, saving valuable health dollars. Dietitians work in many different fields. Their career opportunities are endless. Government and dietitians are committed to working together on initiatives like dialing 811, HealthLink B.C., in order to speak with an RD for free.

Yesterday I attended the Informed Dining launch at UVic with the Minister of Health and fellow dietitians. This program helps consumers make healthy choices while dining out. Restaurants participating in the program provide nutrition information for their entire menu, making a healthy choice the easy choice.

We are more equipped than ever to provide the best nutrition information to the public and to fight malnutrition and chronic illness with education and preventative care. Registered dietitians are at the forefront of nutrition education. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for making B.C. a healthier place.

ORGANIZING FOR CHANGE COALITION
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

S. Chandra Herbert: The majesty of the Flathead, the wonder of the Great Bear rainforest, the richness of the Sacred Headwaters — places of such spiritual, social, ecological and economic wealth. Can you imagine what B.C. would be without places like these? I can't, and neither can Organizing for Change. Organizing for Change is a project made up of some of B.C.'s leading environmental organizations, dedicated to conserving and preserving our air, water, land and all that relies on them.

Made up of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Conservation Northwest, the Dogwood Initiative, Ecojustice, ForestEthics, the Georgia Strait Alliance, Greenpeace, the Pembina Institute, Sierra Club B.C., West Coast Environmental Law and Wildsight, Organizing for Change brings together many of B.C.'s well-known environmental advocates to form a collective voice and bring collective action to better our province.

Ably supported by Lisa Matthaus, they involve hundreds of thousands of British Columbians in campaigns to put our ecological wealth and well-being at the forefront of public policy in this place. Every year they meet with MLAs to bring forward practical, pragmatic and visionary lists of achievable, high-impact policy priorities for us all to get behind.

They've had some real successes, but there is so much more to be done. If we want to be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and be able to say we've all done what we can to leave the world a better place for them, we would do well to heed Organizing for Change's advice. We could finalize the Great Bear rainforest agreement, finally open a new national marine park in the southern strait of Georgia Strait, ban cosmetic pesticides, enact endangered species legislation, restart our fight against climate change — to name but a few of their priorities that they've brought us over the years.

On behalf of this side of the House and, I'm sure, on that side of the House as well, I'd like to thank Organizing for Change for their leadership. It's a pleasure to work for them, and I wish them all the best.

[1405]

MARPOLE PLACE NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

Moira Stilwell: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak about a wonderful community institution that is changing people's lives and turning strangers into friends. The Marpole Place Neighbourhood House is a vibrant community hub that strives to respond to the needs of our community and bring about positive social change. Its goal is to be a low-barrier and inclusive organization that provides support, activities, resources and opportunities to everyone in the community.

Through the help of countless volunteers, Marpole Place has become integral in creating community connections and addressing and reducing the effects of isolation, discrimination and poverty. Marpole Place has strong community partnerships with community mem-
[ Page 2140 ]
bers, local businesses, health and service agencies and social advocacy groups.

Last December Marpole Place Neighbourhood House suffered a major flood that pushed them out of their home. They are now working out of St. Augustine's Church and other places in the community.

Despite that, over the past year Marpole Place Neighbourhood House has worked to increase its partnerships in the community, including these examples: working with Village Vancouver to establish Marpole Neighbourhood Food Network, collaborating with Jewish Family Service Agency to make the Better at Home program more accessible, working with Westside Mobile Food Market to provide fresh, local and low-cost produce to seniors, and so on.

Will the House please join me in recognizing the Marpole Place Neighbourhood House and its mission to provide sustainable and affordable ways for our neighbours to stay healthy and connected to their community.

RESTORATION OF
LADNER UNITED CHURCH

V. Huntington: Speaking of healthy and connected, I'm pleased to rise today to speak about the restoration and renovation of the historic Ladner United Church. The Ladner United Church has been at the heart of our community since it opened in 1893. In the generations that followed, our community grew. And the church, undergoing several major renovations, grew alongside it, continuing its long service to the people of Ladner.

Unfortunately, the original building — through long use, normal wear and tear and sundry renovations — was becoming non-functional and was looking old and sad. The most economical option would have been to tear the church down and build something modern. But despite its condition, this old church is loved not only by its members but by the community at large. It is an important, symbolic presence in the historic village of Ladner — providing, among many other services, Delta's only extreme weather shelter.

Wanting both to honour heritage and to continue serving the people of Ladner, the congregation of Ladner United Church and their friends in the wider community worked hard to raise the necessary funds.

Late last year they were able to launch an extensive renovation — a renovation that is not only bringing the Ladner United Church into the 21st century but is also restoring the original neo-Gothic sanctuary and the building's historic exterior. The quality and innovation of this renovation is thanks to the dedication of builder Steve Knoblauch of RAM Construction. Quite obviously, he puts his whole heart into this amazing restoration. Finally, it cannot go without saying that the Ladner church is almost debt-free, the congregation having already raised 95 percent of the renovation costs.

I'm pleased to announce that the restored Ladner United Church will reopen and be dedicated in April of this year. I can attest that it is a beautiful landmark with its original historic detailing and a multifunctional space designed to serve everyone in the community.

Would the House please join me in congratulating the Rev. Jim Short and his congregation on their wonderful new place of not only worship but of service to the community of Ladner.

CADETS CANADA PROGRAM

M. Dalton: Since the late 1800s, in towns and cities across the country, the Canadian cadet program has offered training to young people free of charge. Army Cadets began with a mandate of training boys over the age of 12 in military skills and drills. During the First and Second World Wars thousands volunteered to serve Canada overseas.

The cadet program is one of Canada's longest-running youth programs and is for both males and females. Cadets can choose to join Sea, Army or Air Cadets in corps and squadrons within their local community.

Sea Cadet activities include sailing and safe boating, range safety, drill, music and ship tours. As well, Sea Cadets learn naval history and knowledge, leadership and instructional techniques. Army Cadets learn orienteering, GPS technology, first aid, camping, canoeing, survival skills and riflery. Air Cadets develop skills in aviation, both power flying and gliding, aerospace and aircraft maintenance, navigation and outdoor survival.

[1410]

Regardless of what branch cadets choose to learn, there's a focus on leadership, physical fitness and citizenship. There are more than 6,700 cadets in B.C. today. Cadet branches in my riding include the 521 Aurora Squadron in Mission, with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. In Maple Ridge we have the 583 Legion Coronation Squadron, also with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets; the 354 Invincible Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps; and the 1838 Maple Ridge Legion Army Cadet Corps.

Thank you to the commanding officers, training officers and instructors who work and volunteer to assist our local cadets. The sea, army and air cadets all make a positive impact on the communities of Maple Ridge, Mission and across British Columbia. Young people learn self-discipline, gain self-confidence, make lifelong friendships and learn skills that they can take with them for the rest of their lives.

CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS

S. Hammell: One of the things all of us here can agree on is that we have talented, dedicated and hard-working constituency assistants. As you know, in the gallery a
[ Page 2141 ]
number of CAs are here from our side. Being away from our constituencies is often difficult, but comfort comes knowing that your CAs are dealing effectively with the numerous e-mails, faxes, phone calls and visits they receive daily.

But hon. Speaker, while doing this work they do receive some very interesting demands. Through you to the people of British Columbia, as amazing as our constituency assistants are, all of your wishes cannot be granted. Regardless of how they are asked, nicely or not, our CAs cannot or will not stop your neighbour's dog from barking or pick up an animal carcass from your driveway. They cannot remove old furniture from your house, clean out your septic tank, cut down trees to better your view or cancel Halloween because you don't like noisy children. They cannot directly administer the H1N1 vaccine, and they definitely cannot ensure that the Vancouver Canucks win the Stanley Cup — not even get to the playoffs.

Our CAs will not call up your wife and insist she love you more. They will not perform prostate exams when MSP won't cover it. They cannot personally come to your home to remove your smart meter or ask the person hiding in the bushes to leave.

Last, but not the end of this list, our CAs definitely cannot get you unblocked from the Premier's Facebook.

Clearly, we owe a lot of gratitude to our incredible CAs for the work they do. So from all of us to all of you, thank you.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN LES TO
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS PROCESS

A. Dix: Can the Premier explain why she's spending $140,000 on a wasteful, extra, superfluous, porkbarrelling, double-dipping patronage appointment for John Les?

Hon. C. Clark: I became aware of the details of the contract yesterday afternoon. Very clearly, they are not consistent with our commitment as a government to control government spending, to keep government small. So I have agreed with the Attorney General that the offer will be withdrawn — has been withdrawn.

A. Dix: I am delighted and now very optimistic about my second question, because Gordon Wilson knows about as much about LNG as John Les does about emergency preparedness.

[1415]

To the Premier: can the Premier explain how and why this happened? Who approved the appointment? Presumably, this appointment comes through her office. Who approved the appointment, and how and why did it happen?

Hon. C. Clark: It is funny how when the member opposite says he's delighted, he still never looks happy.

As I said, I became aware of the details of the contract yesterday afternoon. It was not consistent with our commitment as a government to control government spending, and so this morning Mr. Les was informed that we were withdrawing that offer.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT
OF GORDON WILSON

A. Dix: Well, if the Premier is interested in my happiness, there's a long list: 20 failed Liberal candidates, four former MLAs on that list. We could have a real party in here today.

The same argument applies, surely, to Gordon Wilson, so I'll ask the Premier if she'll withdraw and cut that appointment.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Wilson, in his appointment, I can say — in the last several months, the few months that he's been working on the LNG Buy B.C. program — has made a real difference. He's been travelling to communities all across the province, connecting British Columbia's small- and medium-sized business with the LNG opportunity.

Our commitment as a government is to ensure that first of all, the LNG opportunity comes to British Columbia — something that certainly we differ, I know, with the opposition — but also to make sure that we are connecting British Columbia businesses so that they can create jobs in their local communities. That's an essential part of making this happen.

You know, if the member in favour of LNG was to stand up and speak about it, it would be one thing. The member who's not in favour of LNG — it might be another. The member who is sometimes in favour of LNG — it might be another. But I guarantee you this. There would be no Buy B.C. LNG program; there would be no LNG coming to British Columbia; and this economy would not be growing.

We on this side of the House take a very different view of that. We believe in economic growth. We believe in liquefied natural gas. And we believe in saying yes to resource development.

APPOINTMENT OF BEN STEWART AS
ASIAN TRADE COMMISSIONER

S. Simpson: We're all pleased that the government has back-pedalled out of the John Les debacle now, but we all know that Mr. Les was hardly alone when it came to
[ Page 2142 ]
the litany of patronage and pork-barrel appointments.

After the last election, we all know that Ben Stewart stepped down his seat to allow the Premier to get into the Legislature. Mr. Stewart then received a $150,000-a-year appointment as an agent trade commissioner to which we still have no evidence what his qualifications are.

Will the Premier take the same position with Mr. Stewart as she's taking with Mr. Les: rescind that and put somebody in there who's qualified?

Hon. C. Clark: It's certainly taken the opposition a little while to get around to asking this question, I have to say. I'm happy to answer it because Ben Stewart is eminently qualified for this position. His experience in participating in trade missions as a leading member of British Columbia's business community, as someone who has built a small business into a thriving concern that has helped establish the Okanagan, in the world's eyes, as a centre for wine and for agritourism…. He also brings with him the weight and the heft of a former cabinet minister, which obviously plays a big role, we all know, in forming relationships in Asia.

[1420]

We are absolutely intent on growing our trade relationships with Asia. In order to do that, we've doubled the number of staff that we have in the offices on the ground there, and we've also raised profile of those offices there by ensuring that there is someone heading up our operations in Asia who has a direct line to government, can solve problems immediately and can make sure that people in Asia know that we value this relationship that we have with them extremely highly.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I have no doubt in my mind that there are many people in the Premier's office who are very grateful to Mr. Stewart for stepping aside so that she could have a place to land with a seat.

Mr. Stewart might be a very good vintner and know about wine, but where is the evidence that he understands Asia and that he understands that file? There is no evidence of that, as there is no evidence that Mr. Les had a clue about emergency preparedness.

Will the Premier do the right thing and show some merit — at least identify where the merit is — for Mr. Stewart and the litany of other failed Liberals who have got jobs from her?

Hon. C. Clark: The member opposite is rarely inclined to take my word for anything, so let me offer the word of a few other people. Greg D'Avignon, who's the president and CEO of the B.C. Business Council, said: "Ben Stewart brings a strong record and valuable experience to his role." The mayor of Vancouver, the former NDP member for Vancouver-Fairview, says: "Ben Stewart will reinforce our efforts to support Vancouver companies in expanding into Chinese markets."

I know that Mr. Stewart will accomplish a lot on behalf of British Columbians. He knows what it takes to build a successful business, he knows what it takes to build a successful relationship, and he knows what it takes and how important it is to cement the ties between British Columbia and Asia so that we can deliver on our plan to create jobs here at home for the people of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES AND
FUNDING FOR RESCUE TRUCK
ON TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

N. Macdonald: To the Premier. The Revelstoke road rescue truck was hit and written off during a rescue on the Trans-Canada Highway. The minister refused to fund the purchase of a new rescue truck, because she has to make what she calls tough decisions, right? The Premier was willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for John Les to do nothing useful. She's agreed with that assessment: nothing useful for the money. The same amount would get a rescue truck that actually saves lives.

The question for the Premier. You had the money yesterday to waste on John Les. Will you apply it to rescuing people on the Trans-Canada Highway today?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know what part of "the offer has been withdrawn" the member fails to understand.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstokeon a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, let's turn to the Attorney General. She, surprisingly, might have an answer on something today.

Yesterday you had money to waste on John Les. That money has been withdrawn.

The minister has an obligation to make sure that people travelling on the Trans-Canada are safe. Remember that this vehicle is something that applies to over 80 to 100 rescues in the course of a year, and 90 percent of those are people outside of Revelstoke.

The minister said no yesterday, said there was no money. Clearly, there's money. Will she apply the money that should have gone to Revelstoke rescue — but went to John Les — to a proper cause related to public safety, and do it today?

[1425]

Hon. S. Anton: Yesterday we launched a consultation on public safety earthquake preparedness in British Columbia. This is an important consultation, and for that we appointed two co-chairs — both experienced, skilled,
[ Page 2143 ]
qualified co-chairs.

However, the number on one of the contracts was too high. For that reason, the Premier and I have consulted, and we have withdrawn that contract. We are proceeding with the one chair only, recognizing the importance of continuing this important consultation in British Columbia.

Just to emphasize, this is a Ministry of Justice program. The program is my responsibility. The appointment was my responsibility, and we have withdrawn one of those appointments.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
POVERTY OF SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

M. Mungall: John Les may have been shown the door earlier today, but there are, as we know, other former Liberal MLAs and failed Liberal candidates collecting high wages annually from their patronage appointments.

Single moms in B.C., Premier, on the other hand, have lost income under the Liberals' watch. In just one year their median income dropped by 30 percent, from a meagre $32,000 per year to a paltry $21,500 per year. The result? Half of B.C.'s single moms and their children are living in poverty while former Liberal MLAs live it up.

When is the Premier going to put money into reducing child poverty instead of the pockets of her friends?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one in this House and no one in government wants to see anyone living in poverty. This government has overseen the largest reduction in child poverty in the last 25 years. We have reduced the rate of child poverty by 41 percent since 2003. That is 69,000 children that have been lifted out of poverty under this government's watch. The child poverty rate does remain, at one of its lowest rates in more than three decades.

There are only two ways to address the issue of poverty. One is to grow the economy and create jobs. The other is targeted supports. This government is committed to both, and we will do both.

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN LES TO
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS PROCESS

M. Farnworth: The Premier just informed this House that she reviewed the contract today, and she said she found it lacking. But yesterday the Attorney General thought it was just fine.

My question to the Attorney General is this. Why did she think it was fine yesterday, and what happened to change her mind?

Hon. S. Anton: As I mentioned, this is an important consultation in British Columbia, and we did appoint two outstanding co-chairs. However, the number on one of those contracts was too high, so we will proceed on the consultation with the one contractor alone and proceed with this important consultation in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, Attorney General, you said today it's too high….

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. Speaker, through the Chair.

The Attorney General has yet to be able to answer a question in this House when it comes to this issue. Today she's saying the number was too high. When she saw the contract yesterday, she thought it was just fine. What changed?

[1430]

Hon. S. Anton: As the House will know, we have the goal of not growing government unnecessarily, on this side of the House. We have the goal of balancing the budget and growing the economy. The number attached to this contract was too high. It was a mistake. That's why we have withdrawn that particular contract and will be proceeding with the one chair alone, because this is an extremely important consultation for British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH MAXIMUS
AND PRIVACY OF HEALTH INFORMATION

G. Heyman: In 2004 the B.C. Liberals signed a ten-year agreement that contracted out the handling of our personal and sensitive private medical information to Maximus B.C., a subsidiary of a U.S.-based corporation. In March of last year they extended this agreement for another five years — significantly higher, 40 percent higher, than the original terms.

At the time the government assured British Columbians that the contract specified that data storage and access would not occur outside of Canada, to mitigate the risk of disclosure under the U.S.A. Patriot Act. That act allows the FBI to secretly demand and obtain personal information on anyone from U.S.-owned companies.

Last year the Auditor General reported that monitoring tools meant to identify privacy breaches were not implemented and the Health Ministry had not ensured that Maximus was complying with two key privacy contract terms. The report states: "We noted that two monitoring tools intended to identify privacy breaches were not implemented as expected and that the ministry has not verified that the service provider is complying with two key privacy contract terms."

In other words, the Auditor General said that the ministry failed to enforce them. To the Minister of Health: despite promising British Columbians ten years ago that
[ Page 2144 ]
safeguards recommended by the Privacy Commissioner were in the contract, your ministry did nothing to enforce these.

Will the minister confirm whether our personal medical information is safe from prying U.S. security forces, or is it already too late?

Hon. T. Lake: We take the privacy of health information, all information about British Columbians, very seriously. We work hard to ensure that information is protected. Working with Maximus, B.C., which is known as Health Insurance B.C., dealing with our health insurance data, we work very closely — we work with the Office of the Information Commissioner as well — to ensure that information is held with the utmost privacy. We will continue to ensure that in the days to come.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: The fact remains that the Auditor General and the Ministry of Health cannot confirm this. The Auditor General's report stated clearly that the ministry was relying on self-reporting and that they could not be assured that the terms were being kept. In other words, we now have ten years of promise made, promise broken.

The minister responsible for privacy protection quite recently assured British Columbians that our personal health records were stored and accessed only in Canada. He said: "We protect the interests of British Columbians by making sure that their data is secure and kept in Canada so that they are not in any way subject to Patriot Act visits by the American government."

Yet the Auditor General said the Ministry of Health was unable to prove this, possibly exposing British Columbians' personal medical, mental health and pharmaceutical records to U.S. security forces, with potentially very serious consequences for people seeking to enter or work in the U.S.

To the Minister of Citizens' Services: how can this government possibly confirm that British Columbians' health data stayed in Canada when both the Health Ministry and the Auditor General can't?

[1435]

Hon. T. Lake: The contract with Maximus was signed only after our ministry was assured that the personal information of British Columbians would be protected. The requirements for the protection of privacy are stringent and onerous. These have been top priorities of this initiative since its inception. Data storage and access is based solely in Canada and can only be changed with the province's express consent. All directors on the board of Maximus B.C. are resident Canadians, and there is no remote access from outside of Canada.

We take the privacy of the medical information of British Columbians very seriously and work hard to protect that information.

COSTS FOR SMART-METERING PROGRAM
CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER

J. Horgan: In 2010 the B.C. Liberals exempted the smart-meter program, a $1 billion expenditure, from oversight at the Utilities Commission. Despite not having to go and defend a program with no business plan, the B.C. Liberals hired, as a chief project officer, Gary Murphy. In fiscal year 2011-2012, according to B.C. Hydro documents tabled under the Financial Information Act, they paid Mr. Murphy $701,892. The following year they paid Mr. Murphy $551,969.

You don't have to get approval from the Utilities Commission. You don't have a business plan, but you found over $1 million to hire an American consultant to sell a program that nobody wanted.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Responsible for Core Review is: what are you going to say to those people who are now paying 35 bucks a month for a smart meter they didn't want and paying an American $1.2 million for the privilege of doing it?

Hon. B. Bennett: If a ratepayer today is paying the $35 charge, that actually means they don't have a smart meter. It means that they've chosen to keep what we're referring to as the old legacy meter. That is a choice that we decided to give to ratepayers.

As it happens, 99 percent of all ratepayers in British Columbia have chosen to have a smart meter. I appreciate the fact that the Energy critic is standing up for the 1 percent, and I admire him for that. But 99 percent of British Columbia ratepayers have chosen a smart meter.

The reason that they have chosen a smart meter is because smart meters are about a smart grid. We're trying to modernize our transmission and distribution system in British Columbia. It will actually help to keep rates down.

Madame Speaker: The member for Juan de Fuca on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I know it'll come as a huge surprise, but I think the minister might have missed the point of the question. You don't have to defend your program. By edicts, by legislation, the government said: "We're going to do this, come hell or high water." Instead of just pushing it through, they spent $1.2 million over two years. They don't pay the CEO that much. Interestingly, we've had three CEOs in that time, but I digress. So $1.2 million for an American consultant. What value for money, Mr. Core Review, did we get out of that?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I still can't tell whether my critic supports the smart-meter program or doesn't sup-
[ Page 2145 ]
port the smart-meter program from his question, but I take his point, and I will commit to the member that I will look into that particular aspect and get back to him.

FEES CHARGED TO ABORTION CLINICS
BY COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS

M. Karagianis: The College of Physicians and Surgeons is slamming B.C.'s abortion clinics with hefty fee increases. Fees right now are $2,000 a year, and the fee is being increased by the college to $12,000 a year for these non-profit facilities.

[1440]

My question is to the Minister of Health. What is he doing to ensure the continued viability of B.C.'s abortion clinics in the face of these massive fee hikes from the college?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member opposite is aware, physicians are a self-regulated profession. The College of Physicians and Surgeons is charged to oversee the profession and to regulate the profession in the interests of protecting British Columbians, and they have had an exemplary record of doing just that.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, both the Island Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have written to the minister and asked for these fee increases to be scrapped. They note: "B.C.'s private abortion clinics are different from most other private, non-hospital surgical facilities. There is no ability for these clinics to recover their costs through patient charges."

Now, these are all women's service clinics. Can the Health Minister explain what is being done to preserve a woman's right to choose in British Columbia, given these enormous fee increases?

Hon. T. Lake: I thank the member for bringing this issue to me. I would be very happy to follow up with her and with the College of Physicians and Surgeons on this matter.

WAIT TIMES FOR FAMILY COURT ORDERS

K. Corrigan: We have lots of money for failed Liberal candidates, but not so much for the justice system. Last week we tried to get an answer, any answer, on why the median wait for orders in provincial family court have skyrocketed by more than 30 percent. The Justice Minister suggested that there have been "tremendous strides made." It's pretty outrageous that waits for child custody, protection, maintenance and access orders are going through the roof, and this minister thinks they're making tremendous strides.

What's worse is that the government doesn't even know why these waits are increasing. These extensive waits are hurting women and children, and the Liberal government has no clue why.

It's been a week, and surely the minister has had time to get a handle on her file. Can she tell this House why we have these unacceptable and sometimes dangerous waits, and what is she going to do about it?

Hon. S. Anton: In the Justice Ministry we are most interested in justice innovation and justice transformation. That's why…. The member opposite mentioned the number: 30 percent. I will mention a number: 33 percent. And 33 percent is the decline in number of family law cases which are going into courtrooms over the last 12 years. There used to be 15,000 family law cases go to court every year. Now there are 10,000.

That is a remarkable statistic. Those are families which have used mediation. Those are families which have used our justice access centres. Those are families which have used alternate remedies to settle their problems more quickly and more effectively than going to court.

Going to court is a solution. It is not the only solution, and it is not even necessarily the best solution.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have a petition to table. I have a petition with approximately 3,000 signatures from the B.C. Ferry Coalition asking for fiscal fairness. The signatories say that ferries are our marine highways. We should not have to pay both our fair share of the provincial highways and inland ferries budget, plus an increasingly disproportionate share of running B.C. Ferries.

[1445]

The signatories are asking that the government take B.C. Ferries back under more direct control, with a clear mandate to deliver affordable and reliable public transportation services that meet community needs by immediately stopping service cuts and consulting with affected communities, cancelling fare increases and reducing all fares by 30 percent, and taking responsibility for debt service and capital expenditures.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A it's Committee of Supply. For the information of members, it's the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In this chamber, second reading of Bill 9, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

If I might also thank the House and the hon. member for the kind words earlier. It is remarkable to consider
[ Page 2146 ]
the passage of time that we have sat here. Of course, the member predates my arrival but will celebrate the anniversary himself next year. Many thanks.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — POOLED REGISTERD PENSION
PLANS ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 9, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, be read a second time.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The primary purpose of this bill and the pooled registered pension plan initiative is to address the issue of low private sector pension plan coverage, especially amongst small and medium-sized businesses and, for the first time, to make a pension plan available to the self-employed.

Members will know that this act is in substantially the same form as one that was introduced prior to the election last year. It was not considered through all stages of debate by the House and, therefore, died on the order paper when the House was prorogued for the election. It has been returned for what I hope will be full consideration by the House and, I hope, also, of course, support by the House.

Last year the federal government implemented its framework for pooled registered pension plans. That framework is intended to make well-regulated, large-scale, low-cost pension plans available to millions of Canadians who have no other opportunity to become pension plan members. The federal legislation establishes these plans within the legislative authority of the federal government. That includes employees and federally regulated industries as well as employees and the self-employed in the three territories.

However, provinces have jurisdiction over most employment-related matters in relation to the target groups for pooled registered pension plans: small to medium-sized businesses and the self-employed in the provinces. This bill will work in conjunction with the federal legislation by adopting that legislation by reference with some modifications for B.C.'s general legislative context.

The bill will give all B.C. workers the option to participate in a pension plan. It will be up to each employer to decide whether to set up a plan for its employees to decide whether to contribute. If an employer does decide to offer a plan to its employees, those employees would be automatically enrolled but would maintain the right to opt out.

Evidence shows that large economies of scale reduce the cost of pensions. Pooled registered pension plans are intended to be large, Canada-wide pension plans with national pooling of investment and administrative functions. Plus, a cross-Canada pension plan allows members to move their pensions with them when they change jobs, the element of portability being a very important feature.

[1450]

These plans will be administered by regulated financial institutions, such as insurance companies and banks, to remove the burden of pension plan administration from employers.

Over the past five years B.C. has been working with the federal government and other provinces to develop changes to the pension system in Canada to help enhance the retirement income of British Columbians and all Canadians. Though there are, I must confess, differences of opinion about one aspect of that conversation, that relating to the Canada Pension Plan, I can advise the House that virtually all, if not all, Canadian jurisdictions have endorsed pooled registered pension plans as a part of the solution to the challenge that Canadians are facing.

As we know, British Columbians are enjoying longer and longer life expectancies. That's good news, in my view. Just in the last 40 years, life expectancy for both men and women has increased by approximately ten years. If we can create mechanisms in the private sector that make it easier for workers to save for their own retirement while making it easier for employers to offer pension plans as part of their compensation package, it will, in my and the government's view, be better for everyone in the long term.

I'm looking forward to comments from the hon. opposition critic and any other members of the House.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill 9, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, 2014, because I think it's an important piece of legislation.

It's particularly important not just for what it does but for where it fits, I think, in a broader discussion that is ongoing amongst the provinces and in this country. That is on the issue of retirement itself and what we can do to ensure that British Columbians and Canadians when they retire have the income that they will need to carry them through their retirement years, particularly when we are all, hopefully, living longer, fuller, healthier lives than in the past.

Bill 9, as the minister has pointed out, is basically an adaptation of the federal bill that was passed earlier. It's had some tweaking to meet some of the needs of issues here in British Columbia. In my remarks, I'll probably point out a couple of areas where I think it could be improved and where we may want to make amendments.

The bottom line is this. This will seek to establish a pooled pension plan that can be taken advantage of by small and medium-sized enterprises in the province of British Columbia. It has the support of many in the small business community. It will be voluntary, as the minister said. If a company chooses to set up one of these plans, employees are automatically enrolled but have the ability to opt out. It is portable under the legislation, and
[ Page 2147 ]
that is a key issue.

The challenge is that we cannot view this as a be-all and end-all. It is just one small component, and it will not address the overall issue of pension reform and the need for expanded opportunities for pensions, particularly around the CPP, in the country and in the province of British Columbia.

The minister points out that most, if not all, of the provinces have indicated that they will enter into pooled pension plans. Alberta has already done so. Saskatchewan has already done so. Quebec has done so. Manitoba has indicated that they will as well. But again, they would like to see it as part of that larger pension discussion.

One of the things that does cause me concern is that much of this has arisen out of the federal government's response to the work that was undertaken by the provinces. The Finance Minister's previous colleague, Colin Hansen, did a significant amount of work on this particular issue with other federal-provincial-territorial colleagues in the years preceding 2014.

In 2010 a number of studies and work had been done. They looked at the issue of pooled pension plans. They thought that was viable. But the position at that time, which the provinces were advocating — and the former Minister of Finance in the current government would come to accept it as being, I think, the logical place to go — was an expanded Canada Pension Plan.

[1455]

Now, the federal government is extremely reluctant. Indeed, in the last round of discussions on this particular issue, when the provinces attempted and wanted to get an expanded CPP on the agenda and to get an agreement on that…. The minister's own words, I think, were that the bulk of the opposition came from the federal government. The federal government has resisted this. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Flaherty, has said that while there may be some merit to it, not at this time. That's a great catch phrase, "not at this time," as an excuse to, well, "Let's just keep pushing it down the road."

We cannot keep pushing that issue down the road. The issue of an expanded CPP was first put forward in 1980. A federal task force report reported at that time that it was inadequate to meet the needs of Canadians. So it's not an issue that's new. It's an issue that has been ongoing and is going to continue to be ongoing. But the response from the federal government was to say: "Look, we think pooled pension plans are the way to go. We think this will meet the needs of Canadians." And this is the direction that they're going. They're saying that they're not interested in seeing an expanded CPP.

Well, that, I believe, is a mistake. We do need an expanded CPP, but we also need to provide options for Canadians that we can do right now where there is an agreement. There is support for the pooled pension plan, and it is our hope — it is certainly my hope — that small and medium-sized enterprises will take advantage of it. But there are issues that we need to recognize. When governments or others are out saying, "Look, don't worry about the pension issue. We've established pooled pensions," well, there are some things we need to realize about that. One, they are voluntary. They're not mandatory. Second, there's not a requirement for a contribution from the employer, for example. If you're in a private defined contribution or defined benefit, yes, there is. Under these, there is not.

These pension plans will be set up, pooled and managed by major financial institutions, as the minister has already stated. There is no guarantee on return in terms of the return on the money that you invested. So yes, they're an option, but they're not the answer to the entire problem.

I think the issue of it being voluntary is something that we need to acknowledge as being a challenge. Right now, if you look at the types of…. When Canadians save for retirement, many Canadians are in defined benefit pension plans, but those are becoming fewer and fewer. There are defined contribution plans, which many employers have in place. There are others who have a group RRSP. This will fill that gap between a full pension plan as Canadians traditionally understand it, where there are mandatory contributions from the employer as well as the employee…. That is something we need to keep in mind.

When it comes to saving for retirement…. You know, there's an acknowledgment that at the very low end of the spectrum, with low-income people, there is a lot in place. We have the OAS. We have the guaranteed income supplement. We have CPP. I'll touch on the CPP on an individual basis in a moment. But it's middle-income individuals, it is middle-class families that are really struggling to build for their future retirement. Every tax time, this time of year…. We'll see it on TV, on the ads, constantly: "Save for your retirement. Invest in RRSPs." We will be bombarded with ads telling Canadians to do just that.

That has been going on for decades. That has been promoted by government and the financial institutions as one of the key pillars to building a successful retirement in this country. The result, though, is still that 80 percent of the RRSP room is filled by 20 percent of the people; 20 percent of the public accounts for 85 percent of RRSP contributions.

[1500]

Why is that? Well, there are many reasons, but the biggest one is the sheer cost of living in this province, for example — the unaffordability of this province, which is the most expensive province in the country to live in.

We have had stagnant wages for a considerable amount of time at this point. And in the recent budget there's $4.4 billion being taken out of the pockets of taxpayers in the form of either increased taxes on tobacco, income, corporate; 28 percent in hydro hikes; ferry rates. All of those things take away from people's ability to save for their fu-
[ Page 2148 ]
ture. It's a fact, and it's been borne out year after year after year. The people aren't saving the way that they should do.

That's one of the challenges with this piece of legislation. It's all right to go out and say: "Yes, we've now established a pooled pension plan that small business can take advantage of, if they want to, that their employees can enroll in, if they want to." But the contributions are voluntary —"if they want to." The reality is, guess what. Right now we have "contribute to RRSPs, if you want to," and there's a tax refund on that, yet people and families are still unable to do that. They're still unable to do that.

What has been shown over time to be the most effective way of doing that has been the CPP, because it's mandatory, it starts from day one, and it goes right through your working career.

This bill is a step forward, but that's all it is. There are some issues that I think we need to address in it, that I think are worth looking at. When it comes to committee stage I'll offer up some amendments to the minister to consider, and hopefully, the government will accept them.

One of the beauties, for example, of the CPP is the sheer size of it and the relatively low cost of the management fees, which I think are about 1 percent. It's even better in our own province of British Columbia when it comes to the BCIMC, the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation. Theirs is about 0.5 percent in terms of administration. That's very efficient and good deal for the members of the plans, both at the CPP level and in the provincial plans.

In terms of your RSPs or if you're in a privately managed mutual fund, for example, the fees can be 2½ percent, and often you don't know the full nature and the full cost of those fees. I think that's something that people should know what they are and have a good understanding of.

One of the things that I think would make an improvement in this bill would be for the folks that manage the provincial pension plans to be able to offer a pooled registered retirement plan as an alternative, as a choice. If the idea is that we are saying we want to increase the choices that you have, then why not look at that?

Why not look at that as an option, where we have a proven vehicle that delivers very good rates of return for a very efficient and modest management fee? That does not mean that someone cannot choose another plan if they want to, but put that choice out there. I think that would be a positive improvement to the bill.

Another area where I think we could make a positive improvement for the bill — and I would ask the government to consider it at committee stage, when we move the amendment — is around the acknowledgment and the information that's made available to plan members in terms of the fees that they are charged and how those fees may change over time in relation to the amount of money they put in and in relation to the return so that, again, they are in a position to make an informed choice as to whether the plan that their company may have decided to participate in is, in fact, the right one for them.

[1505]

I think greater disclosure on those fees than what's contained in this particular piece of legislation would be an important improvement for the bill. That's one of those issues that we will address at committee stage.

As I said earlier, this legislation has the support of many provinces. It has the support of many in the small business community. It will be an improvement for people who are self-employed and will allow them to participate in a plan if they don't have one right now.

The big challenge is going to be simply the voluntary aspect of it. The fact is that we have programs in place right now — through RRSPs, as I said — yet still far too many Canadians are not able to make the contributions required or aren't making the contributions required to save for their future.

I know there is a view out there from some people who say, "Well, it's up to every individual to save for their future," that there is that personal responsibility aspect. It is true that we all have that individual responsibility, but we have developed over the decades in this country a sense of collective responsibility for our society as a whole, in terms of families and at the community level, at the provincial level and at the national level.

That's why the CPP was brought in, in the first place, and that's why it stood the test of time and has worked. There's an understanding and has been an understanding in the country that at some point we all retire. If people don't have the means to support themselves in that retirement, those costs ultimately come back on society as a whole.

They show up in increased health care costs. Individuals, as we know, who don't have the resources — often the first thing that suffers is their health. We see it come up in social services in terms of financial strain, which is often a leading cause of family breakdown and dysfunction in families. From divorce to violence to children not getting the proper attention they need, financial resources have a big impact on that.

The reality is that, as somebody once said, you can pay now, or you can pay later. When the CPP was established, it was in recognition that when we make this a priority, it was to ensure that there is something there when people retire, that they've got those financial resources.

I'll just illustrate how important that is. You often receive in the mail a statement of where your CPP is. Often you hear, whether it's on radio or television or you read it in the newspaper, that your CPP benefit is there. The maximum amount right now is $1,038.33.

You go: "Hey, $1,000 a month — that's pretty good. I'll add that to what I've got in terms of savings. I may have some equity in a house. I may have some RSP savings saved up. I may have little pots of money." That's what people see. They go: "Oh, the maximum benefit — of
[ Page 2149 ]
course I'll get the maximum benefit."

But the reality is that the maximum benefit is not the average benefit. That's for people who have been contributing at the top rate over the course of their working career and at the maximum salary rate. The average is $594, $600 a month. That's significantly less — $400.

Yes, you get the OAS, the old age security benefit. That starts getting clawed back at $71,000 and is gone by…. I think it's about $112,000 or $113,000. But most people don't realize this until it's almost too late. When you're 55, when you're 60 — that's not the time to be worrying about that.

That's one of the reasons why the debate around pension reform has been centred on CPP — that by expanding the CPP you actually will give people a much more predictable and stable income that they can build on, that they are in a position, then, that they have the confidence of knowing they have a CPP in place.

[1510]

They can take advantage of other options, such as the pooled registered retirement plan — or an RSP, for that matter. I think they will have a greater sense of security in terms of building their long-term financial future.

That's just in terms of an ordinary, average individual. That's who we need to be thinking about.

Pensions also impact in other ways that we often don't think of. For example, the workforce has changed significantly over the last ten, 15, 20, well, 40 years. More women are participating in the labour force, now almost as equally as men — in many professions, more than men. The challenge has been that many women in the workforce today still came in at a time when wages were significantly lower. They filled areas of the economy that were paid significantly less, and they were not the primary breadwinner, so their pension benefits are significantly less when they retire.

There are many cases of individuals, for example, whereby, due to marital breakdown, there is an unequal financial arrangement in the household. The reality is that many women don't get the full benefits that they should be entitled to.

We've seen it. I've had cases in my constituency office where a woman has come into the constituency office and has described the problems around the divorce and the breakdown, and the fact is, she got the short end of the stick — in part, because we don't have the resources in our judicial system to deal with issues the way that they should be dealt with. People are often in such a state that they want out. The result is they often get the short end of the stick on the distribution of pension assets.

The one thing they have been able to count on is the CPP and the OAS. They can count on that. That's why expanding the CPP is what makes sense.

Pooled pension plans, as I said, are a positive step. They're a step in the right direction, but there are a lot of issues around them that we need to be aware of.

We really need to understand that we are not going to address the issue of pension reform in this country without looking at the broader pension picture as a whole. What I am particularly concerned about, from statements that I've heard from the government and particularly statements I've heard from the federal government, is that that is exactly what will happen — that as far as the federal government is concerned, the issue is closed.

I think we have to make it clear in our remarks today. I think we have to make it clear in discussion of this bill, both in second reading and in committee stage. What I particularly want to hear from the government side on this bill is that they do not view the issue as closed, that they acknowledge and they recognize that this is just a small step — yes, it's an important step, but it's a small step — and that the real issue that needs to be addressed, the real bulk of the solution, is in an expanded Canada Pension Plan. That's what needs to take place, and if the federal government is reluctant, the province will work with other provinces and put pressure on them.

Some provinces are already ahead of us in terms of saying this issue is too important to leave to the federal government. Ontario has indicated that they're not prepared to wait. They are looking at other options. I think if they do that, then there will be pressure on us in British Columbia and other provinces to look at what Ontario is doing and perhaps to join with them in terms of saying: "Well, if the federal government is not prepared to act, we are." This issue is much too important to continue to ignore.

As I've said, this bill is a small step. It's one that we will be supporting.

[1515]

There'll be some amendments at committee stage, dealing with expanding the range of choice in terms of plans that are available for individuals to take advantage of, for small and medium enterprises to take advantage of. We'd like to see some improvements in terms of the reporting and the transparency when it comes to fee structures. I think that that is crucial. Those will be two areas of amendment, and if we can improve the bill, that would be great.

I know that other colleagues of mine have issues that they want to address and comments that they want to remark on. But at the end of the day, I think we need to send a message that somebody's retirement should not be constricted because they don't have the means to retire on, that there aren't the programs in place and, more importantly, that those programs have not changed over time because of a lack of will or resolve on the part of government to do that.

When you look at the facts and the state of retirement plans today and how few people…. I mentioned the RRSP in particular. When 20 percent have 80 percent of the contributions, that should say something. I don't think anyone wants to see a retirement where someone
[ Page 2150 ]
is forced and their retirement is basically spent looking out a window because they don't have the ability and they don't have the financial resources in place to actually fully enjoy their retirement.

I've finished my remarks on this bill, and I look forward to comments being made by my colleagues.

L. Krog: One of my colleagues on the side opposite sent a note to me a few moments ago when the Minister of Finance was introducing or making his remarks in second reading. It said: "You better be listening. This is a fascinating topic."

Now, discretion prevents me from mentioning who that person might be. But I would say that notwithstanding the humour it generates and the smiles and chuckles in the chamber, the older you get, the much more fascinating a topic pensions do actually become, in your mind and in the minds of your children who are hoping you won't diminish your savings and estate too much so that there will be nothing left for the little rascals when you actually pass over to the other side.

In fact, pensions are a fascinating topic and always have been a fascinating topic. I can't help but think, if you read many historical novels or novels that go back some time, that of course the great reward — certainly speaking of English literature — was the concept that you would get a living of some kind. Now, it might require some work, and that living might be the curate of a small parish, a minister in some obscure village, but some opportunity to derive an income that would be paid basically whether you were able or unable to perform the task.

If you were landed gentry, the expectation was that you would have income that would sustain you through your lifetime without necessarily having to work for it, and it would be paid by your happy tenants regardless of whether you could perform any useful service or not. But the concept behind that way of thinking was that at some point, it's nice to have security in your life; it's nice to know that things are taken care of.

I want to pay my compliments to the government for introducing the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act. Particularly with the presence of the Minister of Finance, I do want, in conjunction with other members who've spoken earlier, to recognize him on his 20 years in this chamber. I was here for that first term, way back in the early '90s, and recall very well after the '91 election the group of Socreds who were left to sit in this chamber, the seven of them. They were referred to, somewhat unkindly, as the seven dwarves, given the — how shall I say? — significant reduction in the numbers of Socreds who had so dominated British Columbia politics since 1952 and, I think I can safely say, since before I was a glint in my father's eye.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance on the attainment of 20 years in this place and also — to take just a small advantage; I trust the Speaker won't be too overly scrupulous in the enforcement of the rules — to just say a word or two about his predecessor Harry De Jong.

[1520]

Harry De Jong was one of those seven dwarves, as we referred to them rather unkindly on our side of the House. If there was ever a contrast in terms of politicians, and I say this in a complimentary way to both of them, Harry De Jong had absolutely no political ego whatsoever. I have rarely met a politician who was so utterly selfless and un-self-promoting, I might add, in terms of his political career. A quiet man, when he spoke, you listened, because it was rare. When he said it, it was worth listening to. Indeed, he spoke very passionately on a couple of occasions.

There is always that wonderful contrast in this place, but both demonstrated a success in political office that is to be admired and respected, as does the service of everyone in this chamber who enjoys the honour and privilege it is to be elected to the B.C. Legislature.

As the numbers grow, as the population and history pass, I'm always reminded of the fact that I think if you're sitting here, you're one of the roughly 900 in the whole history of the province of British Columbia who have had that privilege. Harry De Jong was one of them, and the present Minister of Finance is.

I'm delighted to say a few words about this bill.

What is it Ronald Reagan said in his critical way about the Democrats and the growth of government as he saw it? "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." That was Mr. Reagan's way of attacking the concept of big government.

It's an interesting approach and reflected, certainly, the ire of the right wing in its day about government and regulation and the interference of government in the economy and all of those things. But when we are talking about what's proposed with the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, we are talking about essentially bigger government, in a way — social democracy, if you will.

To come back to my point earlier about people wanting to secure a living and have some security for their future. That's what we're really talking about. What this bill is designed to do is to provide, if you will, an option that exists now, arguably, in one small way. It's just that we want to make sure that the folks we entrust our money to and the people we seek advice from will in fact be regulated and will have to face some form of regulation.

Now, I'm not entirely sure that regulation is what the government is hoping to create here. I often hear members on the opposite side talk about how the best thing government can do is get out of the way of people and out of the way of the economy and all those sorts of right-wing-rhetoric lines that we hear over and over again.

But what this is a response to is something that I have heard time and time again from inveterate free-enterprisers in my own constituency. They say, "Well, I don't have
[ Page 2151 ]
a pension plan," the implication being that the member for Nanaimo does. I won't use my name. Or they'll say, in reference to unions: "Those folks have a pension plan. I don't."

Of course, as our distinguished House Leader indicated earlier, there is a vehicle — registered retirement savings plans — which can be a bit of an interesting game. I'm sure many members in this chamber who have RRSPs had the great joy of watching the collapse in September of 2008 and seeing the diminishing hopes of early retirement slip away.

It's a vehicle, and it's important. It helps provide something to a group in our society, in our community, whose only option now is RRSPs, which have some downsides to them. Clearly, if you pass away too young and don't have a spouse, there's a horrendous rate of taxation, depending on the value of the RRSP — maybe not the best vehicle. It's pretty clear from statistics that those who contribute to RRSPs are often a very small portion of our society — higher-income earners, with access to greater income during their lifetimes than many others.

[1525]

It's obviously a reduction of income that would otherwise be available to both the provincial and federal governments by way of a payment of income tax. If you can put $20,000 in an RRSP this year, you're not going to pay the income tax to the province of British Columbia or to the government of Canada that they would in turn be using, presumably, to benefit society as a whole, whether that's to pay for the creation of infrastructure or to provide and deliver services that British Columbians and Canadians want.

There's an argument to be made that that's not the best system. It's particularly not the best system, perhaps, when you consider that whatever jealousies may exist around the disparate incomes that exist in our society, the way to deal with those, I would argue, is through decent, progressive income tax.

Unfortunately, now we are living in a time when we have, arguably, the worst of both worlds. We have a smaller portion of society receiving — and retaining, it would appear, given the growth in wealth — a greater and more significant portion of income than at probably any time in the last hundred years since the gilded age and, at the same time, the lowest taxation rates on income tax on high-income earners that we've seen in a very long time and certainly since the end of the Second World War.

When you hear that jealousy expressed about those in the private sector — particularly in smaller companies, non-union companies, owners, small entrepreneurs, small business people — raising a legitimate complaint about not having a pension, there are two vehicles, essentially, for them. There are the Canada Pension Plan, to which they have to contribute, and their RRSPs. What this does is provide another vehicle, if you will. It gives them another opportunity and, hopefully, some assurance they'll be placing these funds with folks who can provide — I won't call it a guarantee — some comfort that what is available will in fact be useful for them.

It comes back to, I would suggest, some very basic philosophical questions: what kind of community do we want to live in, and what are the values which bind us together as a community?

I think for, certainly, many on this side of the House — because I've had those discussions with colleagues — and, I suspect, many on the other side, the concept that we live in a society where the disparities are so obvious and so great, where some live literally in the streets and others in multi-million-dollar condos and mansions, is not the kind of society that we're anxious to see continue.

We want to create a society that is somewhat more equitable, where opportunity is more readily available. One of the ways of ensuring that is to ensure that when you come to that age, if you've been able and have worked, you have an opportunity to have an income in retirement that will at least give you some reasonable lifestyle, some level of security.

What this bill does is help provide another option to ensure that when and if that time comes — because not everyone makes it to retirement — you will have an opportunity, through this bill, to add to the income that the state will provide by way of Canada Pension Plan; old age security and the supplement, if you're entitled; your own RRSPs and withdrawals from them; or indeed, depending on what you do through your life, perhaps a small pension plan through other employment.

I think we need to recognize the reality of the changing workforce. The concept that one goes into one occupation or position was never entirely true but is certainly even far less true today than it was 20 and 30 and 40 years ago. The concept that you would remain with one employer or one single type of employment is just simply not the case anymore — particularly for young people, who are moving from job to job, employer to employer, and often working at incredibly low rates of pay.

[1530]

After all, the Canada Pension Plan contribution is based on your income to a maximum level. If you're earning $10.25 an hour, your contribution is not going to be very significant. It's why the Opposition House Leader pointed out that notwithstanding the maximum under CPP is up to about $1,038 per month, assuming you get the maximum, the reality is that the average is more like $594. For those who spend their lives working in low-wage jobs, it will be substantially less, which is the whole purpose of the guaranteed income — the old age security and the supplement — to give that kind of a boost.

When we talk about a pooled registered pension plan, what we're talking about is a vehicle to recognize that at a certain stage we're going to need some kind of support. We will simply not be in a position, because of age or disability, to continue to work and earn.
[ Page 2152 ]

I remember listening with some horror to a neighbour of my grandmother's who told me that the practice — as he recognized it, or certainly, he believed — of one of the major railways in this country, for many years, was to try and find an excuse to can somebody in their early 60s before they got to the magic retirement age so the pension wouldn't have to be paid. Whether or not that was true is not the point I'm trying to make. The fact is that people stuck in positions because they knew they would get old and that pension was the one thing they could cling to. So pensions are important.

Now, for the very rich this may provide some extra advantage. For the very poor — and by poor, I mean those in terms of income — it's probably not going to do very much. The reality is this will be far more useful for those in that great but seen-to-be-somewhat-shrinking middle class in this country.

The poor have no opportunity to put money in pension plans. They are, by definition, not working in union shops, where pensions are virtually mandatory. They are not working in industries or occupations that provide decent wages.

As for the very rich, arguably it doesn't matter, because they're conscious of the fact that if their income is high…. And I think it fair to say that when you get to $71,000 a year, some of the government benefits through the national programs are going to be clawed back in any event. But for all those people in between, this provides that other vehicle.

It does create more regulation. Forgive me. I'm not going to make this point very well, but I try and make it with almost every bill that comes through this place. The government talks about reducing the size of government. It talks about reducing the numbers of regulations, and then brings in a statutory scheme that's going to regulate a whole bunch of folks now who aren't necessarily regulated, who may be undertaking financial advice and all sorts of things without benefit of regulation.

Then section 11, for about 11/5 pages goes on to describe: the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council "may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." It goes on and on to talk about how they can make regulations with respect to this, that and the other thing.

In other words, more regulation and arguably bigger government. My pitch, I guess, if I'm trying to get it across and make it as clear as I possibly can, is that that arises for obvious and good reasons. An arguably right-wing government here in British Columbia and an arguably right-wing government in Ottawa have decided that some more law is a good thing and some more regulation is a good thing. And if it's not necessarily a good thing, it's certainly necessary. In other words, it has to be undertaken because there is a need and a recognition.

[1535]

To come back to my point around the jealousy that exists between those who have no private pension plans or public pension plans and those who do, that kind of jealousy creates division in our communities.

The reality is, I suspect, that most members of this chamber want to live in a society where, when you can't work anymore or you're beyond the age when you can contribute, there will be a program or a process or an ability to retire with some sort of dignity. The concept that you have to keep working till you drop — which is true, unfortunately, for much of the planet — is not something in accord with our community values.

In their own small way, the B.C. Liberals are actually assisting a bit in building community by giving an opportunity to people to set aside something for their retirement — assuming they can do so — so that they won't face the chill penury, which some of the poets talk about, in old age. That, as I said, is an aspect of social democracy. When you're ensuring that people can go into retirement in some comfort and stability, it's a positive thing.

It also has an added benefit. If we live in a society where people are assured that their retirement will not be one in which they live in poverty, they are more likely, in fact, to spend some of the money they're earning during their working years and, by that spending, to help encourage employment, benefit the economy and provide jobs to the many young people we see today who don't seem to have the opportunities that existed for my generation when it came out of university or high school.

After all, notwithstanding that we tend in our society to measure success by the accumulation of wealth, I'm always reminded of that line in the Bible that it's easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle than for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. If that's the concept — and I'm quite happy with that biblical concept — then we want to ensure that people don't feel some unnecessarily Silas Marner–like need to spend all of their lifetime accumulating and hoarding up their money.

What a pension plan does is give an opportunity to everyone to set something aside. I think the most important principle in all of this is about universality. We have a universal program, the Canada Pension Plan — if you work or can work.

Arguably, the most universal program for retirement is old age security. It may be clawed back if you reach a certain level — no question about that — but you're going to get that regardless of whether or not you were employed during your lifetime or were disabled, whatever the case may be.

Now, many have talked about expanding the Canada Pension Plan. Again, as our House Leader indicated, I think it is important that this be seen simply as an option — a further tool in the toolbox, if you will. I would hope that the government will lobby the federal government to see an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to go into retirement without fear, knowing and believing they will have some level of comfort.
[ Page 2153 ]

I come back to my point: I don't want to live in a society where, when you become old or infirm or unable to work anymore, you have to face some incredible change in your own lifestyle, where you have to face the possibility of giving up that which you've tried to accumulate, however small it may be, just to meet your day-to-day expenses. By the gift and advantage of being born in this society, we should be able to live with some dignity in old age.

[1540]

The government here today has given another option to British Columbians and, particularly, to those who are working in non-union operations, self-employed folks and others. That's a good thing. It's a very good thing. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is shocked that I would ever say that anything from the government side was a very good thing. But it is a good thing, and so I would hope that this perhaps sets a trend in terms of legislation for the government, that we might actually start to see them paying attention to the realities of our society. Perhaps they'll shock us some time in the next little while and actually offer an increase to those on social assistance.

When I spoke the other week about the budget…. You know, putting money in the hands of the poorest in the province who live literally hand to mouth day in and day out would be money that would go right back into the economy. It would benefit the small businesses that the poorest shop at. It would benefit the government in terms of increased economic activity and presumably increased taxation. It's an opportunity.

So if the government is getting a little softer after nearly 13 years in power…. If its heart is softening, and we're providing a pooled-registration pension plan for people who don't have access to a pension plan otherwise, apart from the federal government schemes, then perhaps they could also take this wonderful opportunity to consider providing some sort of increased benefit to those amongst us who continue to live in incredible poverty.

Ultimately, what we do in this place is try and create, directly or indirectly, a better and greater community. The only way — or one of the main ways; I won't say the only way. One of the ways you're going to do that is to ensure that people have at least some minimal standard of living both in what is presumed to be their working years and also when they're in their retirement. So today we address to some extent, in a small way, the retirement years. I think perhaps the government should take advantage now to address those years that precede retirement.

B. Ralston: I rise to contribute to the debate on this bill. I want to say at the outset that I agree with the wise and eloquent remarks of my two colleagues who preceded me, but I do have some further comments on the bill. This proposal — and it's really legislation which is to enable the federal bill, which has been passed, to operate within the province — is an inadequate solution to the crisis that faces our retirement savings system. It replicates in some ways some of the problematic aspects of the RRSP system, and really, it's very much like a group RRSP, a mechanism that already exists.

As many are aware, there's a change in employment and in the employment relationship in many industries. Formerly, where people could rely on what's called a defined benefit pension plan in the private sector, the number of companies offering those has declined dramatically in recent years. It was at a high of 26.8 percent of the workforce in 1982, and now it sits at just over 11 percent.

So for most people, other than the Canada pension plan, the other alternative is RRSPs. But most Canadians have not been able to financially avail themselves of the RRSP option, and there are some problems with the RRSP option. Canadians who earn $80,000 or more are considerably more likely to contribute to an RRSP. They account for 30 percent of the contributors and 57 percent of all contributions. Only a quarter of Canadians who earned $40,000 to $60,000 a year contributed to an RRSP in 2010. Generally, the lower their income, the less likely Canadians are to contribute to an RRSP. The higher, the more likely.

[1545]

So even those who contribute to an RRSP, and I think those who do will share in this observation, are rarely using up all the contribution room they're allotted. Since 2007, since the financial crisis, unused RRSP contribution room has increased by 38 percent. It's also, probably, in dollar terms, in the billions.

RRSPs are a mechanism where one is subject to private providers. It's well known, particularly, that Canadian mutual funds have the highest fees in the world. Typically, 2 percent per annum is the average. There are real inadequacies with the RRSP system.

This legislation…. I appreciate the comments that it is a step forward; it is a gesture. But really, it will come nowhere near addressing the broad concerns that exist in our society about future pension income. It's premised on a division, a different philosophy contrasted with the public plan — the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, recognized around the globe as one of the most successful public pension plans in the world and very effectively managed at a rate of income expense of 0.27 percent, or about 1/8 of what mutual funds charge on average.

That is a significant benefit. When you run the calculation as economists or actuaries do, taking 2 percent of your RRSP contributions every year to pay fees as opposed to 0.27 percent, the reduction of the amount of money available to you in an RRSP is dramatically reduced by that constant level of fees.

It's expensive and, for most people, very difficult to use if you're an average income earner. At the top end, of course, people will avail themselves of that, and there are other devices such as individual plans, which are an
[ Page 2154 ]
alternative for the very rich. Once you come to the end of your RRSP time, you're then obliged to buy an annuity, and generally, those have a fee attached as well, which further diminishes the money available to the pensioner for their retirement.

This legislation, the so-called PRPP, reproduces all the shortcomings of the RRSP system. Participation won't be mandatory. Contributions from employers will not be required. They will offer no relief from exorbitant investment management fees, and they will not offer the participants the option of converting their accumulated retirement savings into a lifetime pension.

This is a shrunken and undesirable alternative. Granted, we're going to support it, because it is a slight step in the right direction. But it is regrettable, indeed, that the government….

I appreciate that the minister has said that provinces across Canada are supporting this legislation. But there is a bit of a history of the proposed reform of the Canada Pension Plan and the campaign to expand it that, for example, former Finance Minister Colin Hansen was in favour of and advocated for with his fellow colleagues from other provinces. Indeed, there was a time — December 11, 2010 — that British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Ontario all called on the federal government to keep a modest enhancement of this Canada Pension Plan on the table.

This was in a joint press release. Let me just quote from the then Minister of Finance.

[1550]

"'Making progress on a moderate expansion of CPP is important for the long-term adequacy of Canada's retirement income system,' said British Columbia Finance Minister Colin Hansen. 'We need to keep moving forward in determining what that expansion should look like.'"

I gather that the current Finance Minister, according to my advice, has said that the subject is closed among Finance Ministers. That's a news report, December 17, 2013. That's regrettable, indeed. Given that position that the minister has taken, we have this legislation before us. To be fair, it's been very clear that the federal government — Mr. Flaherty, the Finance Minister — is strongly opposed to the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan at this point.

Back several years ago the province of British Columbia commissioned, with Alberta, a Joint Expert Panel on Pension Standards in an effort to examine, after the financial crisis, pension opportunities — particularly for private sector workers. That was the commitment made by the then Premier Campbell, and that was the motivation for that study.

What it did decide was…. At that point it was being considered, very much as the Ontario government is now considering…. Somewhat disappointed and resistant to the federal decision not to advance the CPP reform, it is advancing the idea of a provincially-based supplement to the CPP for Ontario residents.

One can sense the political frustration there. It may be a good idea; it may not. Certainly, Ontario, with its 10 million citizens, has a substantive population base within the country to advance that.

One of the advantages of a national program is the impact that it has upon the ability and mobility of labour — the ability of people to move, whether we decide to live here in British Columbia or, unfortunately, as many are being forced to do, move to Alberta to seek work, given the reduced employment opportunities after the failure of the jobs plan here.

But they still can move with ease. Their rights to the Canada Pension Plan, their contributions — that remains unchanged when they find new work in Alberta. They will continue to contribute, and it is a seamless system. So it is not…. The economists speak about impediments to labour mobility. That's one of the advantages of a national plan.

The other comment that was made at the point that this report was issued was that to be successful, total management expense ratios, including planned administration costs, should not exceed 0.5 percent of assets under management. Currently, these low expense ratios are available only to large generally public or semi-public sector pension plans. That's the 0.27 percent expense ratio, that I noted earlier, of the Canada pension plan.

So the position of British Columbia evolved to the point that I spoke of in 2010, when then Finance Minister Colin Hansen joined with his colleagues and advocated for that modest phased-in fully funded enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan. For many people, an expanded and enhanced pension plan would be an advantage that will not be available to those few people who will be able to contribute to this proposed PRPP, as it's called.

In some ways, the PRPP and the Canada Pension Plan express different values, different social values. The CPP presumes that retirement is, in some measure, a social responsibility. Providing decent incomes for the elderly is a social responsibility.

In this view, pensions are a social program that can be delivered directly, in part, by governments through public programs — whether the OAS, that my colleague has mentioned, the GIS or the Canada Pension Plan itself — and the other part, which is delivered through private tax-assisted programs.

[1555]

The PRPP is on the private side of delivery and competing with the CPP at the core of the system.

The differences are threefold. The PRPP is a defined contribution plan with individual investment accounts, while contributions to the CPP are pooled. Individual accounts are typically managed by the individual. While they should provide a sensible default option for those who don't want to select investment options, the basic
[ Page 2155 ]
design leaves the PRPP participant to make their own investment choices. They are ultimately dependent on the vagaries of the financial markets. At retirement, they can draw down their accounts in accordance with the RIF rules or will purchase an annuity. Those are offered by insurance companies and have substantial fees attached to them.

In the CPP the investment choices are professionally made. Among other things, professionals pay close attention to asset allocation, do not switch asset allocations very much or very frequently and are, in the long run, very successful. With the CPP, the pension board is admired widely around the world and is a very respected manager of the billions of dollars, the capital pool, that is the Canada Pension Plan.

PRPPs are delivered through the financial services sector, primarily insurance companies, yet they have that fee level that is quite a bit higher. As I've mentioned, the CPP, on the other hand, has much lower fees.

Finally, the third difference is that there are opt-outs versus mandatory universal coverage. PRPPs permit both employers and employees to opt out. The CPP does not permit opt-outs.

Really, it comes down to a difference in philosophy — whether individuals should have available to them a retirement income or, if they choose individually to invest in PRPPs and that doesn't turn out, are they…? I think the view would be, "Tough luck. That's your individual responsibility, and you'll just have to tough it out with a lower income" — although in the long term, social programs are likely to pick up some of the slack there. Whether it's the GIS, which is a program which is part of the public retirement benefit…. Recently, the federal government has given notice of an intention to move the age at which one can receive that from 65 to 67.

The real alternatives there are dealing with this problem collectively versus making it an individual responsibility. While this legislation does give the opportunity for some individuals — and that's why we are supporting it — to make further arrangements and better arrangements for their own financial future, in the long run the abandonment of the option of enhancing the Canada Pension Plan will be worse for many more Canadians than will be advantaged by this particular legislation.

The pooled pension plans, really, in some ways are a very poor cousin to what I think is the preferred policy alternative. I think I've perhaps made that very clear in what I've said. In summary, the "pool" in the PRPP is really too small to offer any advantages to participants. The "registered" isn't anything new — RRSPs are registered — and it's not the "pension plan." That's not accurate. It's not a pension plan in any way.

I don't expect there will be big takeup of this legislation. Obviously, the insurance industry prefers it, because they would be the ones to administer it. But really, I would invite the minister — not strictly on point with the bill — to reconsider whether British Columbia would assume the role of leadership nationally that it did under Minister Colin Hansen and advocate for an expanded CPP.

[1600]

I believe the explanation given for not doing that at this time was that the economy is fragile — yet very contrary to the rhetoric that we hear from the other side, of course. One would believe that we weren't suffering the worse private sector job creation record in the country here.

Be that as it may, in the long run that's a better alternative. We all hope that the economy nationally and globally will recover, that we will be in a position where British Columbia can assume leadership of the reforms to the Canada Pension Plan, which are the best alternative for most Canadians and most British Columbians.

With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance will close debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the members of the House that have contributed to the debate. May I also say thanks to the member for Nanaimo for his thought-provoking reference to my past two decades here.

A couple of observations that I might make on the basis of what we've heard. I won't dwell on them. We'll undoubtedly explore them further in committee.

Clearly, what is being proposed here is a new vehicle to address questions of savings for retirement. I think all of the speakers have correctly identified it as an optional vehicle, and that is relevant. I think the hon. critic made the observation that there is at least one other optional vehicle that has been available to Canadians and British Columbians. The takeup on that hasn't been what you would call overwhelming, and he has considered some of the reasons for that.

I am gratified to learn that both he and his colleagues and, it would seem, the opposition recognize this as a piece of the puzzle. I would say an important piece of the puzzle, but I would not suggest or want to be interpreted as suggesting it's the only piece of the puzzle.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It will remain to be seen whether or not, once the option is available, employees and their employers choose to take advantage and participate. Some of the advantages have been mentioned during the course of the debate, and some of the limitations have also, in fairness, been mentioned.

There is a recognition…. We can consider the issue and the challenge in a variety of ways. In their own ways, members have pointed out that as a society, we recognize the importance of ensuring that as people enter their more senior years, after the period of time when they
[ Page 2156 ]
are able to work, they be able to live in dignified circumstances, that there be a minimum standard below which people will not fall and that there be that social safety net that has developed in Canada and British Columbia. That most certainly seems to be something that all parties agree upon in the House.

Beyond that, there is the question of both the degree and the manner in which those who are working contribute to savings that will allow for a standard of living in their retirement years above and beyond that minimal level. And we are talking about the employment pension plans here, whether it is the CPP or some other vehicle.

[1605]

The CPP is a mechanism by which the state says to individuals: "Thou shalt contribute X amount to ensure that there is X amount available to you at your retirement." In its own way, that imposes a measure of personal responsibility upon workers, upon citizens. The question that we are grappling with is the degree to which, in addressing that personal responsibility, the state should impose additional obligations, mandatory obligations, or rely upon individuals to address that personal responsibility in their own way.

What is the interest of the state? Well, generally speaking, twofold. One is to address the social imperative of ensuring that people can exist, thrive, in a dignified lifestyle through their retirement years. The other, quite frankly, is a little more self-serving for the state — the knowledge that in circumstances where people have not saved or cannot draw upon employment savings, they are likely to turn to the state for other social programs to address that. I think there is a growing awareness of that.

I would not want members to be left with the impression that I or the government in any way believe that this represents a solution to the questions confronting Canadians around retirement savings. But like other jurisdictions, we believe that it represents a credible option, that it is important for that option to exist, that it is important for it to exist within a nationally coordinated strategy where workers will enjoy the benefits of access and portability in British Columbia and in Canada generally.

I'm obliged to the hon. opposition critic for alerting me to the two areas where he may have suggestions or proposals to alter the legislation. I'll endeavour in advance of the committee stage debate to ascertain in general terms whether those are matters that require legislative adjustment or matters that can be accommodated through a regulatory framework, and what the government's views are on that. We can consider that during the course of the committee stage debate.

Again, I'm gratified to know that, with respect to the legislation itself, the House seems to be of one mind and supportive and recognizes that this is one piece of a more complex puzzle that will need to be constructed to address the longer-term savings needs of Canadian and British Columbian workers.

With that, I'll move second reading.

[1610]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, please take your seats to assist in the taking of the division.

Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 9, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

[1615]

Second reading of Bill 9 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members.

One more time, Minister.

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Where has the love gone?

I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 9, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading on Bill 10.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 10 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 10, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014, be read a second time.

The new Pension Benefits Standards Act was enacted by this House on May 31, 2012. The new act is a comprehensive rewrite of pension standards legislation intended to improve workplace pension coverage and security by accommodating alternative plan designs and improving plan governance.

The amendments to the new act proposed in this bill are primarily technical amendments that are needed to correct errors and omissions or clarify certain provisions. Many of the corrections and clarifications were identi-
[ Page 2157 ]
fied during development of regulations needed under the new act.

Examples of those technical corrections include enabling the spouse of a deceased pension plan member to designate a beneficiary for the surviving spouse's benefits and providing that a former participating employer who fails to provide required information to the plan administrator may be compelled to comply by court order.

Examples of clarifications include…. For example, trade union consent is required to convert all defined benefits under a multi-employer negotiated-cost plan to the new target benefits type of plan. Another example, defined-benefit pension plans that choose to manage the plan's longevity risk by purchasing life annuities from a regulated Canadian life insurance company are not liable for benefits as long as specific conditions designed to protect members are met.

Finally, there are housekeeping changes that will ensure that the new Pension Benefits Standards Act interacts correctly with the Family Law Act and the Public Sector Pension Plans Act.

I'll await comment from other members.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 10, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act. The minister was looking forward to a long list of speakers and considerable debate on this. He'll be disappointed for a couple of reasons, but I do have some remarks that I want to address to the bill.

This is an important piece of legislation. The remarks are brief here at second reading, in part because basically this is a technical bill that's dealing with changes that have arisen out of the rewrite of the bill, which the minister talked about, that took place in 2012.

[1620]

Therefore, most of the discussion around this bill will take place in the sections at committee stage so that we can have a detailed examination of the sections and examine what the differences are between this bill and the last bill, why those changes were required, and why….

I mean, one of the questions is…. I think the minister has answered part of it in this sense. When the rewrite was done in 2012…. It's a very comprehensive piece of legislation. At that time much was in statute, but other parts of the bill were left to regulation, as much legislation often is these days, where the statute gives considerable discretion to government to enact policy by regulation.

Part of the challenge on that is that when you do that by regulation, then you often find that there are conflicts with the statute itself. Therefore, you have to go back and amend it. It's not desirable, but unfortunately, that's the way things work and that's what we have here.

Two years after a piece of legislation that many had been looking forward to for quite some time…. In fact, some of the provisions on this are quite important, particularly the provisions that relate to multisectoral pension plans that many of the unions have.

The changes in this piece of legislation they have been wanting to see for a number of years now and have been pushing for. So they will be supportive of those changes, but the fact is that it's coming two years after the original bill, which I think is always a bit of a concern.

Another change, I think, is particularly important in this bill. Again, the minister has talked about this, and this relates somewhat to the remarks that I made earlier in the previous bill debate — that is, around the spouse of a deceased being able to appoint a beneficiary.

That is a very important change because of the way that family relations have changed. And the way that the Family Relations Act has been…. We've had a new act in place, and there have been changes in wills and variations take place. It's important that our pension legislation also reflects the changes that have taken place over the last number of years.

This particular one is an important change. It's one that I think everybody in this House will certainly support and something that the public will heartily approve of. They will understand what it means in terms of ensuring their wishes and that their survivors get the maximum pension benefits that they are entitled to and that an individual has the ability to designate. So I think that that's an important change.

Finally, there is an area that I think we will want to spend a little bit of time on in committee stage, and that is the section that allows plan administrators to transfer responsibility for pensions to a regulated insurance company. The companies can buy annuities to cover their long-term pension obligations, which means that an insurer essentially takes over the risk of funding the pensions.

That sounds great, but it is an important change. I think we want to have a thorough understanding of how that will work. Are there any unintended consequences — for example, people being able to get out of their obligations or to limit their obligations and impact employees in the plan?

My understanding is that it will not, but I think it's something that we want to address in committee stage and have a fulsome examination of the clauses that deal with that so we can make sure that we understand exactly what's changing.

Quite frankly, I don't think anybody in this House, after having gone through the original bill in 2012 — we supported it, and we are now back here for the rewrite of the changes that were identified once the bill was done and the regulations were being developed — wants to then have to come back and do a third piece of legislation because things weren't dealt with correctly in this particular bill.

So with that, I know that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley also has a few comments to make. I look forward
[ Page 2158 ]
to hearing what he has to say and then the minister's remarks.

B. Ralston: I'll be even briefer than the critic was in speaking to this bill. The Pension Benefits Standards Act is really the road map to guide the administration of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in financial assets. So it's important that the terms be properly defined, that they withstand potential judicial scrutiny and that there be clarity as to how decisions are to be made. The statute, therefore, has to be clear.

[1625]

So it is regrettable but perhaps somewhat unavoidable that this bill has to come back before the House, given the length of time that the original act was in its formative stages.

I do recall that the Insurance Act took at least seven or eight years from the time that there was the initial white paper, some drafts, some further consultation, legislation initially promulgated and then withdrawn or tabled and then ultimately brought before the House and passed. Then it still required a further several years for regulations to pass. I think ultimately, from start to finish on the Insurance Act, it was at least seven years, if not eight — and this, from a business-friendly government, allegedly.

In the passage of these kinds of statutes, progress is very slow — perhaps slower than it need be, but that seems to be the way it's going. We will look forward, as my colleague has said, to some of the finer points that are contained in the amendments that are proposed. They deserve careful scrutiny, and I'm sure that members on this side of the House will perform their duty when it comes to scrutinizing those amendments carefully, because they are important to the operation of the act and to the administration of the act.

I suppose what I would ask…. Well, I hope, for the minister's sake, that the cost of the legal enterprise that went into this bill, and the cost of the legislative time, isn't deducted from his salary in some form of ministerial accountability. That would be a rather ignominious result on the occasion of his 20th anniversary here. I'll leave him to respond to that suggestion. I hope, for his sake, it's not the case. But ministerial accountability can be a tough thing sometimes, as we frequently hear in question period.

With those comments, I'll conclude.

Deputy Speaker: I see no further speakers. The minister to close.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have almost lost the capacity to speak. I'm so overwhelmed by the member's concern for my well-being.

Nonetheless, I've managed to pull myself together long enough to move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 10, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 13, Off-Road Vehicle Act.

BILL 13 — OFF-ROAD VEHICLE ACT

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Off-Road Vehicle Act be read a second time. This act replaces the outdated Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act in regulating the use of off-road vehicles and is a significant step in implementing the off-road vehicle management framework.

The previous act is 40 years old. In the intervening years there has been a very significant increase in off-road vehicles in the back country, and the sector continues to grow. In 2009 this government committed to implementing the off-road vehicle management framework, which called for one-time registration. It called for improved operator use and safety rules. And it called for measures that will help protect the environment.

[1630]

The Off-Road Vehicle Act fills this need. It establishes a more effective registration system that will be self-funded and allows for the development of safety standards and conditions for a wide range of off-road vehicles. The act aligns registration requirements with the Motor Vehicle Act, creating a one-time registration system for off-road vehicles administered by ICBC.

Enforcement measures will be enhanced to ensure off-road vehicles are operated in a safe manner. The vast majority of off-road riders are responsible and conscientious. Unfortunately, it only takes one reckless operator to cause serious damage or injury. The new ORV Act recognizes this by including new measures for enforcement officers, such as the seizure of the ORV for safety or evidence purposes and higher limits for fines.

Maximum fines for violations will be increased up to $5,000 from the current maximum of $500. By increasing penalties on safety and driving infractions, the act will create a meaningful deterrent for irresponsible riders who endanger others, harm animals or damage sensitive habitats.

Additionally, the new registration system, the new registration scheme, will enhance safety in British Columbia's back country. When a snowmobile or a quad is found abandoned, it can be an early indication that someone is nearby, lost in difficult terrain. However, there is no way to confirm that the person is even missing
[ Page 2159 ]
or who they are, since currently the majority of ORVs are not registered with ICBC, and the manual snowmobile registry is not easily accessible.

Bringing ORVs under ICBC's electronic registration system, which is easily accessible to enforcement officers, will address this deficiency and be a valuable aid in search and rescue operations. Similarly, the improved and expanded registration system will help combat theft. Currently, a snowmobile or quad can be stolen and operated with little fear of being identified. Registration under the ORV Act will better track the ownership of these vehicles, greatly assisting investigations and prosecutions of property theft. The registration program will be fully self-sustaining. The initial cost of development will be paid back within five years.

The bill includes a future funding mechanism for ORV trails by amending the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. The registration fee will only be set at a rate sufficient to recover the cost of a registration program to keep costs low for families and businesses in British Columbia.

Under the act a potential source of sustainable funding may be permits to access specific areas of Crown land where ORV trails are being maintained or developed. The details of this future funding mechanism and the policy for permits will be developed in consultation with the key stakeholder associations who contributed so much to the development of this framework and this legislation, and as part of the provincial trails strategy of British Columbia.

Different user groups bring different perspectives on how off-road vehicles should be managed in the province. But through extensive consultation that was undertaken, a concerted effort was made to address the needs of all stakeholders.

We had an ORV joint advisory group that contributed, as I said, significantly to the development of the framework and the legislation, groups like the Association of B.C. Snowmobile Clubs, Backcountry Lodges of B.C. Association, B.C. Cattlemen's Association, Commercial Snowmobile Operators, Snowmobile Federation, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Outdoor Recreation Council, Quad Riders Association of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Wilderness Tourism Association of B.C., just to name a few of the many groups that participated in that joint advisory process that has helped contribute to bringing this long-awaited legislation forward.

The ORV Act will provide surety that off-road vehicles are being used safely and responsibly and that more effective enforcement measures are available for those who refuse to do so. Finally, it will replace the outdated legislation with a modern registration framework specifically designed to better integrate into a pre-existing structure at ICBC.

With those comments, I look forward to the comments of other members and will listen carefully to those comments and then will look forward to continued discussion during committee stage.

[1635]

N. Macdonald: Just to begin, as I hope I always remember to do, by thanking the minister and his staff for providing the briefing. As my colleague from Cowichan Valley and I attend these briefings, we're always struck by the competence that sits within the public service, and I'm sure the minister appreciates very much the talent that he has within his ministry.

This is a project that many of those within the ministry have spent perhaps close to a decade working on. I think that in the briefing it was actually mentioned by one of the people providing the briefing that they've been working on this for a long time.

Of course, this is adding regulation; this is adding cost. But the regulation is so sensible and the cost really so minimal that you have the support of users. You have, in fact, users that have joined in working to put this together. Presuming that within the third reading of the bill all the answers that are given by the minister are reasonable answers, I think there's no question that we'll be supporting the bill. Certainly, at this stage the premise of the bill is one that we would support.

These are reasonable regulations that users have asked for, for a long time. In British Columbia, in the area I'm from, there is incredible back country. We have during the winter not only skiers and snowshoers as well as heli-skiing, but we also have a tremendous number of snowmobilers. It's not only important to people in the area that snowmobile for recreation, but there's a lot of business associated with this. There are a lot of people that come to Revelstoke, to Golden, to the Columbia Valley or Kimberley from Alberta to enjoy our back country, and it's an important part of what goes on in our communities during the winter.

As I said, it is a bill that has taken a long time to bring to the House. It's nine years that I've been here, and one of the first pieces of legislation that I was looking at was this legislation. There had been work done by a committee. It was a committee that included not only the user groups but also the environmental non-government organizations, as well as, I think, industry. Certainly, industry had a voice. They ended up with, as I remember, about 50 recommendations.

Now, not all of those recommendations are included in this piece of legislation. Like I say, I think it was 2006 that the recommendations were made. But certainly the spirit of what was talked about in that report seems to be reflected in this legislation.

I think most MLAs, when they get a piece of legislation like this that's going to be of interest to people in their area, put it out on e-mails, asking for feedback from users. We knew that we had feedback from many of the user groups, but there are sometimes individuals that
[ Page 2160 ]
have a different opinion than the user group that represents them. I have to say that the feedback that I received was mainly positive, with some being very enthusiastic about the possibilities.

There is, as I said, a cost, but it is a one-time registration fee of $48, I think it is, which seems acceptable, especially when one considers the value often of the off-road vehicles that we have. It's a piece of legislation that seems able to adjust as new off-road vehicles come into play that we perhaps haven't even thought of now. That, again, makes a lot of sense.

[1640]

One of the things that the registration, the licensing, does is take care of an issue that we heard a lot about from people coming into jurisdictions that had licensing and registration, which was about theft and about how this takes care of some of the challenges around off-road vehicles that have been stolen. Now if it is to be used in British Columbia, it has to go through a process that is going to clearly identify the off-road vehicle if it is stolen. From that perspective, I think it deals with an issue that has been raised with me in the past.

It also deals with safety issues. I think most of us will know that the off-road vehicles are sports that people love, and people accept that there are risks. We know that. In the area that I represent, I think just yesterday there was a tragic death of somebody who was snowmobiling. People know that there are risks, but there are also things that we can do to make sure that it is as safe as possible. The legislation here on public land puts in place some reasonable rules around what one would do to make sure that safety issues are considered as much as possible.

I do know in the original recommendations that were put forward in 2006 that there was a hope that some money that was collected would go towards safety training and trails and trail maintenance. While this does not specifically, I think, set up that structure, it does speak to the possibility of money for trails.

I think the balance here was to make sure that any costs that were imposed in the initial registration were as limited as possible. In the future if there's a decision to go and find a mechanism with registration or licensing to pay for trails, that would be looked at in a separate process. Again, that seems to me to be eminently reasonable.

The bill, as well, has the ability…. With licensing that is clearly visible, it means that it's going to assist in enforcement of practice or behaviour on off-road vehicles that isn't allowed. Not surprisingly, the push for this has come from the user groups as much as anything else — from environmental groups as well as from the wildlife federations or rod-and-gun clubs, certainly, but also from the user groups.

The vast majority of users of these off-road vehicles are responsible. They know that it only takes one or two people acting irresponsibly for there to be problems that they have to deal with. So the user groups want responsible use. The user groups have said to us that they want the off-road vehicles to be easily recognized. The licensing does that. It's of a size that people are going to be able to see.

Within the legislation there is not only the identification of people that are breaking rules, but there are also significant increased penalties. I think we know that the type of people that are going to be breaking rules are the type that are going to have their behaviour best modified with what are fairly significant penalties. I think that that is something that the legislation addresses as well.

The long time coming has meant, however, that one cannot complain at all about a lack of consultation. There has been full consultation. I have to say that we were struck with the legislation being well-thought-through. I think that that's a really very positive thing.

[1645]

I wouldn't be the critic if I didn't find something to pick at. Having the legislation look as agreeable as it does, I'll go to an area that's related to but not directly in the legislation, which is people on the ground. This is a discussion that the minister and I and other government members have fairly regularly. Over the past 12 years the government has moved in the direction of removing the people on the ground that do the work of regulating and enforcing the rules that we create here. It causes some real problems.

While in many areas I would say that self-policing doesn't work, I would be remiss if I were to not mention that I think there are strong elements of self-policing with the user groups. My experience with my snowmobile clubs is that they are very conscious of informing people that visit Revelstoke or visit the Columbia Valley or Golden. They make sure that they have maps that, at their own expense often, they've put together. They put up signs. They will go and speak to people who go into areas where they're not supposed to go.

These machines, especially snowmobiles, can go everywhere. I think if you're not familiar with where they can head, you'd be shocked at how steep the slopes are where the machines can go. It does mean that they often are in conflict with people who are there to heli-ski. They can be in conflict with wildlife areas, such as, around Revelstoke, the caribou. So it's important that in an area that's as big as it is, that we have certain areas set aside for different activities. If we're going to be serious about looking after wildlife, we have to also make sure that we protect certain areas.

The ATV clubs, the snowmobile clubs, do a really commendable job of making sure they self-police to the extent that they can. Beyond that, though, you need a structure. In this legislation it talks about the various individuals who can make sure that regulation is followed. There's the RCMP and, I think, conservation officers and natural resource officers. But I think we have to recognize that in my area, where a lot of this takes place, the num-
[ Page 2161 ]
ber of RCMP has been significantly reduced.

Golden, when I was mayor back in the '90s, had two conservation officers. When the Liberals took over, that went to no conservation officer. Then, after a long period of time fighting to get a conservation officer back — not only as the MLA, but with, of course, the strong support from rod and gun and other environmental groups — we got one conservation officer back, but now we've lost the conservation officer in Revelstoke.

What it means is you can have legislation and you can have regulation, but if you have nobody there to actually do the work on the ground, then there's no question that the government is not properly accepting its responsibility to look after our public land.

On top of that, you have recently created natural resource officers. At the time when that legislation was introduced, the minister, my colleague from Cowichan Valley and I had quite a discussion about what training would take place and what supports would be given to these officers who are suddenly asked to do a tremendous amount more as their numbers and budgets are cut.

I think, here again, you would ask: are there going to be additional people available to do this work? Is there going to be resources to train them and make them familiar with the various pieces of legislation that they are asked to regulate and to make sure that the public is following?

I think that that would be the main concern I have. In so many areas the government does not have the boots on the ground to actually make regulations work in a meaningful way.

[1650]

We are going to look to committee stage for fuller explanations, but certainly, the recommendation that I made to caucus is that this is a good piece of legislation. It has taken a long time to put together. It is consistent with what groups have told me, really since I began as MLA in 2005-2006. Unless something comes up in the committee stage that changes what we think on this side, certainly we'll be prepared to support it.

With that, I conclude my comments and look forward to the next stage of passing this bill.

L. Throness: I rise, as well, to express my support for the Off-Road Vehicle Act, and I want to express my appreciation to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, the NDP, speaking in support of this bill. That's a great thing. It comes as high praise from the members opposite, and it shows the depth of consultation that we've gone to and the broad degree of support across the province for this bill.

I want to explain and introduce the bill to my constituents, and I want to do that by talking about three words. I'll take a few more than three words — but three main principles that I find embodied in this bill that express what it's all about.

It's called the Off-Road Vehicle Act. It's a bill which sets in place a regime of registration of off-road vehicles. We've been working on this since at least 2009. We've consulted broadly with stakeholders across the province. We've obtained broad support — all-party support, as we learned today — and I want to speak in support of that myself.

But you need to know, Mr. Speaker, why I am speaking to this legislation. It's because I have a professional interest in this matter since I, as an MLA, have the good fortune to live in the Chilliwack area, one of the most beautiful parts of the Fraser Valley and also one of the wildest. In fact, the Chilliwack River Valley in particular is the closest rugged country that you can come to within a couple of hours of Vancouver.

You can quad and you can motorbike to your heart's content in the Chilliwack River Valley. Or you can hike. You can camp. You can stay with your rec vehicle. You can swim, kayak, canoe, hunt, fish, ride horses, snowmobile, cycle, or you can just be there. You can do just about anything you want in the Chilliwack River Valley. Many thousands of people come from all over the Lower Mainland to recreate there and have fun. Of course, they're welcome to come and visit as long as they show respect.

I would add that there are many other similar areas. I have a riding of 10,000 square kilometres. There are recreational areas throughout my riding, but the Chilliwack River Valley is the most popular.

Recently I took a tour of the Chilliwack River Valley, a recreational tour led by very able staff from the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry. I found that the valley is honeycombed with hundreds of kilometres of trails built especially for the enjoyment of people with motorbikes and quads in particular. There are campsites, as well, that are staffed full-time.

You can hike the Trans Canada Trail through the Chilliwack River Valley. The trail runs through all of Canada, across the breadth of this great country, and there are lots of opportunities for recreation. Most people don't even know about it because it's not visible from the road — except the people who like doing that kind of thing.

However, in the Chilliwack River Valley we also have a lovely residential area called Bell Acres. Bell Acres is a beautiful place. It's got some cottages in it and some permanent residences as well. There's a group of perhaps 50 or 100 homes nestled by the Chilliwack River there. There are many other residences in the Chilliwack River Valley; I'm simply using Bell Acres as an example.

Across from Bell Acres, beside the river, there is a road. It's a Forest Service road that's frequented by lots of quads and dirt bikes. In fact, since sound carries very well over the water, it sounds to homeowners in Bell Acres like these quads and motorbikes are right in their backyard as they race up and down this road in order to gain access to trails that run farther up in the back country, out
[ Page 2162 ]
of sight and out of sound.

Of course, you get some young people who really feel the need for speed, and there are some who don't like mufflers very much, so they crank their machines as loud as they can. The use and enjoyment of the people who have cabins and permanent houses in Bell Acres across the river…. They bought their places so that they could enjoy the sounds of the rushing water and the river going by and are now experiencing sounds more like a dragstrip than the wind rushing through the trees.

[1655]

In fact, there are about 35,000 quads and motorbikes within a couple of hours of the Chilliwack River Valley. You can imagine what it's like there on a weekend in good weather, particularly in the summer. There are parking lots by the roads crowded with trucks and trailers that carry these machines.

Our wise recreation personnel are allowing for this. They built staging areas off the road and far enough back from the river that people can't hear them. It will ensure that the noise doesn't bother them. Further, they're going to place some restrictions on the road. They're going to place speed limit signs and perhaps some other calming mechanisms that are required.

I also recently took a tour of a similar area farther away near Manning Park called Sunshine Valley, back in the mountains where Silvertip ski hill used to be. It's no longer operating as a ski hill. The old structures are still there, but it's not working anymore. There are also Forest Service roads in that area, and quads are beginning to come into that area, on the weekends particularly, to have fun.

I was taken on a tour of the area by a First Nations person who showed me some of the plants that First Nations people use for ceremonial purposes and the locations they have for historical reasons. Here again, conflict is occurring, as quads actually push through bush and through the forest to make new trails.

They don't particularly care all the time what they're driving over. Often if there is a metal gate blocking a road, they'll simply saw through it and cast it to one side and drive through. Of course, they jeopardize the areas that are held dear by the original people of Canada, the First Nations people, so conflict is occurring.

As long as people continue to buy quads and motorbikes and as they become more popular, as the population in Vancouver expands and as areas become more and more settled and push out farther and farther east in the valley and people want to escape the concrete jungle and get into the great outdoors, the beautiful rainforest in the Chilliwack area, we're going to see more and more of this kind of residential-versus-recreational conflict — not only in the Chilliwack River Valley but everywhere across the province — unless we do something about it. We are doing something about it. It's called the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

Now, let me ask you, Mr. Speaker: what if the drivers of quads and motorcycles beside the Chilliwack River didn't bother listening to the complaints of their neighbours? What if they don't care about the people living across the river in Bell Acres? What if they decide to disobey the rules set by the authorities designed to keep the use and enjoyment of others' property? They'd just keep blasting by their homes on that road, up and down, over and over every weekend — especially now, as we head toward the summer months. That's the reason we have the bill we have before us today.

I want to talk about three advantages that I see accruing to all British Columbians through this law, simply by referring to three simple words. The first word is "identity."

If you're charged with a traffic offence and you get a ticket, you have the option to go to court. The first question that a judge will ask himself or herself, as he sees this person before him, is: "What about jurisdiction? Do I have jurisdiction to try this person before me?" Maybe the person is a citizen of another country or another province. Maybe he's in the wrong court.

The first question is one of jurisdiction, but the second one is one of identity. "Who is this person standing before me? Can I identify him or her?" What about the vehicle they are alleged to have driven in this alleged offence? "Can I identify the vehicle? If I don't know who this person is, if I can't identify the vehicle, then I can hardly try him or her. I can hardly hold this person to account." That's where this act is so helpful. It will help to identify both driver and vehicle.

Right now if you see a person perhaps driving a dirt bike in an unsafe manner against the regulations, you might chase that person into the forest, but you might lose that person. Whereas, if you had a licence plate, you would be able to identify that person. If a person is not showing due care and attention, that person can now be identified even from a distance.

Registration means that you can't do things anonymously anymore. It means that a person, once identified, is now accountable to the law for his or her actions. The very fact that a person knows that he or she can be identified changes their behaviour. It means they are not anonymous. They're going to think twice about doing that stupid thing that will hurt the environment or hurt the use and enjoyment of the property of others or otherwise break the law. In other words, identity brings accountability to the law and to the rules that we set for everyone.

I would point out that this bill adds powers to government officials to seize vehicles for a short time, a maximum of 48 hours, and give out modest fines that are still significant enough to deter people from doing wrong things. This will provide an added deterrent for people to obey the rules when they play in the bush, to play fair, to play nice.

[1700]

The second word I want to talk about is "order." I'm a kind of law-and-order guy. I like the idea that we have law and order in the cities. We have pretty tight rules of the road, where traffic follows a set of rules that everyone abides by. It makes travel safe in cities. But I also like that we have law and order in the forest, in the wild. I like law and order to extend everywhere in B.C.

I used to work in the oil patch in B.C.'s north. It was quite a swashbuckling, kind of lawless culture, a culture very much contrary to the confines of the city. People like the idea of not having much law and order in the bush. They like to do what they want to do. So when I see a huge truck covered with mud with two quads on the back, it sort of reminds me of this kind of culture.

In a way, it's adventurous. It's courageous, it's a bit risky, but it's favoured by the strong. Those who are strong like that kind of a culture because they can do anything they want. But the weak, in that kind of a culture, don't have such a good time. I'm a firm believer in not allowing a few people to wreck it for everyone else by running roughshod over the environment, maybe to go crashing through the bush, sometimes harassing wildlife.

Some may allow their machines to start fires by allowing their sparks to start fires. Some may even use their vehicles for poaching. I like the idea that we can restrain this kind of thing by registering and identifying them. An additional benefit of registration will be to restrain theft. It's harder to steal vehicles. I think that every vehicle owner can be happy about that.

Of course, there's a price to all of this. It costs something to register vehicles, but our price is low. It's going to be just $48 as a one-time charge, a charge that's lower than Alberta's charge of $54. I think it's a charge that's very reasonable, and it was solidly supported by our user groups, in our stakeholder engagement.

Of course, there's some red tape associated with this as well. But I would point out that licence plates are being added to the existing ICBC platform, and ICBC already has about 3.4 million vehicle registrations. Adding some thousands more is going to be done at a very marginal cost.

So we're providing order. We're providing identity. We're providing greater security for off-road vehicle owners, and all at a very reasonable marginal cost.

The final word I want to use today in relation to this bill is "fun." That's really the reason for these vehicles, isn't it? Some of them are used in agriculture, some of them might be used on golf courses or other businesses that involve the outdoors, but the majority of our quads and Argos and dirt bikes and snowmobiles and side-by-sides, or whatever are recreational in nature. They're used purely for fun.

I think that's a great thing. Only I think that it should be fun for everyone. Sometimes you'll find a dad with his kids out for the weekend to have fun quadding. But they might be cut short by the hotheads who go blasting by, tearing up the place and generally wrecking it for everyone.

The registration that we're putting in place will restrain the behaviour of others so that everyone can enjoy the great outdoors. To make it even more fun, I would point out that the bill allows for permits to be charged that will go into a special account that will be used to upgrade trails for the further use of off-road vehicles. It means that you might have to pay a small amount to go on an off-road adventure, but that money will go to making the adventure bigger and better.

There are rules for safety in the bill as well. The government will be able to make regulations to prescribe helmet wear; proper lighting; and safety rules for young operators, operators under 16. It's not that we don't want younger drivers to drive. I know when I was a young teen, I was wild to drive any kind of a motorized vehicle. So we want them to do that. But younger people will have to take special precautions, and for good reason.

A safe adventure makes for a more enjoyable time. I visited our search and rescue teams in the valley, and I can tell you that it's not a fun way to end your dirt bike adventure by being taken out of the bush in the middle of the night on a stretcher by a search and rescue team. Safety is important, and it is necessary to have a fun time.

To sum up, we want a regime where everyone can enjoy beautiful B.C., where people can live in homes in the country — who don't have off-road vehicles — and can enjoy their space; where young families, as well as the more serious and aggressive mudders can have a good time; where fewer vehicles are stolen; where people don't get away with trampling the environment; where no one feels shoved aside; where everyone can gain a greater appreciation of the environment, enjoy the great outdoors and the thrill of driving an off-road vehicle; where everyone is required to respect the rights of others. And that is exactly what will be accomplished by the system we have before us.

[1705]

A registration system like this has got to be good for industry too. It's more safe, more secure, lower insurance costs, saves the environment and will help to develop the trail network. Generally, I think it will increase off-road vehicle sales.

Identity brings accountability, accountability leads to order, and order leads to safety and security in our beautiful recreational areas, which will make it more fun for everyone. That's why I will be supporting this bill before us.

B. Routley: Well, it was quite something listening to the previous speaker and the joy and exuberance that we heard displayed there about regulation, from a government that, at one time, had a minister of deregulation. Now, all of a sudden, we're excited and looking forward to the day we can legistate, put in laws, put in some real
[ Page 2164 ]
regulations and have some real compliance and enforcement. Finally, some regulation. It's a wonderful thing indeed to see the joy, the absolute joy, in moving towards regulation that's absolutely necessary.

The one thing we can absolutely agree on is that this is long overdue. I'm not alone. If you would have listened to the previous speaker, you would think for sure this government has been turning their minds to this for maybe even 20, 30 years — at least the last 12 years or so. They've been really focused on thinking up a way to do this.

But let's just take a moment to hear from Bruno Delesalle, the co-chair of the ORV Coalition. What does he say the facts are on this? He says that for over 30 years…. By the way, I might add this is from the B.C. government's own news release and website. They have it in there, so I appreciate the honesty, at least in this little blurb. "'For over 30 years we've known that B.C. has lagged behind when it comes to ORV regulations, to the detriment of personal safety, environmental responsibility, tourism potential and the enhancement of ORV sport,' said Bruno Delesalle, co-chair of the ORV Coalition."

So for over 30 years the groups have been together, united, petitioning government, bringing forward their ideas and concerns. At the end of the day, now we have government coming forward and saying: "Oh, this is such a wonderful idea. We just thought this up in the last little while. We've been squirrelled away working so hard on it, because we care so much about this regulation and program."

But I support that, and I join with my friend. I'm not quite as diplomatic as my friend, who rightly points out that there's a lot of good and there's a lot of merit in, finally, the government listening to the people of British Columbia, who have been begging and pleading for the government to listen. "Could you just give us a few crumbs from the table and move this bill along? Give us some safety. Help us out. People are stealing our bikes. They're out running up and down, creating environmental catastrophe in the woods."

I have experienced that myself. I went to an area. I must admit that this wouldn't have been my idea of fun, but I have a constituency assistant who, for more than 30 years, has gone out into the wilderness. He really enjoys taking his little Tracker out there. It's not an ORV. It's a real off-road vehicle. But we ran into those kinds of wild vehicles blazing trails through pristine wilderness, doing things that really aren't acceptable in a class A park in British Columbia and in Canada.

[1710]

To have people tearing up the wilderness is absolutely unacceptable and should be to all British Columbians — finally, to have a government listen and put in place some rules. But will there be any compliance and enforcement? Will there? No.

We've seen over a thousand jobs lost within the ministry, okay — a lot of them compliance enforcement. Now they've got them running around on roller-skates. Practically, I'm sure.

I don't know whether they've given them a gun yet. I don't think they've got a gun, and they're out there dealing with wildlife. They've got the list of things that they have to comply and enforce. Good grief, you'd have to be an amazing police officer or enforcement officer to do all the long list of things that are required.

They've rightly pointed out that we're going to get a little help from the RCMP — some folks that really are able to deal with the compliance and enforcement. But as others have said, they're already overworked and understaffed. They're reducing their budgets and their staff. Now we're going to pile on these kinds of regulations.

Back to Donner Lake. When I went into the area of Donner Lake, which is a pristine lake near Strathcona Park…. It's at least four or five miles long. Of course, I had to canoe it, so it seemed like four or five miles long. Maybe it was only two or three miles long, but it seemed like a very long lake. It was a pristine lake, mighty cold there, and the mosquitoes were big — but a beautiful place nonetheless. When you woke up in the morning and had a real wilderness experience, it was something else.

I have to say, I got in there close enough. We had to drag all our gear out and walk down this trail. And my disappointment to see that one of these ATVs or quads had driven a road right through the bush…. Somebody got out a power saw and chewed up the landscape and roared in there. They had taken their vehicle right down to Donner Lake. This pristine lake that had been just left in pristine form all those years, and somebody with a power saw and one of those vehicles goes roaring around in there.

Boy, I would have loved to have found somebody with a licence plate on there and had the ability to get at the problem, to identify somebody, and say: "Could you get out there and have a look, because this is destroying the wilderness and ruining the wilderness experience for other people?"

I also had the experience…. I lost a friend who I worked with over the years, and I was shocked. I was shocked that this vice-president of a local union would…. Suddenly, we got the report one day that he had died in a quad accident, that it had rolled over backwards climbing steep terrain.

I'm not sure whether he had a helmet. I doubt that he did, but in any case he was crushed by the equipment and found underneath his quad. He was out riding alone, which is something that I'm not sure this bill deals with, but he was found dead, alone in the wilderness on a quad.

Now the point of this legislation is good, and the fact is that they're listening. They're starting to move along on some of the safety regulations that are necessary. Safety does matter to me. I spent years representing workers on
[ Page 2165 ]
safety. After working in the mill and being injured myself, I discovered the need for training. I also discovered the need for compliance and enforcement.

When I first got that job of being the safety chairman, I found out I wasn't very popular when I went wandering around. You try walking down and seeing the millwrights, and saying: "Well, fellas, I've got a plan for you. Now you've got to carry all these locks. You need a special pouch, and you can have all these locks on here. We want you to lock out the equipment, put your tag over here, lock out over there."

They were happy to invite me to go find a way to pound sand somewhere else. They were not very happy with that. It required persistence. If you want to bring about a change in attitude, you need to do the work. You need to have the boots on the ground.

[1715]

Again, I'll be very interested in the minister's response, because I doubt…. In fact, I know that this government isn't putting forward any new funds to help deal with the introduction of such an important piece of legislation.

All show and no go. That describes this government. Who was it that said they needed a few words? The two or three words they needed to describe this bill: all show and no go. There it is. We're going to have more all show and no go.

With people using these roads and these vehicles there have been thefts. The RCMP, the coroner's office — there's a long list of people who have been trying to get governments here to listen, to finally act. Now we're all jumping for joy, apparently. We've got some of us, certainly on the other side of the House, jumping for joy, suggesting that it was an idea that was just theirs waiting to come out, and all of us should be ready to throw rose petals or something at their feet. It's such a wonderful idea that they've come up with.

Finally, they listened — finally. And they have started to move the…. One of the comments from the ORV Coalition says: "We expect these regulations will improve safety, environmental impacts and trail development for ORV use, as well as make those who are currently causing property and environmental damage accountable."

Guess who said this? This was Bev Felske, co-chair of the ORV Coalition, a member of the Quad Riders Association. "This is an incredible province to explore and to work on the land, and the majority of riders do so responsibly. Those that do not will now be identifiable for their actions."

The group was clearly moving in the direction of needing a way to have some compliance and enforcement. That's what we're going to have to follow up on. It will be a good day when the government recognizes its responsibility. It's not just to introduce a whole bunch of flowery words, which is great. The words themselves on the page sound wonderful, but it's what comes next.

Is there anybody really going to do any compliance and enforcement? If you don't, if you don't have any go along with the show, if you don't get out there and have some boots on the ground to make things happen, believe me, you get a few…. I hope there will be some action on that, and we'll have to talk about that further in the discussion.

I do say that it's a good day for safety just because I see the idea that the young people will now be encouraged to wear helmets — through regulation, mind you. A little regulation goes a long way. Make the medicine go down with a little regulation. It's, again, delightful to see the excitement on the other side on having a little regulation. They look forward…. They've got enabling language in here to have all kinds of regulation. It's going to be wonderful — a wonderful, wonderful thing indeed.

And we've got several levels of penalties to talk about. I don't know if we have time. I'm getting an evil look that maybe I'm taking up too much time. But they do have at least three layers of penalties that they talk about.

Again, that's a good start, you know? But is this going to be like the legislation that this government brought in when they said, back in 2001: "You know what? We're going to get rid of all of this regulation that the NDP has. We're going to get rid of it all, and we're going to have professional reliance, and there will be people go to jail. There will be million-dollar fines, and people will go to jail"?

Do you know how many million-dollar fines or people go to jail? None. Zero. Nada. Nothing. It's just so much smoke and mirrors when it comes to this government. Again, we need a little action to go along with the plan so that we can be convinced that…. And we do need to convince the people of B.C.

I might sound like I'm having way too much fun with this, but I am serious when it comes to the need to have real boots on the ground and to make what are important matters like children's safety and having a helmet on…. You know, those are critical areas.

[1720]

I will never forget some of the experiences that I've had, and because I've had them, I think it's incumbent on me to share them. I came home from an afternoon shift one night from the Youbou sawmill. I'd been running the dozer boat all evening, and I came home. It was grad party just up the road from where I was working. When I came home on Meade Creek Road and turned just before Marble Bay Road, there was a bunch of fir trees there.

One young man did have a helmet on, but he was going so fast, and he must have been high or drunk on something. I won't even go into what exactly that was. All I know is that he hit that big fir tree head-on, and he was lying in the middle of the road with an RCMP officer giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. I'll never forget it as long as I live.

I have a whole bunch of respect for the fact that that young RCMP officer was down on his knees giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a man who he was
[ Page 2166 ]
hoping was going to have a chance to live. By the time the ambulance got there and they took over, he didn't make it.

So many of our young people are out there roaring around on vehicles, whether it be motorcycles or now with quads, and I'm glad this introduces some kind of rules for dirt bikes. Again, that's something I know about — where there are young people out there roaring around on motorbikes — and we do need some help with that.

The idea that they can seize a bike…. If there's some kind of crazy party and people are suspected of drinking, they can seize a bike for up to 48 hours. Those are good things, but, again, what we need at the end of the day is a government that's willing to follow through on these words, not just give a whole bunch of warm feelings and have the kind of speeches that we've heard here — "Oh, it's going to be so wonderful. It's going to be just so beautiful and so wonderful, you can hardly imagine" — but then at the end of the day, when it comes to some action, it just doesn't happen. We need the boots on the ground.

With that, I will take my place. I do believe that at the end of the day we'll make some recommendations and support this bill, but I think enough said. We really do need to see some follow-through. I do appreciate the fact that the minister and his staff did take the time to come over and give us a briefing. I've already had the opportunity to air my concerns.

With that, I thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 13, the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

M. Morris: This is a long time coming, but good things take a while to develop.

Speaking from my background, I think this is a great piece of legislation, long overdue and sorely needed in the province here. I've dealt a lot in my professional capacity with the abuse that ATV riders and snowmobile riders have exhibited in much of the province, in much of the area that I've worked in. I've dealt with fatalities and serious injuries and people that have been incapacitated for life because of accidents on ATVs and whatnot.

One of the critical factors for enforcement with ATVs and snowmobiles is the fact that they've been able to operate with relative anonymity up until this particular point in time. When a police officer encounters somebody with a dirt bike, an ATV, a quad or a snowmobile in the course of his duties, those individuals have got helmets on. They're just about impossible to identify, and there are no markings on the equipment that they're operating. They will take off, trying to get away from the police officer, knowing that the police officer will never be able to identify them.

[1725]

In many cases I've seen where these individuals — most of them have been young children, or they've been intoxicated people — have run into a tree or over a bank or into some other vehicle that they didn't see, and they've lost their life or they became seriously injured as a result of trying to get away from the police officer.

The police officers now have the authority under this statute, or will have the authority under this statute, to observe the licence number on that particular machine. If the vehicle goes running off into the bush, they'll just track down the licence number on their computer in the vehicle. They can go to the home of the operator, and the owner of that particular vehicle can be charged for whatever offence the police officer wanted to charge him with — or whoever is enforcing this, whether it's a conservation officer or some other enforcement officer.

I see some real, positive things coming from this, and I think we're going to see a reduction in the number of people that are injured as a result of thinking that they can operate with anonymity and thinking that they can get away from police officers and have no repercussions here. That's a significant plus.

One of the other factors that I see with this legislation that is going to be a significant benefit, as well, is just the everyday use. I've used side-by-side utility vehicles, quads and snowmobiles for over 40 years, trapping and doing what I've done out in the wilderness. Every fall we're inundated in the northern and central interior part of the province with people from all over the province coming on their annual hunting trips or just coming to enjoy the flora and fauna that this great province has to offer.

Very often, though, there's one or two in the group that comes out there that decide they're going to tear up all the trails, they're going to tear up the environment, and they're going to cause significant damage. They have caused significant damage in these particular areas. Up until now there's been no recourse for residents such as myself and others out there that do have a tender spot for the environment and the flora and fauna and want to do everything that they can to protect it.

Now we're going to have a licence number that we can record, and we can send it into the closest enforcement body, whether it's RCMP or other. They can track that individual down, and they can lay the necessary charges and take the necessary enforcement action there. I think those things combined together are going to substantially reduce the incidence of injury, the incidence of environmental damage that we have right across the province with respect to those types of machines and the incidence of just general abuse that we see out in the bush.

My particular trapline was inundated. There were probably 100 hunters that would come up into that area in the fall and set up their various camps. Every single one of them had quads and side-by-sides. You'd get 100 of those off-road vehicles travelling through trails that were designed for minimal use, and use when the ground was particularly frozen and not subject to the type of damage that would occur.

After two or three days up there, the mudholes are
[ Page 2167 ]
two and three and four feet deep. They're irreparable. It causes the trappers and the guide-outfitters and the other legitimate users of the land to find other avenues of transportation or other areas that they can build their trails on. That damage never does get repaired. You've got a mudhole there forever. This is a step in the right direction.

We have had consultation. I've been aware of the consultation in my previous role with the B.C. Trappers Association. I've spoken to many of the other stakeholders that have been consulted on this legislative package, and I haven't heard any comments, you know. I haven't heard from anybody who hasn't been in favour of this legislation moving forward.

There've been some modifications that were required with respect to some of the items in here, but, with respect to the registration part, displaying the licence plates and the enforcement aspect of it, I think we've got widespread support for that. Of course, it's obvious from the comments that we've had from the members opposite here as well. I think this is another bill that's going to make its way through here with good support on both sides of the House here.

British Columbians are going to benefit from this, not only from the quad and the ATV side and the side-by-side utility vehicle aspect of things but also from the snowmobile. Snowmobiles are becoming very prolific throughout British Columbia. The member from Columbia River–Revelstoke has a lot of activity down in his area. In Prince George–Valemount, Prince George–Mackenzie and the Kootenay region there are a lot of tourists that come in from out of province and from out of the urban centres in British Columbia that utilize those areas.

[1730]

Most of them are legitimate people that really want to have a good time out there and enjoy themselves.

There are still others out there, though, that would probably abuse alcohol and abuse drugs and get themselves into a little bit of trouble. With the legitimate operators out there that have an opportunity to see the number plate, record the number and report it to the nearest enforcement officer, it just makes the whole environment a lot safer out there.

It is going to impact somewhat on the resources that are out there. The member opposite that spoke just before me commented on the fact that the enforcement officers are already overworked. But it's another tool.

There's nothing more frustrating, from a police officer's perspective, than to be able to do nothing when you see these vehicles disappearing off into the bush or off into the wilderness and you've got no number, no way to identify who they are.

Now we will have that tool here. I think it's going to be a plus for law enforcement officers throughout the province. It's going to be a plus for the conservation officer service in doing what they need to do out there. We're just going to have a safer, better province for that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of this legislation.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to take my place today in the second reading of Bill 13, the Off-Road Vehicle Act. I want to give some general comments, which we do in second reading on a bill, and I look forward to the committee stage debate, where we can get into more detail.

I'm going to take a little bit of a different approach. I think that many speakers previous have focused a lot on the negative behaviours of off-road vehicle users. I think what this bill can be is a valuable tool for all those responsible operators of off-road vehicles. I'll get into those comments a little bit.

It is definitely increased regulation, and the B.C. Liberal government is bringing this into effect. I have a few questions about this increased regulation, as well, that I'll explore in this second reading debate.

I think that overall, depending on the answers I get in the committee stage, I can be supportive of this bill. There are lots of users of off-road vehicles, as defined in this act, in Stikine and in the north. Snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes — these are common vehicles you see up in the north.

I encounter them almost every day when I'm at home in the constituency. I use them myself. I've used them for work purposes. From a recreation standpoint, usually I use them to get to areas where I can then use my legs and hiking boots or skis to go further into the back country.

This bill covers things like rules of operation, safety standards and conditions of use. It increases maximum fines for violations of some of the contents of the bill. An important content of the bill, as pointed out by previous speakers, is the registration and visible identification that these off-road vehicles will now have to have.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

This bill has been long in coming, but the widespread consultation is a good thing. We know there are lots of, a variety of users in the province and in Stikine. So the input that the government has gotten on this leads me to believe that there are many parts of this bill that are good.

I think a positive part is the comments from the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. around the Wild West approach. This was from the Paradise Valley Snowmobile Association in Dawson Creek, just saying that this bill follows suit with what's going on in the rest of the country.

From the aspect of a stolen off-road vehicle, the registration and identification make it easier for the RCMP to track down and get to the bottom of this. That's a good thing, I think, when we see so many users with these vehicles in the back of their pickups. They can be easily stolen.
[ Page 2168 ]

[1735]

We have a fee involved, a $48 one-time fee, for off-road vehicles, whether it's a snow machine, a dirt bike, an ATV, a quad — those kinds of things. It's a one-time fee for the user. I think what we have to be aware of is that these fees can easily creep and increase, so we have to keep a close eye on that. Sometimes people have more than one of these off-road vehicles. People I know might have a quad, a snowmobile or two, or one of their sons or daughters might have a dirt bike, so we could be easily reaching up into the $200, $300, even more, area of costs.

That then begs the question oftentimes about what people paying this registration fee are getting back for their money. I think that in remote, rural northern parts of the province this is something that comes to people's minds often. If they're paying a fee like that, what are they getting back? Oftentimes the services aren't as good as in other parts of the province, and we've seen a decrease in those services under this government. So when you introduce a new fee, people in Stikine and in rural areas are going: "Well, what am I getting for that?"

I think one aspect of this bill…. Again, I would like to explore this at committee stage, because I don't see it laid out in the bill. I've heard the minister say that there will be a portion, a percentage of the fee set aside for an off-road vehicle trail maintenance sub-account. We don't know what the portion of that will be. Apparently, it's going to be set by the Treasury Board. But a portion of that fee will be set aside in this account, and it could be used for purposes such as trail construction and maintenance for off-road vehicle use.

We see that as one area where you could say to a person: "Well, you're going to be paying this extra fee, and this is what you're going to get for it." However, we've known in Stikine and other places in the north….

We've heard this same story from the provincial government, from the B.C. Liberals, on sport-fishing. "Don't worry." They're going up year after year. Now it costs well over $100 to get a fishing licence for all the varieties of salmon and steelhead up in my area. This is a resident fee. But we were told, "Well, don't worry. That money goes back into a habitat conservation fund, and it'll go to improving sport-fishing access, for instance, in boat ramps and access to the rivers and in habitat," and we don't see a lot of that.

These are good words, but we have to understand that there's skepticism out there in the north around these kinds of additional fees. I'd like to question and find out some more from the minister when it comes to committee stage on that aspect of the bill.

The minister did say this increased registration system would be self-funded, and I believe he's referring to the registration fees doing that. But if you're putting aside some for trail maintenance and you're putting aside some money from this $48 fee — which, again, could be up to hundreds of dollars for a single resident…. So we've got some for, perhaps, trail maintenance and construction. We have some, perhaps, for regulating the licences and then what's left over. What could be left over disappears into general revenue.

If I'm a person from a remote, rural northern area like Stikine and I'm paying $300 or $400 extra a year to run my off-road vehicles, whether they're snow machines or ATVs or dirt bikes, and the government is saying, "Don't worry. A part of that will go back into improved trails, and some of it goes back into bureaucracy to run this program," and then I see that the rest of it disappears into general revenue for making offers of employment to failed Liberal B.C. candidates, that would, obviously, irritate me if I saw that happen.

What I have to explain to people of the north is that…. What I would suggest is this kind of extra fee going not just into what we heard about but into things like conservation officers and the conservation officer service.

[1740]

I know the member for Prince George–Mackenzie made this point earlier when he was speaking around the RCMP being able to enforce some of the regulations that are in this bill.

I think that there are only a few bad actors out there, just a few bad actors in the off-road vehicle constituency. Unfortunately, they tar the image of the responsible users. Oftentimes this is in connection to — and I've had this incident in my constituency — alpine areas, where off-road vehicles were not supposed to be used, and they've caused great damage to the alpine, damage that takes hundreds of years to recover.

The RCMP, obviously, isn't going to be enforcing the regulations in this in back-country areas. They're concerned and have a lot more need in the front-country areas, along highways and in towns and cities and villages. That's going to be left up to the conservation officers.

We've seen a decrease in the ability of conservation officers to do their work under this government. In fact, if you recall, a few years back a memo came out, at the direction of this government, to conservation officers that if they needed to get to different parts of their area that they're supposed to be regulating and taking care of and looking over, then maybe they could hop in with somebody else, because there's not enough money for gas. Maybe they could hop in with an RCMP officer, or maybe they could hop in the truck with a forestry worker, because times were tough, and they couldn't even get gas money.

This is the legacy. If I was a user of an ATV being asked to pay extra and I was in a rural northern area, I would say: "Great, well, if I can see that money come back…. I can understand, sort of, the purpose of the bill, and I understand that it could be a good bill. I'm a responsible user, and identification helps us track down irresponsible users. I would be willing to see some of that money go towards a registration system."
[ Page 2169 ]

I would be willing to see some of that money — and this is a good idea — go towards a fund, an account that would perhaps allocate to trail construction and maintenance. But I would also like to see some of that money go to the conservation officers, who, we know, do a good job in the province.

I would caution that we have seen the Ministry of Environment briefing binder, from the previous budget in June 2013, identify that a risk challenge faced by conservation officers was "additional legislative responsibility without increasing capacity." That's from the government's own briefing binder when it comes to the budget.

The sections of this act are obviously an increased responsibility on conservation officers. We hope to see the increased resources that would go hand in hand with that so that we can have boots on the ground and have more COs, and more COs have time out in the back country to use the parts of this act that will help those responsible operators of off-road vehicles. Again, the vast majority are responsible operators, and this act can be a good tool to help those responsible operators.

I have been involved in motorized and non-motorized use in the back country. I enjoyed both. In the past I've built trails. That was part of my job for a decade in the Rockies. I think creating more trails that are suitable for off-road vehicles is a good thing, because oftentimes there is a non-motorized/motorized conflict. Obviously, people can't share the same trails for certain kinds of activities, so building better trails for off-road vehicles is a good thing that this act could result in.

However, on the enforcement end, I've had the occasion, in a provincial class A park where non-motorized use was not permitted, to come across, both in the wintertime and in the summer months, operators of off-road vehicles — a snow machine in the winter and a dirt bike in the summer — in areas that weren't authorized.

[1745]

This was before this act, obviously, was enforced, so there was no way to identify the people operating the machines. However, we were able to introduce ourselves and get names and pursue that.

I think to depend on citizens to conduct this kind of enforcement, especially in small towns, really leads to a lot of social disharmony, shall I say, in small towns. That's even more of a reason to ensure that the additional responsibilities, which are going to weigh on the shoulders of conservation officers with this bill, are properly resourced by the government and that COs have the budget to address what they now are required to address under this act.

I would like to finish off just by saying that I think it's a good bill. It's a valuable tool. I'd look forward to some details in the committee stage so that I can feel fully comfortable in supporting it, so that I can provide the answers to people in the constituency of Stikine when it comes to where and how their fees are going to be used that they are going to have to pay now for their snow machine, for their trail bike, for their all-terrain vehicle, ATV; and also whether I will be able to show them that this government is going to increase the ability of conservation officers to do their job in connection to this bill as well.

I thank you very much, and I look forward to committee stage on this.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm going to take this opportunity to speak in favour of this legislation. I honestly wish I had been able to stay in the House and listen to all the speakers on both sides of the House.

First of all, I think it's appropriate for me to thank everyone who had anything to do with bringing this legislation forward. Certainly, the minister responsible has been a real bulldog on this. I don't think we'd be here debating this legislation today if he hadn't kept his eye on the ball over the last few years.

I want to also thank and recognize members on the other side of the House who I know support this legislation, regardless of what they might say in the House about conservation officers or anything else. I can't say who's in the House, but I know there are members on the other side of the House, who may or may not be here, who do support this. I know that they have advocated for this type of legislation for many years. I certainly appreciate that, because it's something that people — particularly, in rural British Columbia, for the most part — have wanted for a long time.

Finally, I want to thank the current Premier for allowing the minister and the minister's committee, of which I have been a member, to create this legislation. Yes, it took a long, long time. There is no question about that. I kept sitting here during…. One of the speakers with a loud voice was making me think, "Better late than never," and I think that's true. I'm really pleased that we do have it here. But he was right in his comments that it has taken a long, long time.

I credit the current Premier for recognizing that this was an important issue for probably a relatively small segment of MLAs and their constituents in the province on both sides of the House. But she gave us a chance to do this, and that's important. It's significant, because I got my old ATV/ORV file out. I know we're not allowed props, so this isn't a prop. I have literally hundreds and hundreds of memos and letters and e-mails that relate to this file. I found a letter dated September 27, 2002, that I wrote to the then Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, hon. Rick Thorpe.

[1750]

I asked him, in his capacity with ICBC, to persuade ICBC to allow the registration of off-road vehicles and have the information put into the same database that motor vehicles are in so that the RCMP and conservation officers and other compliance and enforcement officers for the province could access information when they saw
[ Page 2170 ]
an ORV somewhere out there doing something that they weren't supposed to do.

It was very interesting. I did not actually get a response from the hon. Minister Thorpe. I sent that letter in September, and I got a response on January 23 from the Minister of Finance. He said that government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden in British Columbia.

Again, the member who spoke a few members ago was right. There has been, I think, a real learning by this side of the House in terms of the importance of regulating off-road vehicles in the province. It's not just from the perspective of safety, as important as that is, and not even just from the perspective of protecting the environment, as central as that is to this legislation, but also to enable the growth and development of a tourism product that other provinces brag about and do very, very well with.

The province of Quebec, for example — and Ontario. I grew up in Ontario, and my 85-year-old father bought his off-road vehicle pass — his snowmobile pass in the winter and his quad pass in the summer — and he rode with his other 80-year-old friends. He did overnight trips all over the place and stayed at motels and ate in restaurants and rode these trails in the summer and then, of course, in the winter rode the snowmobile trails.

In Quebec it's a big, big industry. It's about a $10 billion industry in Quebec.

There are many different facets that relate to the legislation, and I'm going to just cover the ones that are, I guess, probably most important to my constituents. I'm actually going to work off that 2002 letter, because it's all still relevant.

Land use planning. We've gone through, many years ago now, an exhaustive land use planning process that included access planning. I know this will get my friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke thinking about his situation. Access planning is a good thing if it's done properly — if you have all of the different players, all of the different interests at the table. It's very messy and difficult, and you need a professional facilitator, but it's the right thing to do.

You can come to compromises that can be recommended to government around how you access the back country. Do you access the back country with quads? Do you access it with snowmobiles, off-road bikes, or not? We went through that in my riding in two separate land use planning exercises, and we actually zoned the areas for motorized and non-motorized.

Some of it relates to seasons. For example, you can take a snowmobile in some areas of the East Kootenay where you can't take a quad in the summer because of wildlife habitat or some other consideration. But the fact of the matter is that with all of that effort and resource put into land use planning and access planning, if you don't manage off-road vehicles, it is next to impossible to actually implement the plans and really achieve the intention and spirit of those plans.

So it's a big day for me, personally, just because of that one issue. We will have the capacity to actually manage the off-road vehicles in the areas where they're supposed to be.

I should say, because I think it's important and respectful to say, that the vast majority of British Columbians who own snowmobiles and quads are very responsible. They are not people who are reckless. They're not people who don't care about the environment.

On the contrary, they are people who love nature, who love nothing better than cruising on a trail on a Sunday afternoon with their husband or their wife or their kids or their buddies or going on a long snowmobile trip and getting to the top of a knoll and shutting the machines off and looking at the mountains — you know, enjoying the place where they're at.

[1755]

Generally speaking, I think a high, high percentage — well over 95 percent — of the people that use these machines don't break the rules that we have today. Unfortunately, the 5 percent — and it's always that way; that's probably why we have most of our laws — or the 4 percent or the 6 percent, whatever it is, cause us to have to come up with legislation like this.

It definitely will help the province with the land use plans that we have. I think it'll make more sense to do more access planning, as the province can afford to do that, because of this.

I will say, too, that with regard to compliance and enforcement, conservation officers, two things are very important to the debate, in my opinion. One is that the legislation that was passed a year ago or two years ago broadening the capacity for people who work for the provincial government to actually do enforcement across a whole range of legislation really helps in this case.

There was a day when only conservation officers would be authorized to work in this area of compliance and enforcement. Now you've got tourism officers. You've got forest officers. Anybody who is in compliance and enforcement, or anybody who is authorized under a piece of….

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: They're tourism and recreation officers. I don't know. Maybe you don't have them up…. You must have at least one in Smithers.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, that's right.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Sorry, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 2171 ]

I think that legislation helps a lot, because it really — all of those pieces of legislation — brings a larger group of people to do the compliance and enforcement piece.

The other thing that I think is quite relevant here is that with this legislation, the organized clubs — the snowmobile and the quad clubs around the province…. There are many, many of them. My colleague from Cariboo South has I don't know how many thousand snowmobilers in her area. They will help with compliance and enforcement.

Now that the machine will have a decal or a licence plate on it with a number that can be written down, if you see somebody, for example, on a quad who's in a riparian area and they're not supposed to be there — and if it's a riparian area, they shouldn't be there — or in the natural grasslands, or you see them in the alpine, where they're not supposed to be, you can get their number.

You can do the same thing that you can do if you see somebody driving an automobile recklessly. You can report that person on the basis of their licence plate, or at least on the basis of who owns the motor vehicle.

This will be possible with quads and snowmobiles and off-road bikes. I think that's going to be a big help for the clubs to help police this form of recreation.

I'd be in a bad way if I forgot to mention the Kootenay Livestock Association — Faye Street and others there — who have been lobbying for longer than I've been an MLA for some form of management of off-road vehicles.

It's true. They do some damage, especially in the natural grasslands that exist in the Rocky Mountain Trench.

I think it's important to also mention, certainly where I live and where the Jobs Minister lives and up through the Peace, the two MLAs from the Peace region…. We have a lot of people. You can't blame them, I suppose. It's a way to avoid paying sales tax. They go to Alberta, and they buy their snowmobiles and their quads there. They come back over, and because you don't really have to register them in B.C., they don't pay the sales tax.

What does that mean to us? Well, it means that our retailers that are based in places like Fernie and Golden and Dawson Creek and Fort St. John and Valemount lose a lot of business, because there is no registration of these vehicles. I think this is going to be really good for those retailers, so I'm very pleased for them.

I've mentioned already the environmental issues that are associated with off-road vehicle use. Again, I think it's a minority of people that act badly, but there are definitely some who do.

I think that there's at least one issue that will have to play out before we see how it works, and that is the situation with out-of-province riders who bring their snowmobiles and their quads to B.C. Under the current legislation, assuming it passes, they will be able to really rely on the registration that they have done in Alberta.

I'm not picking on Albertans, but they are a problem where I live, in terms of them not knowing our rules or seemingly not really caring that we have rules. We will see how this works out for the next couple of years, and hopefully, their registration in Alberta will be enough for our officers to identify who they are.

[1800]

I understand that we can track them through the same ICBC-based database that we can track motor vehicles, so it should work. That's something I'm certainly going to be interested in.

I'll just close by saying that I own a quad. I've owned a quad for, probably, 30 years. My first one was a three-wheeler. I had that one for about ten years, and I've had four-wheel quads for the last 20, I guess. I own a snowmobile. My kids rode snowmobiles and quads when they were growing up. I am committed to the families, the parents who want their children to be able to ride a snowmobile or a quad, as long as the machine is sized proportionately to the age of the child. I don't believe that we should be telling families that we know best as government. This legislation doesn't do that, but there is potential in the regulation for it to do that.

I believe that parents should be responsible for their children. Certainly, the responsibility is on the supervising adult to make sure that the under-age child is operating it appropriately. I know families who teach their kids to ride snowmobiles and to ride quads, and they are more proficient than lots of 50-year-olds who are out there who haven't had the same training. I say that because it's something I've heard from people: "Please don't stop my son or my daughter from having this opportunity to go riding with us. Even though they might only be eight or ten years old, they've been doing it for a couple of years already, and they know what they're doing. We look after them, and they're safe."

Again, my sincere thank-you to the minister for quarterbacking this legislation and getting it through. I'm hoping that this will be considered to be a non-partisan piece of legislation that will be supported by both sides of the House. I've been disappointed on that before on other matters, but we'll see how it goes on this one.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers….

D. Barnett: I was waiting for the other side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't take long, but I do have a few things that I would like to add.

This is a long time coming, as my colleague said. I'd like to say thank you to the Minister of Transportation because there was a part of this that has been very, very difficult to the process, and it was ICBC. If it hadn't been for our Minister of Transportation, I know that we would not be standing here today with this act. So thank you, Minister.

You know, I'm a long-time snowmobiler. I actually hate to tell you this, but I've been snowmobiling since 1964. My husband and I had a business. We sold ATVs. When
[ Page 2172 ]
the first ATVs came in, in the late '60s, they had to be the most dangerous, hazardous vehicle there were, but we sold them. There were no regulations. They tipped over. It was a vehicle that should have never been put out there, but as time went on, we have progressed, and safety vehicles are now out there.

One of the benefits to me of having this act is, first of all, safety. We all believe in safety. But belonging to clubs and organizations in this province over the years has ensured that families who ride these things have safety. Dealers who are good dealers that sold these types of vehicles always made sure that children had helmets. As an experienced person in the marketplace, I can tell you I had families come in, buy four snowmobiles and refuse to buy their children a helmet. I ensured that those children went out of my store with a helmet, and that's where safety started.

As a parent…. I had two young boys. They're still young compared to their mother. They basically started riding these things when they were four years old, so they learned through time the respect of both the land, the safety for themselves and the benefits of the economics that these provide to rural British Columbia communities.

[1805]

We have a trail in our community that is over 300 kilometres long. It's finished. It's gazetted. It's a registered trail. These things bring great economics to this province.

As my colleague has said, if you go to Ontario or Quebec, they have a tourism product that is second to none. It brings billions of dollars into their province every single year, and it is funded through the government through trail passes.

Saskatchewan is the same. My husband spent years going to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, paying for a trail pass and riding from one end of the country to the other, stopping at small communities that are ranching communities. In the wintertime, when they had nothing else to support themselves, they rented a room. They fed you a meal.

This has great economic potential. It also has potential to keep the environment, as everyone has said, safe. If you've got trails that are well maintained, well signed, well groomed, there's no reason to go in a farmer's field. There's no reason to go in areas that are habitat areas. And you will find that people will do that.

This here piece of legislation is only the beginning. There are tools in here to help us continue to move this forward.

Yes, my colleague over here is concerned about fees. Well, there will be a $48 one-time registration fee. It will not be hundreds of dollars. It will then give you the opportunity to go and see if you would like to buy some insurance so that you can cross a road — because there are road-crossing provisions now, thanks to the Minister of Transportation. We need to go further, but it is the beginning of a very, very important piece of legislation to help this industry move forward.

I will rest my case at that.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. S. Thomson: Firstly, I just want to thank members on both sides of the House for their indication of support for the bill. I think, as everybody has mentioned, this is a very, very important step, something that, as everybody commented, has been a significant time coming. I'm very pleased and proud to be able to bring the legislation in front of the House.

The member from Cariboo south mentioned it in terms of the thanks to the Minister of Transportation for his role in assisting us with making sure we can have the registration system in place through ICBC at an affordable level, which was our objective. It was, quite frankly, one of the challenges and part of what was delaying potentially bringing this forward at some point earlier. So I really want to acknowledge his support.

I appreciate the member from Cowichan — his vigorous support for the bill.

I know that there will be a number of points to address during the committee stage of the bill. I think we'll be able to address those. But again, I think it is gratifying to hear the support from both sides of the House for the bill. I think this is a very, very important step, as has been pointed out, for safety, for the environment, for providing the framework that's going to help build the economic contribution that this sector can provide.

As mentioned, it has had a significant process of consultation and support from all the broad range of user groups, environmental organizations, industry associations. As well, local government is part of this.

I look forward to moving this into the committee stage of the debate. With those comments, I move second reading of the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

Motion approved.

[1810]

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Off-Road Vehicle Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I would now move second reading of Bill 7, intituled the Laboratory Services Act.
[ Page 2173 ]

BILL 7 — LABORATORY SERVICES ACT

Hon. T. Lake: I am pleased to move second reading of the Laboratory Services Act. The act is designed to create a more integrated and efficient system that will continue to provide the best possible care for B.C. families in the long term.

The legislation focuses on patient-centred care and follows what is known as the triple-aim approach. Triple Aim is an approach coined by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a non-profit organization with a mandate to improve health care services around the world.

The triple-aim approach focuses on making changes in health care systems that improve the health of our population, enhances the experience and outcomes of our patients, and achieves the best value for dollars. This legislation will help us achieve all three of these targets.

It will allow us to take better advantage of new and advancing tests so that physicians will have the information they need to quickly diagnose and improve patient outcomes and overall population health, it will help us improve oversight around the quality and effectiveness of the laboratory services we provide, and it will allow us to further streamline and integrate the system and take advantage of emerging and improving medical technologies to get the best value for the laboratory services we provide.

Here in B.C. we are very fortunate to have an exceptional clinical laboratory system — a laboratory system that provides families, no matter where they live, with ready access to a wide range of laboratory tests that contribute to the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of health conditions; a laboratory system that contributes to British Columbia having some of the best health outcomes in all of Canada, including the longest life expectancy and the best cancer survival rates.

However, there are challenges with the current system. Last year more than $600 million was spent providing laboratory services to the people of British Columbia. That's a 42 percent increase from 2004, when we spent $439 million on these services. If this continues, by 2020 we estimate that the total annual laboratory expenditures could be between $770 million and $900 million. That, we feel, is not sustainable.

As well, with an aging population, testing volumes will also increase. On average, a person receives double the number of out-patient tests in their 60s than they did in their 40s. Patients are also more informed today, requesting more and different tests. We must ensure that the right test is being provided to the right patient at the right time.

We're also faced with rapid advances in technology. For example, cancer treatment is increasingly relying on genetic testing to determine the choice of therapy for patients. Personalized medicine, which relies on laboratory medicine, is being used more and more to assess risk factors and tailor therapies to the individual. Reforming the laboratory system allows to us better plan for and adopt technologies like these so that we can take advantage of new equipment that can improve the care that is being provided. This also helps us to continue to deliver patient-centred care.

Currently there is no overarching coordination of laboratory services, which does create a fragmented system. Two separate statutes provide oversight for laboratory services at the moment. The Hospital Insurance Act covers hospital or in-patient services, and the Medicare Protection Act covers community or out-patient laboratory services.

As an example, hospitals provide laboratory tests for patients in the hospital, and all these tests are funded through a global budget. That same hospital will provide laboratory tests for patients referred to them from the community, and all those tests are funded on a fee-for-service basis through the Medical Services Plan.

This new legislation will bring governance, funding and accountability for all of these tests under one statute. This will support a quality, coordinated and sustainable laboratory system that will be easier to manage and oversee.

[1815]

The Laboratory Services Act will place B.C.'s clinical laboratory system directly under the authority of the Minister of Health. This will help us build a framework to ensure a more integrated and efficient approach to laboratory testing here in B.C. The Minister of Health will be responsible for governance and accountability, audit, provision of benefits, and compensation for all laboratory services in the province — which is similar to other jurisdictions.

This is also an extension of work that has been done in the Lower Mainland since 2009 as health authorities have worked to consolidate and integrate their public laboratories. The Lower Mainland consolidation has produced enhanced quality, reduced costs and annual savings of approximately $5 million.

The introduction of this legislation is the first phase of laboratory transformation, as it sets the new framework under which we will work. This will take some time. In fact, we expect the changes to be implemented over the next three years. The ministry plans to consult with stakeholders as we move forward with this framework to introduce these important changes.

In closing, I want to emphasize the Laboratory Services Act furthers the triple-aim approach that we in the ministry will continue to take: improving population health, enhancing the experience of our patients and getting the best value for dollar. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will help us move forward with these goals.

With that, I look forward to debate on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the minister and recognize
[ Page 2174 ]
the member for New Westminster. [Applause.]

J. Darcy: Such enthusiasm. I thank the table thumpers on my side and maybe on the other side of the House as well.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill 7, the Laboratory Services Act. As the minister has said, the stated goal of this legislation is to allow the provincial government to streamline and to integrate lab services to make the system more sustainable and to make it more cost-effective. As he has stated, it creates a single legislative framework to govern and standardize B.C.'s clinical laboratory system. Again, the stated goal is cost savings, cost-effectiveness.

Certainly, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of laboratory services are critically important. It is something that we on this side of the House fully support. I also want to stress from the outset that the issues of focusing on quality of service, focusing on patient safety are also absolutely critical issues that I will touch on.

This legislation also gives the Minister of Health full responsibility for governance and accountability of laboratory services. I do want to underline, since it gives full responsibility to the Minister of Health, as I said from the outset, the critical importance of using his powers wisely to ensure that quality and safety are top of mind.

Let me begin with the issue of cost-effectiveness. The Ministry of Health has been conducting reviews of laboratory services for about 20 years now. In fact, the government undertook at least four separate reviews of lab services from 1992 to 2003. A major review that was initiated under the NDP government and published in 2003 found that B.C.'s lab costs are indeed the highest in the country and that "there appears to be considerable room for improvement" — room to improve, to reduce costs and consolidate services. So indeed this process has been underway for some time.

As the minister mentioned, in 2009 Vancouver Coastal and the ministry initiated the Lower Mainland consolidation project, which consolidated some diagnostic imaging and laboratory services performed within publicly funded hospitals. I remember that extremely well, having been involved with health care workers at the time and sitting in on many of those meetings. And I do want to say from the outset that I do not think that that is the best model for us to emulate. It was done with extreme haste. As a result of the extreme haste with which this was carried out, there were enormous problems with turf wars, with really realizing the savings that were necessary, and so on.

[1820]

Then in February 2013 the government released its Laboratory Services Plan, a bipartite government endeavour — bipartite with the Doctors of B.C., then known as the BCMA — which contained 40 recommendations about laboratory services, about savings from out-patient services and about achieving more efficient integration of in-patient services in particular.

The plan identified a total potential savings of $30.3 million from out-patient services; $35.1 million, I believe was the figure, from in-patient.

All of these plans and reviews have reached similar conclusions. One, that there is a large amount of duplication and oversupply in the lab system which results in repeat testing and in fragmentation of patient care. And secondly, those reviews have concluded that the fee-for-service funding model for lab services is inappropriate, especially with modern laboratory services where automated systems can read hundreds of samples per hour.

The fee-for-service model in laboratory services, as is the case more generally, rewards higher volumes and then creates an incentive for lab directors to overtest.

Those are clearly some of the issues that need to be addressed, and there are certainly, without a doubt, some efficiencies and cost savings that can be realized.

We do have some other concerns that we think and that we hope will be adequately addressed by the minister as we proceed with debate at the next stage.

First of all, the issue of transparency about how those cost savings are generated and how the minister can ensure both transparency and adequate measurement of those cost savings. Just a few weeks ago, Auditor General Russ Jones issued a report showing that the Liberal government cannot in fact demonstrate that physician services are delivering high quality, nor can they demonstrate that money provided for physician services is cost-effective under the fee-for-service model.

"Overall, government does not know if physician services are high quality and offering good value for the money spent. This puts into question government's ability to make informed decisions regarding physician services…. Government is also unable to demonstrate that compensation for physician services is offering the best value, because it does not define what 'value' or 'cost-effective' means when it relates to physician services."

The Auditor General has also recently released a report just last week, I believe, or the week before on the Health Shared Services organization for British Columbia. Again, there we have seen Health Shared Services of B.C. say publicly, and the minister has repeated this, that $230 million in savings have been achieved since Health Services B.C. — previously known as Shared Services Organization — since it was initiated in February of 2009.

But the Auditor General says that in fact it is impossible to accurately measure that. He says that they began the process of conducting an audit of whether or not those savings had in fact been realized, and that they were not able to do so. Why?

According to the Auditor General, the manually intensive, time-consuming process required to extract and normalize data for the calculation form from several different data management systems used by the health authorities would mean that it would take several months in order to extract the data. It was therefore impossible,
[ Page 2175 ]
because of the lack of universal coding and so on, to be able to effectively analyze and to be able to analyze with any guarantee of accuracy the real savings generated by the Health Services Organization of British Columbia.

In the case of lab services, it's been estimated that through the Lower Mainland consolidation, an estimated $5 million in savings had been realized. I do think, however, as the Auditor General has said in relation to Health Shared Services of B.C., that that also requires a very close look. We need to especially ensure, going forward, that we have the proper mechanisms in place, data systems in place, in order to be able to really measure cost savings down the road with laboratory services.

I really look forward to hearing more from the minister about how the cost-effectiveness that is set out to be realized from this legislation will be any different. Has the government defined what cost-effective means in this case? I hope that the minister can in fact assure us that that will indeed be the case.

[1825]

The next issue I'd like to touch on is the fact that there are in fact many, many details in this legislation. It has 109 clauses, and it is complex, to say the least. We received a briefing from the ministry only this morning. The devil, of course, is in the details, and we will be looking forward to more debate on it. But a lot of the details will be contained in regulation and do not in fact appear in this bill.

Just focusing on what is clear in the bill, one of the first things to catch my eye was this: the explanatory note in the legislation. It says this legislation will provide "flexibility for the administration and delivery of laboratory services through a mix of models." What exactly that means is unclear. Will the mix of models be the status quo, which is close to a 70 percent private–30 percent public split for out-patient services and mostly public for in-patient services? Or will the consolidation of services that this legislation enables move the mix of models towards more private and/or more public facilities? We don't, frankly, know.

Will the end result be more outsourcing to private facilities? Or will this legislation force a major consolidation into public labs? The reality is there is no clear answer.

Some provinces in Canada have brought all lab services under public control. For example, in the province of Quebec every insured medical test in Quebec is performed in facilities operated by the province. In Alberta only 13 out of 150 labs remain in private hands, so the overwhelming majority are in public hands. In the city of Calgary, for instance, virtually all of the insured lab work is conducted in public facilities.

Will the government move in that direction, which is far greater provision of laboratory services through the public labs? Or will they follow the model that exists in the United States or that exists in New Zealand, where medical testing has been contracted out entirely to private facilities?

Those are questions that seem to be, from the initial reading of this and from the discussion that we had in the briefing…. I hope that the minister can enlighten me otherwise. It would appear that it will be the minister himself and the minister alone who will make that decision about whether to consolidate in the public sector, whether to privatize or whether to maintain the current mix.

I know that there are considerable concerns regarding this from the folks who deliver lab services, both the members of the Health Sciences Association and the B.C. Society of Laboratory Science, as well as the Hospital Employees Union and other groups and workers as well as patients impacted. I really, sincerely hope that the minister will be able to provide some clarity on this issue very, very soon.

Will there need to be, if the decision is made to move in the direction of more private sector delivery and to have that work contracted out to the private sector…? Will there be legislation introduced in this House if the government decides to go down that route, or does the bill in fact give the minister the unilateral power? More importantly, should the bill give the minister the unilateral power to privatize if that's the direction that he or a future minister decides to go?

Crucial questions, ones that this Legislature, this province has dealt with in the past when it came to other health services and ones that I believe the people of this province and the people involved in delivering lab services certainly have the right to know.

Let me turn to the issue of patient access to lab services. Certainly, in my experience of many years in health care and in my experience as Health critic since last June, consolidation of services does often lead to a reduction of service or a reduction in access to services.

[1830]

We have certainly seen that in the case of some mental health services delivered at a community level, with reduction of evening services consolidated into daytime services; with cancer treatment in the Nanaimo area reduced until there was a big outcry in the community and consolidated in Victoria; lab services on the south Island, which last summer were cut back at three labs and where we also saw an ending of home visits to collect blood and specimens.

Often these measures are taken in the name of consolidation. They're taken in the name of redirecting services or focusing services in areas of higher need, but the reality is that reducing access to community lab services can have a major impact, especially on the elderly, on frail patients, on people with limited mobility.

I sincerely hope that this consolidation does not lead to reduced access points, because in this case, we're going to see a consolidation of lab services, especially in the
[ Page 2176 ]
areas where there is already the biggest concentration of labs, which is the Lower Mainland, but also throughout the province.

Already, through the Lower Mainland consolidation, we saw lab services and other diagnostic services consolidated from Chilliwack and Hope on one end to Squamish and Powell River on the other. It's critical that the implementation of this bill not be carried out in such a way that access to lab services in local communities is restricted.

I want to now touch on the issue of quality care and accreditation. I think that one missing link in this legislation is the issue of quality management. The government says that this legislation is all about efficiency and cost savings. However, it does not appear to address the issue of quality management in our labs and the huge costs associated with retesting in British Columbia. That retesting is often a result of mistakes made in the system or results made by individuals in the process, by anyone involved in that process, from the ordering of the lab tests to the collection of samples to the carrying-out of the tests.

That cost could be substantially reduced by mandatory continuing education and quality management of all lab technologists through the establishment of a regulatory college. As the minister knows, the B.C. Society of Laboratory Science has been attempting for some time now to have the government establish a regulatory college for laboratory technologists.

The society is the professional association for these technologists, and this college is supported by an ever-increasing number of professionals in the health care field, including the chair of the B.C. Patient Safety Council; senior executives in health authorities; and the union that represents the majority of laboratory technologists, the Health Sciences Association; among others.

Currently it is only lab processes, lab systems, procedures and protocols that are accredited by the diagnostic accreditation program. The people who work in labs themselves are not accredited and are not licensed. A regulatory college would require licensing and help to ensure quality management in our labs.

The B.C. Society of Laboratory Science says that a college could potentially save more money than consolidation by reducing errors made and the need for retesting because of errors made. They also have underlined, both to me and to the minister, that establishing a college would come at no cost to government or to taxpayers.

The president of the Health Sciences Association, which represents lab technologists and other health science professionals, on January 7 of this year also wrote to the minister, lending the support of the HSA to the efforts of several professional associations to form a joint regulatory college of lab technologists and other health science professionals, saying that this was critical because it would establish standards for continuing professional competency and ongoing quality assurance measures and would also be in a position to conduct investigations into complaints by the public and by registrants.

Licensing and accreditation is simply better. It's simply better for patient safety, and we believe that a regulatory college would help to ensure patient safety and also achieve significant cost savings, as I've said, principally because of errors in testing and avoiding the need for retesting. That would appear to be a major oversight in this legislation.

[1835]

I want to touch for a minute on the issue of privacy, concerns about privacy, because part 3, division 1, of this legislation allows the minister to collect, use and disclose personal information for a variety of reasons. I was going to quote from the act, but I think I will just refer to the sections of the act, understanding the lateness of the hour and the other people who would like to speak, but….

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Keep going? Okay. I'm the designated speaker. The Leader of the Opposition says I should keep going — the previous Health critic. I will keep going.

Therefore, I quote from the act:

"(1) The minister may collect personal information under this Act for the purposes of administering this Act.

"(2) The minister may use and disclose personal information collected under subsection (1) for one or more of the following purposes: (a) to administer this Act or another enactment for which the minister is responsible; (b) to exercise powers or perform duties of the minister under an enactment; (c) to identify an individual who needs or is receiving health services; (d) to identify a person who is providing health services; (e) to prevent or manage chronic conditions, at the individual or population level; (f) to facilitate health insurance and health service billing…(g) to engage in health system planning, management, evaluation or improvement, including…."

And then the list goes on and on.

That's an awful lot of reasons to collect personal information. As we know the people of British Columbia have expressed on many, many occasions in recent years very serious concerns about privacy issues, especially as it relates to health records and access to health records.

Just earlier today my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview raised concerns about the Maximus contract and the potential access to information by a foreign power — concerns that have certainly been raised repeatedly in this House and by citizens in British Columbia.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview also shared with me just today something that he had received regarding a person who has received 200 fax orders containing private patient information regarding mammography. Why? Because it was one digit out on the fax number from a local medical imaging clinic. Certainly, that person is extremely bothered by receiving 200 faxes containing private patient information. I'm sure that all of the people whose private patient records are being shared in that way are very, very concerned.
[ Page 2177 ]

We also know, and I won't dwell on it in detail, about the poor record that the government has had that has drawn the attention of the Auditor General when learning of serious data breaches in the Ministry of Health. At the time, first a number of civil servants and researchers were fired. Now one of them has been reinstated, and the cases for the others are proceeding.

The Auditor General certainly made very, very clear that there were a number of systems problems, fundamental problems in how that data was handled in the ministry itself that needed rectifying. I think there are, reasonably, a number of concerns that citizens in British Columbia would have about access to patient records, and I certainly hope that the minister takes those into very, very serious account.

Finally, just a couple of other issues that I would like to speak to. Let me come back to the issue of the power that is granted to the Minister of Health. Essentially, under Bill 7, the reform of the laboratory services in the province of British Columbia, the Minister of Health is allowed to do just about anything.

For instance, section 21 says: "Subject to the regulations, the minister may, by order, require an operator that is a public body to transfer to another public body any right, property, asset, obligation or liability relevant to the operation or management of a laboratory facility or the provision of benefits."

[1840]

It would also seem that decisions about whether or not laboratory services are delivered in future, in the public sector or in the private sector or what mix that will be, are exclusively in the hands of the minister. I hope to hear otherwise in subsequent discussion about this bill. But it is, indeed, a great deal of power that is being conferred on the Minister of Health — a very, very serious responsibility.

We certainly share the expressed goal of this bill: to achieve cost-effective delivery of lab services. That is certainly a goal that makes absolute sense and that can only benefit the sustainability of our health care system in the long run.

But we would have been far more comforted if this bill had also addressed some vital issues regarding quality of care and quality of service delivery; if it had contained provisions regarding protecting patients, protecting the privacy of patient records; and if it had also spoken directly to the issue of continuing and enhancing public delivery of lab services.

But we certainly do share the goal that I believe is shared on both sides of this House: that we want to create the best possible laboratory services in Canada, learning from best practices in Canada and elsewhere.

As I said at the outset, the briefing that we received this morning on the bill from the minister's staff was indeed very helpful. But it was something that we received only this morning. I do want to thank the ministry staff for providing that briefing.

While we share the overall goals of improving cost-effectiveness and the streamlining of our lab services, there remain many, many unanswered questions. I look forward to the clause-by-clause discussion of this bill.

A. Weaver: First, I'd like to acknowledge the minister's overall efforts to better streamline our health care system through the introduction of this bill. As health care creeps upward towards 42 percent of the provincial budget by 2016-2017, there's no question that fiscal prudence requires us to find more cost-effective ways of delivering quality health care.

Developing our community and home-based care systems, enhancing the role of nurse practitioners in the delivery of primary care, and educating British Columbians on practical steps they can take to stay healthy are all examples of important initiatives we can take to make our health care system more affordable to British Columbians.

I, therefore, appreciate the steps the minister takes with this bill to move further in building a more cost-effective care system.

Standardizing and streamlining British Columbia's clinical laboratory system could create opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication and oversupply of laboratory services, while also ensuring better coordination of services and flow of information between lab technologists and other health care providers. Such changes could help make our system more cost-effective, while also improving the quality of care patients receive.

However, it's important that as we find new ways of streamlining our health care system and more cost-effective ways of delivering health care, we also take the steps necessary to protect patient safety and to ensure that we maintain, if not enhance, the excellent quality of care we've come to know and expect in British Columbia.

Laboratory technologists play a critical role in our health care system. Offering analysis that informs how health care providers respond to patient needs, their role extends from prevention to diagnosis to treatment.

As the minister has noted: "Laboratory medicine is advancing rapidly." The system, the technology and the expertise that inform laboratory medicine are constantly changing.

Yet, unlike physicians, nurses and so many other health care providers, lab technologists are not a regulated profession with clear and enforced standards of practice and education that ensure all laboratory technologists have up-to-date knowledge of the rapidly advancing system. The member for New Westminster also spoke to this issue and the importance of assessing this issue.

[1845]

I'm concerned that there is a trend beginning to emerge that we are moving towards streamlining services without doing the due diligence to ensure we are adequately protecting patients. We've seen this in the de-
[ Page 2178 ]
bate around Island Health's new patient care model, the so-called care delivery model redesign or CDMR, where registered nurses are being replaced by health care aides — contrary to existing evidence — without first ensuring that health care aides are regulated to a standard necessary to fulfil their new critical role. I wonder: will we see the same here with the Laboratory Services Act?

Streamlining health care services needs to go hand in hand with maintaining, if not enhancing, quality of care and patient safety. With other health care professions, such as with physicians and nurses, we've found that regulating care providers is an effective and efficient way of achieving this goal. As we look to streamline laboratory services, we should also take similar steps here to regulate the related professions to protect patients and to ensure a consistent, high quality of care.

I do, of course, recognize that the minister may have plans to this effect already in place. I simply offer this concern to the debate and would appreciate any comments the minister may have in response as we move forward to third reading.

As this is a rather multifaceted bill with potentially significant implications for our health care system, I'll reserve my overall judgment of this act for committee stage, when we'll have the opportunity to discuss the specific details and changes it would make.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak to this bill, and thank you, again, to the minister for introducing it to this Legislature.

D. Donaldson: I'm happy to rise today and provide my comments on the second reading of Bill 7, the Laboratory Services Act, 2014. I'm going to give, as people know, an overview of what I've been able to glean from the bill in a general sense. I definitely look forward to committee stage, because the more detailed discussion at that point could provide some further answers to some of the concerns that I'm going to touch on in this part of the debate, this second reading.

Like many of the bills that we've seen introduced by this government, the intention seems good. I refer to the comments that the minister made when he introduced the bill at first reading and some of the comments that he made today at the start of second reading debate. Specifically, what I wanted to refer to was that this legislation "sets a framework to strengthen and standardize B.C.'s clinical laboratory system" and allows "streamlining and integrating the system."

Laudable goals — goals that I think anybody would think could be something to work towards and to achieve, looking at just the words on the paper. But I think that there's a matter of trust. The matter of trust has to do with the track record of this government — not just the overall track record but the track record, specifically, when it comes to laboratory services, lab services, in this province.

I can speak to that in a very definitive way. We have in Stikine firsthand experience with the last time this government tried to drive these kinds of changes based on some of the same justifications around streamlining, integrating efficiencies.

That experience hasn't been good. That experience was back in 2009. At that time, under this government, microbiology lab services at Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton and the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers were lost. Those services were available within the labs there. Under this government, those services were lost.

[1850]

Staff was fully capable of conducting microbiology lab services, and yet those services were lost in those two hospitals, and both happened to be in Stikine.

The interesting part was there was no prior consultation with the people in the community using these services or with health care workers before these cuts took place. What I think is important to note is that medical professionals in Smithers and Hazelton at that time said the cuts in these services would increase and will increase — and still increase — risk to patients.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

It's very interesting for me to note: no prior consultation at that time. In this bill, as the minister has noted, the government, he says, intends to consult with stakeholders as it develops the strategic direction for future service delivery." So again, the government is saying: "Well, we'll do this first, and we'll consult later." That, I think, is a backward approach, when you should be talking to the people who use the service first and the health care professionals in the communities that this will affect.

That didn't happen in 2009. Here we are, five years later, although it doesn't…. Time travels quickly when we're in this Legislature, sometimes, and here we are five years later. Government doesn't seemed to have learned its lesson from that experience.

No prior consultation in 2009. No prior consultation before the introduction of this Bill 7 around the impacts.

I want to talk a little bit more about the impacts that have resulted in the loss of microbiology lab services in Hazelton and Smithers and in the two hospitals in those communities, because it has a direct bearing on the level of trust that, I believe, people in rural areas have regarding this government's words around streamlining, integrating and efficiencies. It has a direct bearing on that.

At Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton and the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers the outcome of the loss of laboratory services, when it comes to microbiology tests, was that the tests — the swabs, whatever, the results of the tests — were put on a Greyhound bus and sent to Prince George, a five-hour drive away in good weather.
[ Page 2179 ]

They were put on a Greyhound bus. That was the result of this government's actions back in 2009. Of course, temperatures in the winter caused issues, and road conditions caused issues. So after understanding that, the result now is that the test samples from both Smithers and Hazelton go by courier to Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace.

Mills Memorial Hospital, under good conditions, is a two-and-a-half-hour, almost three-hour, drive from Smithers and an-hour-and-45-minute to two-hour drive from Hazelton, depending on road conditions. Again, if the road conditions are good, that's the kind of time frame we're looking at.

I haven't seen an analysis regarding how much a courier service costs. When you had the actual…. We still have these labs functioning for other services at Wrinch Memorial in Hazelton and at Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers. They're still functioning. So this, to me, would seem like an added cost — to deliver these samples by courier. It would be nice to see the analysis on that. Maybe we'll get into that in committee stage.

But here we go. No consultation — just like in this bill — back in 2009. Microbiology lab tests removed from Smithers and Hazelton — both those communities — and originally sent by Greyhound bus to Prince George, but when the error of that and the risks involved in that were seen are now on courier to Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace.

That is just the start of some of the comments that I would like to provide to this bill. I have much more to relay on this aspect of the bill, because again, it goes back to an issue of trust.

[1855]

Some in the audience, some viewers, might be wondering: what are microbiology lab services? One example of a microbiology lab service is a throat swab for strep throat. Many people have had experience with strep throat. I've not had strep throat — I'm quite thankful for that — but some of the members of the Legislature might have encountered that unfortunate infection.

Strep throat isn't just a sore throat. It can lead to death. There is the ability for that infection to spread to other parts of the body. I know people who have relatives who've died of strep throat. Microbiology lab service for strep throat can be a very, very serious condition.

I've just learned from two examples, since this bill received first reading, of incidents in Smithers and Hazelton where people were attending the hospital for issues of strep throat. In the case of one, it was an adult son who was being tested. I'd like to continue this story, hon. Speaker, but I do note that we're running out of time. I know that this is an important story, because it involves health care.

What I will say is that noting the hour, I recommend that we adjourn debate, and I reserve my right to continue this story about the health care system at the next sitting or the next available opportunity.

D. Donaldson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. T. Stone 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 6:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

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

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $1,356,419,000.

The Chair: Minister of Children and Family Development, do you have opening comments?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Before we get started, I'd just like to introduce the staff with me that's here. Of course, Mark Sieben, the deputy; Anne Sandbu, ADM of finance and corporate services; Randi Mjolsness, ADM of policy and provincial services; and Allison Bond, ADM of service delivery. We'll have others join as we need them.

I'd like to express first my appreciation for all of the ministry staff and the work they do. The team is a fantastic one. Of course, I know the member knows that it is Social Work Week in British Columbia. I'd be remiss if I didn't recognize that and thank those in the field of social work for their daily efforts to improve the lives of British Columbians and certainly the people that they work with, especially in this ministry.

There are a number of priorities that the ministry will be focusing on in this coming year. We launched the provincial office for the early years in January as a step in our early-years strategy. We've committed $76 million to support the first three years of that strategy, includ-
[ Page 2180 ]
ing the creation of 1,000 new licensed child care spaces later this year.

Following extensive consultation and cross-ministry work, the provincial office of domestic violence launched a three-year provincial domestic violence plan, also in January. This includes $5.5 million in service enhancements over the course of the plan.

Finally, I certainly think that everyone would agree that all children deserve to grow up in a stable, loving and supportive environment. The ministry is looking at reinvigorating service areas on which I believe there needs to be additional focus, including adoptions and supports for older youth in care.

Although the budget does not reflect an increase for these areas, we will look at doing more within our existing budget to better support children and youth in care. This commitment is reflected in our service plan, where we have increased the targets for adoption over the next three years.

I'm delighted, of course, to be here and to be part of the good work being done by the ministry. I'm excited for the year ahead. With that, member opposite, I'm happy to get started with your questions.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. Thank you to the staff, as well, who work in the ministry. Thank you, as the minister has said, to the social workers, to the foster homes, to the foster parents and to all the contracted agencies that work in the area of caring for children and families.

This is, from my personal perspective, one of the most critical areas of the work of government, which is caring for children and families when they're often at their most vulnerable and when they often have no other solution than to have government, for a time in their lives, become part of their family.

I think this is a very critical area. It's an area that I believe government needs to focus on, and it's one of their primary areas.

I, as well, look forward to the discussion. I look forward to some very practical questions around how we can improve services and supports for children and families in British Columbia.

I think it's important just to start off with a little bit of context around the ministry. This ministry, probably more than others in government, has often been subject to back-and-forths around political changes, around directional changes.

[1455]

I certainly remember when the Liberals were first elected in 2001. The comments at that time were that they would stop the endless bureaucratic changes and "endless bureaucratic restructuring that drain resources from children" and families. That was a quote from that time period. I think it's important to remember that, because we have seen, in fact, continued changes, continued reorganization, over this time period.

I look forward to going through all of the service lines. The minister outlined a number of service delivery areas. We've had discussion about making sure that we touch on each of those service delivery areas. I'd like to begin with the budget.

Just to quote from the accountability letter to the minister from the Premier, the accountability letter says that she expects the minister "to continue to make measurable improvements in the provision of accessible, effective services for children, youth and families." That goes along with the service plan for the ministry, which says: "Within the current fiscal climate, we will continue to ensure vulnerable children and families receive the critical front-line services they need."

My first question to the minister, then, would be: given that we're looking at a status quo budget, an increase that doesn't actually even touch on inflation, could the minister explain how she believes she's going to meet the requirements in her accountability letter from the Premier and in her service plan?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I think it's a good question. The reality is that in a ministry like this, meeting the demands is going to be both a challenge and a priority all at the same time, all of the time. I know that the member knows that herself.

The reality is that in most of our service lines, our caseloads and our requests for service are relatively stable. It doesn't mean that there is not a challenge to keep up with the demand for services. But we continue to look at how we deliver service and what we do, for innovation and for ways to do better with the money that we have.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, as well, there are a number of areas where I believe we can do better and where we have set some higher targets for ourselves in terms of doing better. We're going to make every effort, in using the relationships that we have and the dollars allocated in the budget that we have, to do a better job and reach better outcomes for kids.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I'll express my skepticism around the pressures that we face in the ministry, but I won't spend time going through each of those budget areas. I know we'll get a chance, when we go into the service delivery areas, to talk about the pressures that are there in each of those service delivery areas.

Perhaps just some basic questions around budget. Could the minister let us know how many FTEs are currently working in the ministry?

[1500]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member will remember this, as well, from last year — that we don't count FTEs in the ministry. We count bodies or people. As of December 31, 2013, we have 4,536 people working for the ministry. It
[ Page 2181 ]
is a slight decrease from last year, of 2.4 percent. We're down about 112 people in that total count.

C. James: The number from July's estimates from the minister was 4,648, so a drop. Could the minister tell us where that drop in staff, or where that drop in bodies, has come from?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member will recall, across government we're in a managed staffing circumstance, and so modest decreases in our staffing numbers are expected. But early in that process, this ministry was the only one, actually, to receive an exemption for front-line staff.

There is often lag with somebody leaving and somebody being hired. It's difficult to stay at 100 percent all of the time. So while in July we were at a fair high, now in December we're at a low. There are currently 138 positions at some process in that hiring timeline — so between posted and being filled.

C. James: Could the minister tell me how many of those are front-line positions that are left vacant and are part of that hiring lag?

Hon. S. Cadieux: They are front-line positions. Since December we've hired an additional 23 front-line social worker positions. That other 138 are in that process now.

C. James: I want to make sure I am clear on the numbers. The minister mentioned that we're in a managed staff environment but that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is exempt from the hiring freeze.

[1505]

Although the minister says there was a drop of 112 staff, does that mean those positions are all going to be filled, or will some of those positions remain vacant? If they remain vacant, are any of those front-line positions?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Of the 112 that I mentioned we were down over that number from last year, 102 of those are front line and either have been, through the 23, or will be filled through the process that is underway right now. Those are front-line positions.

C. James: So 102 front-line positions of the 112. The other positions. Could the minister speak about those other positions and why they're remaining vacant?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The other positions would be positions that are not exempt from the hiring freeze, so those would be administrative positions and management.

C. James: Could the minister tell me how many social workers are currently employed in the ministry?

[1510]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are 2,506 social program officers. Those are all of the front-line people that work in child needs, special needs, youth probation, child welfare, adoptions, guardianship and so on. If you're looking specifically for the number of delegated workers, that number is 1,111.

C. James: Could the minister tell me how that compares to last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Last year there were 2,614 SPOs, so down 69 at this current point since last year. However, those are included in the 102 that we are currently hiring. In comparison, of the delegated workers, we are down by seven from last year. But again, those are also in that hiring process at the moment.

C. James: Just a little more about the hiring lag. I think we touched on this last summer, and I think it's important, because we continue to hear the concerns from people about offices and vacancies — vacancies being left because it saves the ministry money. They're able to, then, manage without those vacancies, but of course that leaves everyone else in the office having to carry larger loads.

Does the minister and the ministry keep track of how many vacancies are in each regional office? Could the minister talk a little bit about: are there challenges in particular offices, in particular regions, in particular areas?

[1515]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are a number of things to talk about here. I'll start, first, with a recognition that the managed staffing strategy certainly does result in some lag. We're aware of that. To address that, we are looking to hire over in order to try and come closer to 100 percent staffing.

There are always people that will come in and out of positions for any number of reasons — for example, new babies and things like that. There's always some flux in the system, but recognizing that we want to address that as best we can, we will look at strategies to try and anticipate where those are going to be.

In addition, by region we have to look at some of the challenges that occur in certain areas. There are some harder-to-recruit-for communities in the province, for sure, so we have to look at specific approaches, I think, for those specific areas.

The ADM of service delivery has met with the executive directors of service, and they're identifying both where those regions are and strategies that could work in those areas. As well, the deputy met with the representatives from the BCGEU to discuss that and other issues. I will be meeting with them, as well, to discuss a number of issues of concern to both of us.

Looking at how we might address this going forward in a better way, to be more consistent, and recognizing,
[ Page 2182 ]
as well, that there are circumstances that occur in certain areas from time to time unexpectedly, we are initiating rapid response teams that will be available to go and place into offices that are needing support on a temporary basis while we're able to hire up for those.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. Just a little more, then, about the managed staffing strategy. I agree with the minister that there are certainly unknown circumstances that will occur where you'll end up with staff vacancies that you wouldn't imagine or wouldn't have planned for.

The minister said that the ministry may start hiring or may look at overhiring to be able to cover off. Is that something new, as part of the managed staff strategy, that the ministry is starting to do? And when will that start taking place?

A second question for the minister which is related to the rapid response team. Is that rapid response team in place now? How many staff are on that rapid response team, and have they been allocated out to any region at this time?

[1520]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The rapid response teams are not yet assigned. They have been directed to be posted — for recruitment to those teams. At this point, however, we have been borrowing staff from staffed SDAs to place where they are needed in the interim while we get that up and running. But we're looking at having that as a team that can be mobile on an ongoing basis once it is fully staffed.

I'm going from memory, and I believe that it's 18 people. But if I'm incorrect, my staff will correct me and I will let you know.

The managed staffing strategy is across government. It's across the public sector. That is a corporate initiative. The hiring strategy that I have explained, which we are going to look to, to make sure that we are hired up to 100 percent, is a ministry initiative to address the lag that is resultant from the managed staffing strategy.

Our continuing concern around our ability to meet the demands in the ministry with that staffing lag…. We are concerned about that. So we're looking at how best to do that and, therefore, have said we're going to look to overhire to reduce that. That's a new strategy that we're implementing in the ministry, and each service delivery area will be presenting to management their three-year staffing strategy to work into that plan.

C. James: I express some disappointment that we don't have a rapid response team in place. The recommendations had come out around shortages in offices a number of months ago, with reports around office shortages and, as we know, some tragic situations and tragic circumstances around office shortages. So I think it's interesting that that rapid response team now is out for hire.

But if the minister is already having trouble recruiting staff for existing vacancies that are there, this now means a huge lag on a rapid response team. It seems to me you're continuing to be behind. I appreciate the minister said that they're borrowing staff from other places to be able to go in as a rapid response team, but that causes shortages and overloads in other areas. It is planning that I'm glad is off the ground, but I think we'll, again, run into a very difficult lag.

The minister mentioned that the managed staffing strategy was a governmentwide strategy and that the ministry is looking at its own ways of addressing that. But how does that jibe with the minister's comments that the ministry is exempt from the hiring freeze?

[1525]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, two different approaches to the answer here. First off, I'll correct my number. It wasn't 18; it was ten. I must be thinking of something else. Ten people will be recruited in the rapid response team.

I do want to clarify. We did act quickly to get people in where they were needed. It's just that they are not people who are assigned on a permanent basis to be part of a movable team. This is a strategy we believe has worked in the past and will work again for us, and we want to move forward on it as quickly as we can. We've got that now in the works for a permanent circumstance.

We are not, through that, taking FTEs away from other places. What will happen is that if an area is experiencing difficulty and they don't have enough people, they will pay for the rapid response team out of their FTEs that are not filled at the current time so that it won't take away from the FTEs overall for the ministry. As well, recruitment isn't an issue in many areas of the province. People are willing to travel, but they just don't necessarily want to relocate on a permanent basis. It should not be a problem from that perspective to fill those positions.

We go back, then, to the managed staffing strategy. As I said, that's a corporate thing that adds another layer of administration to hiring. Where hiring for vacant positions used to happen at a more local level, there is now an added level of administration that slows the processing down.

Also, because we have the exemptions in this ministry, and some in Social Development, for those front-line positions and because we don't have exemptions for and aren't able to hire for management or policy people that leave, that adds other challenges to the time and the process. That's what we're looking to address through looking at a more long-term pre-emptive hiring process.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, front-line positions are exempt in this ministry from the hiring freeze, but vacant positions have to go through the centralized staffing process, which slows it down.

Who makes the determination, then, around whether it's a front-line position? Is that why all positions that
[ Page 2183 ]
have to be hired have to go through the central process — so they then determine whether it's an exempt position for your ministry or not an exempt position for your ministry?

[1530]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There has been some change since fall on this process in that it has been simplified somewhat, and the deputy now makes those hiring decisions. However, that said, there are a number of moving parts to the hiring strategy and what we're trying to do and change. We would certainly offer to the member a briefing on all of those subsequent estimates.

C. James: It just seems a bit odd, if you're exempt from the hiring freeze, for there to be a lag in positions. If a position comes vacant, you would think that that position, then, would be able to be hired.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I understand around the positions that aren't exempt that that would go through a process, but it does seem a bit odd to me that there wouldn't be…. If there's an exemption, there's an exemption. You should be able to move ahead on those hiring positions.

I'll take the minister's offer for a few more specifics, because I think that would be helpful.

Just on a specific line within the budget, staying on general budget questions, the service delivery support budget appears to be cut by $1.7 million from last year. Could the minister give some specifics around that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The $1.6 million reduction that you were noting in the service delivery support line is administrative savings, travel savings, and those types of things. We're reducing there to put that into salaries in the various service lines to balance out the budget. It is not gone from the budget; it has just moved.

C. James: To touch, then, a little bit on the service plan, again based on general budget questions. To quote from the service plan itself, it says: "There will continue to be a greater demand for services, as the child and youth population is projected to gradually increase each year. As well, there will be an increase in complexity of needs for those requiring services…. At the same time, the demand for services is increasing…in program areas such as nursing support services…and autism services."

I want to come back to the minister's comment that she believes that this budget will manage, given the service plan that states there will be greater pressures, there will be increasing youth, there will be greater complexity of care.

[1535]

Could the minister, then, explain how she believes she'll be able to meet her budget requirements and her program needs, based on her own service plan?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have mentioned in many, many places and conversations — and, certainly, as we mention again in the service plan — the complexity of issues presented is increasing, and we do expect that to continue. We don't expect that to go away.

The other comment I made was that most of our caseloads, though, do remain stable. We do have growing caseloads for nursing support services, for example, and autism. Those do continue to grow. The $5 million one-time lift that we received last year for those caseloads has been baselined in the budget. That was reflected in the budget speech as the $15 million lift to the ministry, over the three years, to address that and in recognition of those rising areas.

The comments that I made regarding identifying new ways of doing things or doing things better really complement the member's comments in her opening statement about previous reference to endless bureaucratic change and ending those types of things. What we're looking to do is provide opportunity to get back to basics in the ministry — really focus in on what we do and what our service-line commitments are.

[1540]

Certainly, one of those examples is the refocusing of the Indigenous Approaches money back to direct service to children and to achieving results, in that case, specifically for aboriginal children.

We need to do that. We need to just focus in on what it is we were mandated to do in the ministry, rather than adding things off the side of those service lines.

C. James: I appreciate the minister's comments. I certainly would agree with the focus of the ministry, and I know we'll talk a little more about indigenous programs as we get into the children-in-care section.

I appreciate the need to get back to the basics. I think many of us would say that that probably should have been there from the start — probably should have been the ministry's mandate from the beginning. I think that's a loss of programs and services that could have occurred.

I think it's also important to note that the $5 million — which, as the minister says, is a one-time lift — was existing programs and services that were provided. So in fact it's no lift to the budget. It's a lift to the budget for existing pressures already, not a lift to increase programs and services and supports or deal with the complexity or the pressures and the demands that the minister was talking about earlier.

I think there is still a great deal of concern that, in fact, this lift does not even cover inflation. It basically covers existing supports that were being provided in this last year.

I'm glad it's there. I'm glad we're seeing that increase —
[ Page 2184 ]
no question — but it won't address the demands that are mentioned in the minister's own service plan.

Just to touch on two areas that were mentioned as material assumptions in the budget this year that related directly to the Ministry of Children and Families. The first one was the average children-in-care caseload. The caseload is listed in the material assumptions as decreasing in the next two years — decreasing in '13-14, decreasing in '14-15 — down to 8,000 children in care.

I wonder if the minister could speak a little bit about how, when the service plan talks about increasing pressures, it is looked at that we'll see a decrease in the number of children in care over the next couple of years.

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, for the children-in-care caseload that you're referencing, Member, the projected reductions are consistent with the trend that we've seen over the last ten years or so. I think we can include that, as well, with our back-to-basics approach in the sense that we've set a goal of a 5 percent reduction this year in aboriginal children coming into care.

Up until now the majority of the reductions in the children-in-care caseload have come from the non-aboriginal caseload. We want to see the success we've had in those reductions translated to aboriginal children as well.

Some of the strategies that we have employed till now to be successful with the non-aboriginal children, like out-of-care options — we believe there can be success there, as well, with aboriginal children.

Certainly, that is one of the strategies that we're going to employ and have redirected the indigenous approaches money to actually see and target and go in that direction. As well, my direction to increase our targets for adoptions ultimately would have impact on that caseload.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I certainly hope that that would be the result. I mean, it's not a negative to see a decline in the number of children in care if it's done properly and if the supports are in place.

I think there continues to be the concern that there isn't the increase in the budget on the support side for those families. Again, if we're going to look at moving children out of care, we've got to make sure the supports are in place for the families.

I think it's interesting to note in the budget assumptions that it does say even a 1 percent difference there, if there is a 1 percent increase, that you were looking at a $2 million additional cost to the budget. So I think it's a piece to watch and that we'll continue to watch as well.

The second material assumption that was mentioned in the budget was around residential cost, so the average annual residential cost per child in care. Again, a very small increase. It's predicted by the ministry and by the budget to increase $600 next year and $700 in the following year.

Again, I have a question around the complexity of children. Certainly, as the children come into care with more complex needs, the cost of residential care increases for those children as well, around the average costs. Again, I wonder how the minister sees that fitting with the complexity of care that she talked about earlier in the budget.

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Because we're talking about an average, the reality is that when we're successful at reducing the number of children that are in care, then we know that the remaining children are likely to be those who need that care more and are more complex. But as such, there are fewer of them, so the money goes further.

C. James: Thanks to the minister.

Just moving on to another area, I think the interesting piece in the material assumptions is that there is a $2 million cost for a 1 percent change, in this material assumption as well, a pressure point that I think is certainly something that could happen over this coming year.

Back to the issue that we touched a little bit on in July that I'd like an update from the minister on, and that's the issue of the cost of settlements for employees in the community social services sector. The minister will remember that we canvassed this a fair bit in July.

The cost that the minister gave me at that point was $8.5 million across the ministry for the cost of the settlement, a well-deserved increase. I think that's important to state right from the start. The minister and I agreed that this was an increase that was important for people working in social services areas, but again, a squeeze to existing agencies to try and find those resources.

The minister mentioned in July that the ministry would work with agencies to find those savings, and I wonder if the minister could give an update on how that work has gone.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member will know, and as I stated before, we were going to go through a cooperative process with the agencies. So they submitted proposals for how they would manage those increases or, if they could not manage those increases without reducing services, to tell us what assistance they required, because we were not going to permit any reduction in services as a result of this process. As a result of that, of the 428 agencies in the ministry, 160 came forward needing some level of assistance.

[1555]

The actual pressure on the ministry this year was $3 million in assistance to those agencies and $2 million for the '14-15 year. That is down from the original $8 million that was projected.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, the minister says that the
[ Page 2185 ]
cost now is $5 million rather than $8.5 million. Or is $5 million left still to find through the cooperative gains?

Hon. S. Cadieux: To be clear, from the original $8 million that we projected could be required, the agencies themselves were able to find, through the collective process, $5 million without reducing services and then required and requested $3 million in support from the ministry to meet their budgets, which was provided in '13-14. They are requesting — we are anticipating — $2 million in '14-15.

C. James: In fact, that would be, then, a $5 million cut from the ministry budget that has now had to be found within the existing ministry budget to cover for the agencies for programs and services.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, and we were able to find that in the ministry through additional federal recoveries this year that we had not anticipated.

C. James: Well, I appreciate that, but any money found within the ministry means it's not going to other additional programs and services. I think it is important to state that. Again, we talked about this being a status quo budget and the challenges with a status quo budget, while in fact this is a budget that's being squeezed through cooperative gains.

I appreciate the minister saying that this was a cooperative process with agencies. I have to tell the minister, and I'm sure the minister has heard this directly, that there wasn't an agency I talked to who believed that this was a cooperative approach.

They were told that that money had to be found. They were told that that money had to come without any kinds of cuts to agencies, and they certainly didn't see it as anything cooperative in any way, shape or form. They believed that the money was going to be found by the ministry as additional funding for their agencies.

I think it is important to note that those are, again, scarce dollars that are being squeezed when those were negotiations going on by government, when government could have provided the funding and support to the ministries.

For those 160 still needing assistance, is that work still ongoing, then? Or has the government now just covered off those resources for those agencies, and that then adds up to the $5 million?

[1600]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The 160 agencies that required help to meet their wage lifts there for their staff — again, agreed as necessary and valid — have been met by the ministry, as we said we would do. We would assist them with that for that two-year agreement.

Beyond that, for years after '14-15, there is a new deal in place that the unions and agencies have been informed government will be funding.

C. James: Just moving on, then. I'm a little bit worried about moving on. If cooperative gains meant five million scarce dollars squeezed out of the ministry, I'm a little bit worried about core review. But I'll ask anyway.

I recognize this is a provincial program. I recognize this is government direction. But as the minister said the last time when we were going through estimates, the ministry is not exempt. No ministry is exempt from core review. I know that the ministers are tasked with tabling and identifying programs and services to be reviewed by the core review.

I wonder if the minister could tell us if she's made any of those determinations around which programs and services she has put forward for review.

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member: you are correct that no ministry is exempt from the core review process. However, as was stated back at the beginning of the process, government was clear, both the minister responsible and myself, that services to vulnerable citizens would not be impacted by the process. As a member of that review, I am there to ensure that.

As a result, the ministry, of course, did make a presentation about our services and service lines in terms of them being core to government operations and what we are mandated to do for the people of British Columbia. But we did not take any savings plans forward.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, the minister didn't bring forward any recommendations for programs and services within this ministry to be reviewed by core review?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We took forward a presentation on the services of the ministry and their core relationship to what government does for the people of British Columbia, but not for the purposes of looking to reduce those services to vulnerable citizens.

C. James: Could the minister tell me: have there been any cuts to discretionary spending at this point in MCFD?

[1605]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Corporate direction was given to all ministries around looking for savings in discretionary areas. For our ministry, that means things like administrative or travel costs. It does not mean any service delivery reductions or payments to families, that type of thing — not at all.

C. James: Perhaps we can ask a couple of specifics then. Could the minister tell us how much the travel budget is for the ministry?
[ Page 2186 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: We will get that information for you, and either I can report back when we have it, or after, if you want to continue with your questions.

C. James: Perhaps I can ask for the travel budget for executive as well, so that we can get both those numbers. It'll save a bit of time, if we're looking for both the executive within the ministry as well as the ministry.

Just to touch, then, on where I started, which is around reorganization and the number of changes in this ministry. I appreciate that the minister has said that the ministry is going back to the basics and focusing on the basics and trying to end the constant reorganization.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of restructuring has occurred over this past year.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We'll have a recess and come back when the vote is finished. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: From an organizational perspective, there were only a couple of changes since September. One is that…. We continue to have 13 service delivery areas in the province, but we have aligned two. There is only one executive director of service for those two areas in the northeast so that the budget for that position can be reallocated to front-line service, to assist there.

In the executive there's been a realignment of responsibilities for some of the ADMs and executive directors, but it didn't affect any of the service delivery. It's just who is responsible.

We moved responsibility for quality assurance out of the service delivery areas and back to the office of the provincial director so that all of the audit and quality assurance functions will be handled through that office and report to the provincial director.

C. James: We'll get to quality assurance a little bit more, and I'll have further questions. That answers one of the questions that started off the quality assurance area, which is where it went, where it is now in the service plan.

Could the minister tell us whether there are any changes expected in the coming year? Are there any changes in plans around reorganization or restructuring for either executive or the field in this upcoming year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Although you can never say never — unless you're James Bond — if anything, they will be minor.

The deputy made a commitment when he arrived in the ministry that we would not focus on restructuring and that we would indeed focus on service delivery and the work that needs to happen to deliver the services that we are mandated to do. Short of those unforeseen things that one must address as they arise, there is nothing, at this point, planned.

C. James: I recognize this little game of crystal ball. Nobody knows the year ahead, but I appreciate that response.

Continuing on with the kind of general budget questions. Then we'll get to the next specific area.

On litigation and appeals, I understand that it's a shared resource with two other ministries. I wondered: how much is in the budget in this ministry in that area? And how many cases are ongoing around litigation with the ministry?

[1625]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Staff tell me this is the first time we've had a question on this area, and they're quite excited.

There are currently 70 litigation cases, three human rights complaints and six judicial review or appeal files. That is considerably lower than past years.

This is a unique area because we share the staff and the branch with SDSI. They actually would probably have the budget line for that — would they?

Interjection.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, it's in their building.

That said, if you can think about it this way: we have seven or eight staff that work in litigation and legislation that are MCFD staff.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I'm glad I asked the question.

Could the minister tell me how many of those, of the 70 — you mentioned there are appeals as well as litigation; it's not just litigation — are expected to wrap up in this next year?

Does the minister have any idea, or the ministry have any idea, of how many of those are near completion, I guess, would be the better way to ask it?

[1630]

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I mentioned, over the last number of years the number of open cases has dropped significantly, but we couldn't speculate on the number that could close in any one year. It's too dependent on variable factors, like the level of activity from the plaintiff or the Crown or the courts, so I couldn't speculate.

C. James: Just one last question in this area. The follow-up pieces we'll get to later when the ministry gets the costs around travel.
[ Page 2187 ]

Were there any costs for retraining for the restructuring that occurred with the executive? Any training costs that occurred during that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: An easy one — no.

C. James: Moving on now to children and youth with special needs. If we could move on to the next section.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have the travel numbers for you, Member. The ministry total for travel for the '13-14 budget was $5.825 million, but we're forecasting the actual to come in at $5.118 million. The budget for '14-15 for ministry travel overall is $4.987 million — again, consistent with those savings that we're looking to recognize. For executive travel specifically, the '13-14 budget was $176,000, and the budget for '14-15 is $148,000.

C. James: Thanks to the minister for those numbers.

Now moving on to children and youth with special needs, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many children are served under this service delivery area.

[1635]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The number that we use for CYSN is over 30,000 on an annual basis. The reason it's not a more exact number is because, although we keep the statistics for a number of the programs, with some of the programs that are offered by or through our service providers, we don't collect individual data on the children from those.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, for services that are contracted in communities, those numbers are not kept by the ministry? This 30,000 is just general ministry directly delivered programs?

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The 30,000 approximate number that we use for this in terms of discrete children served by child and youth with special needs every year was come at through the cross-ministry special needs framework five years ago or so.

We looked across at the prevalence of various issues and needs and did a lot of work with the data to try and assess which of those children might be receiving more than one service, to come up with a discrete number. Of course, there are children in and out each year. But we can say pretty confidently that that's a pretty good number of discrete children.

C. James: How does that compare to previous years, and how are those numbers? Are the numbers up, down? What's the comparison?

[1640]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'll have the member ask her question again if I don't answer it the way she hopes. I'm trying to understand the best way to explain.

Because of these programs…. They're voluntary, and children may access one for a period of time as they need a certain type of therapy. Then they leave, and a new child comes in. Some will age out. It has been, we believe, a fairly consistent number, and the funding has been fairly consistent over time except in one particular area, which is, of course, autism.

C. James: I understand that. We'll speak a little bit about autism as we get closer. And I understand it certainly wouldn't be an exact science based on the numbers. But does the ministry keep tabs on the number of children being served in each program area, and could the minister tell me how many program areas there are under children and youth with special needs?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ten programs that we operate through the ministry centrally — we have numbers for those programs. What we don't know or can't necessarily tell is whether or not one child is counted in more than one of those service lines. The four foundational programs that are offered through contracted service providers — we don't have discrete numbers for children that access those programs.

C. James: Specific numbers for the ten programs, not specific numbers for the four foundational programs. But could the minister, then, explain how the ministry makes a decision based on budget if the minister doesn't have a clear number on the children being served by those foundational programs?

[1645]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There are three caseload- or demand-driven areas: autism, nursing supports and medical benefits. We don't allocate funding there. We just provide it where it's needed in those, and we meet those.

[1650]

Notwithstanding the overall and understood pressures in the ministry, we have been able to maintain relatively consistent funding for the rest of the programs over the last number of years. That tracks with the relatively consistent numbers in terms of family service files, which are the way we track requests for services in the ministry.

C. James: Could the minister then tell me whether wait-lists are kept for any of those programs and, if so, how the wait-list numbers compare to previous years?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, not all of the services have wait-lists. The autism, medical benefits and nursing are
[ Page 2188 ]
demand-driven and receive the support. Some of the services — the foundational programs, as I mentioned, that are delivered through contracted agencies — may keep their own wait-lists or may allocate services the way they see fit. We don't have access to them or track those.

For the family support services offered directly through the ministry — respite, child and youth, parent support, professional support, behavioural support, etc., which are managed within the regions — there is a priority-for-service tool that we started using in May of 2012 to get a better handle on the demand for service and to rank the need for service in a priority way to ensure that those requiring the most service rise to the front of the line.

C. James: Following up on that, then, if there are some programs and services that the ministry isn't aware whether they keep wait-lists for or not — they're contracted agencies or others who provide service — is there an expectation that those will then be included in this program that the ministry started in 2012 so that the ministry will have a better handle on all the pressures in all the program areas in the special needs area?

[1655]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Although we have a ranking tool that we're using in the ministry…. To date there has been some reporting on a quarterly basis by some of the agencies on wait-lists for the foundational services that they provide, but we don't rely on that data. It is not necessarily comparable or such, but it does help us identify trends, or has up until now helped us to identify trends.

We do know that there is demand in certain program areas and in certain areas of the province. I'm sure the member is well aware of some of those challenges.

[1700]

Now that we do have a priority-ranking tool that we're using within the ministry in our programs, we'll be working with our partners over the next year to look at how that might be used in their context to provide better data.

C. James: I appreciate the response from the minister, because I think it's difficult for anyone to imagine how you make a determination around budget requests or budget allocations if you don't have an idea around the pressure points in each of the service delivery areas and, in particular, in the programs in that service delivery area.

I think, as the minister said, there are a number of programs that you don't capture data for. Does the minister have a timeline around when all of the programs within children and youth with special needs will be captured under that ranking tool, as the ministry is calling it, so that you'll have a good handle on what kind of wait-lists are in each area?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, we introduced this tool in the ministry over the last 18 months, and we're relatively confident in the data that we've got for the programs that we are responsible for directly through the ministry.

Now, through this next year we'll look to work with the partners to help them start to use that tool so that, hopefully, by the end of this fiscal we'll be starting to collect data that we can rely on in a broader way.

C. James: I appreciate that for individual agencies, it will take some time to get them onto the program and be sure that the data you're getting will be consistent between agencies — that it's being reported in the right kind of way. I also understand the pressures around families being on various wait-lists and various programs and services. I understand that there is an issue there as well.

It certainly is a big concern for families who have children with special needs — the wait-list pressures that they feel, the lack of changes in the budget that they're feeling. Certainly, collecting this data, to me, would be critical to the ministry making decision points.

Could the minister tell me: have there been any changes in allocation between the programs? The minister mentioned the ten programs, the four foundational programs. Taking aside the three areas that are demand-driven, where I understand you have to increase the budgets, have there been any changes in the budgets of the other programs outside of the demand-driven programs, up or down?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I like it when these ones are not complicated. No, they are flat. They've been flat.

C. James: Just to come back to this service plan, then, as I'm trying to do in each of the service delivery areas — to look at the objectives in the service plan, to look at what the ministry has stated its own objective is — in this area it speaks to: "Children and youth with special needs will have access to a range of supports, benefits and funding."

Other than the demand-driven programs, which I recognize have seen increased funding and will see increased funding if there is a pressure, could the minister tell me when the last time was that other programs for children with special needs had seen an increase to their budget?

Hon. S. Cadieux: We don't have consensus on that date, so we will get back to you with that information, Member.

C. James: My recollection is, I believe, that it was back in 2007, or previous to 2007.

[1705]

Just a question to the minister. Again, as we talked about in the general budget questions, how does the ministry and the minister expect to meet the objective of providing support for children when the only programs
[ Page 2189 ]
within special needs that have received an increase are the demand-driven programs that are required to receive an increase?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Over the course of our back-and-forth so far today, I am certainly glad to hear the member's general support of the back-to-basics approach and our focus on delivery of those crucial services that this ministry is there to provide.

I don't want it to be overlooked that despite significant challenges overall for government financially over the last few years, I'm very pleased that we've been able to get to a balanced budget and maintain, at the same time, support for critical programs for children and youth and in this ministry and, in fact, to see modest increases over the last couple of years. We recognize they are modest and that it would always be nice to have more.

Desire to provide more as well as desire to have more will continue, I expect, to outstrip the ability to provide that, regardless of the cash flow situation of government. We are going to continue in this ministry to look at innovations and look at how we are delivering the services. Are we delivering those services in the best way that we possibly can to get the best results?

Certainly, we have, through the introduction of the ranking tool in the ministry over the last year and a half, been able to prioritize where the need is greatest and to ensure that dollars are directed to the most acute needs. We will be working with our contracted agencies over the next year to do the same. We have encouraged them to do that over the last while and to be innovative in their service delivery as well, but as we are able to bring them on to using that tool, we feel we'll have more accurate data to be planning and moving forward with.

C. James: I would disagree with the minister around the support for this ministry and the support for programs and services. I would say to the minister that it's more than being nice. It's more than nice to put money into these programs and services.

These are children who, if they miss the opportunity for supports — and we're speaking about the special needs area of this ministry right now — it is time missed from those children's lives, from those families' lives. In fact, often it will cost the system more if they then have to get supports after being on a wait-list for a period of time.

[1710]

While I understand the minister making comments around the balanced budget and the significant challenges, economically, in this province, as I said at the very start, I don't believe there's anything more important than caring for children who don't have any other option when government becomes their caregiver. So I would disagree fundamentally with the minister's premise around the supports, the modest increases that have gone into Children and Families.

I do recognize that the pressures will always be there, as they were in education, where I previously did work. Additional resources are always needed and wanted and desired. But I would suggest that there are huge pressures in this ministry — and we've seen them in reports, which we'll talk about as we get further along in estimates — that are not being addressed.

The minister mentioned the ranking tool had been in place since 2012. Could the minister tell me, then, which programs have wait-lists, at this point, that are part of this tool?

[1715]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Sorry for the delay there. It's the family support programs under the child and youth special needs that have some wait-lists. So that's respite services, youth in care, support workers, professional supports to parents of children with special needs — those programs.

[1720]

Within that, there are wait-lists in the sense that not everyone who is requesting services there is receiving all of the services they may be requesting, but because of the priority tool that we've implemented, we're raising the acuity to the top. So the more acute the need, the faster the service is delivered.

C. James: That, at this point, is the only program that's being measured under the priority-ranking tool — family supports?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

C. James: The minister mentioned that over the next 18 months or over the next year you expect to get most of the other programs and services on line with the priority tool. I think I expected that there might be more than one program within that. I understand that there are programs underneath that. I recognize that that includes other programs and services.

Was there a reason that this program and service was part of the ranking tool and we haven't seen the others come in yet?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The reason that it's the family support services and all of the list of services that is delivered under that is those are the ones that are directly delivered by the ministry. When families are wishing to receive one of those services or requiring one of those services, they come through our service delivery areas, requesting the service. That service delivery provides the service, which is why we've implemented the system there first.

For the rest of the service lines that are not demand-driven, we would look to implement that with our partners over the next year.
[ Page 2190 ]

C. James: Could the minister tell me what increases have been put into the budget of the three demand-driven programs — the autism, the medical benefits and the nursing? What increases have happened over this year?

[1725-1730]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budgeted numbers for the three demand-driven programs have been budgeted at last year's actuals within tiny deviations. But given that they're demand-driven…. We know, particularly in the autism file, that it's likely to go up again this year in terms of demand. We will meet that requirement, and we do that through underspends in other programs and/or requests for contingencies.

C. James: That obviously means other programs get cut if the money is needed for demand-driven programs — if the money has to come from another budget. Are the contingencies from the contingency from the ministry or contingency from government through a request from the ministry?

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Certainly, what has happened in the year and a half that I've been here is that we have budgets in various lines of the ministry that we anticipate spending in certain areas, and we allow for that and anticipate that and measure it throughout the year. In some cases, the demand for certain things is not as high as we anticipate, and therefore there is money to reallocate, which has happened in the past.

However, that said, if that was not the case and demand filled up the other budget areas, that would happen first, and we would go to broader government for a contingencies access to meet the demand-driven programs.

C. James: I want to turn the floor over for a specific question on a special needs program for my colleague from Cowichan Valley. As we talked about earlier, the increases that have occurred have occurred in the demand-driven programs and not in the other special needs programs.

B. Routley: I received a letter from a constituent about special needs cuts in our region, and I just wanted to briefly read a small part of it. She starts:

"These special needs cuts cannot continue. Yes, my son's service was reinstated, but it was another battle that caused me huge anxiety.

[1735]

"I was informed that there are 200 kids on the wait-list for services. I was also told that because my son gets services, another kid will not. That is not fair.

"I feel very strongly that having services in place for my son over the years has allowed him to develop into an amazing young man who is functioning at a much better level than he would have without the services — the services that allowed him to be the best he can be. I want other children in the Cowichan Valley to have the same opportunity."

If I could just pause there and say I have a grandson myself, Gabriel, that has autism, and we very much appreciate that he had the services when he needed them — speech therapy, a variety of therapies — when he was six. He's now 13 and doing much better. He didn't speak at all at one time. He's improved dramatically, and all of that was because there was intervention done at a time it was needed and necessary.

Carrying on with the letter:

"I want the ministry to start dealing with families more appropriately. There are a huge amount of institutional problems. Families do not need to be told services are being taken from them to give to someone else who needs it more.

"In general, many of us feel we're in survival mode. We're exhausted from lack of sleep, working full-time and then having to deal with the challenging behaviours at home — not only from our children that have a disability but also from our neurotypical children, because they feel they're not heard or are treated differently and so on. We do not have the energy to fight the ministry, and our children do not have a voice, so things, we feel, get swept under the mat and ignored.

"Families that need support should not have to go on wait-lists for services. Our children cannot wait for these services. Service providers struggle because they are trying to meet our needs but they are ethically being challenged because they have to decide who needs the service more, yet they worry constantly about those that do not get the services.

"Please help us. Services in the Cowichan Valley need to be expanding, as our population of special needs children and young adults is now growing."

My question to the minister is: will the minister and this government make special needs services a priority, or will they continue to cut services to these vulnerable children at a time when they need the services the most? What do this ministry's actions mean to their words about putting families first?

[1740]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To start off, I would just say personally to the member I'm very glad that your grandson received services that he needed when he needed them and hope that he's continuing to do well.

I certainly also would want to express my sentiments to the family of your constituent, to their family. I do understand that there are significant additional challenges and stresses to being a parent of a child with special needs and the demands that that puts on the family, not only emotional and physical but financial, and the additional stress of wanting to provide everything that is necessary for your child.

I can't specifically answer the member's question because I'm not aware of the individual nor the case specifically that they're referring to. What I can say on a broader perspective is that there haven't been any cuts to services. As we've been discussing in the estimates, the contracts that we have with various service providers around the province have been maintained for these foundational programs for children with special needs.
[ Page 2191 ]

That said, some services are time-limited, depending on the type of service that is required for a child. The discontinuation of a service, depending on the circumstance, may not be a cut of a service. It may be that that service — for example, speech therapy or physiotherapy or occupational therapy — was prescribed for a period of time to reach a certain goal. When that goal has been achieved, it may be determined that that is not a required therapy on an ongoing basis.

There are also other services in some areas of the province…. I can't speak specifically at this point to the Cowichan Valley, but in certain parts of the province, with certain therapies, we are challenged to have families access them because we don't necessarily have the services available in those areas. The specialists are not there in some areas, and some areas are challenged to recruit specific providers of service.

That said, there will always be demand for service, and I certainly reiterate comments I made earlier today — that we do very much want to provide the best services we can and ensure that kids get what they need. But there will always be more demand for service than we are able to provide.

I'm very pleased that this ministry has been able to maintain its budgets over time, even through incredibly challenging fiscal times. As it states in my mandate letter, we are required to manage and deliver on our ministry goals, the same as all the other ministries, and one of those is to do that within a balanced budget.

C. James: I just want to add the one piece that the minister didn't refer to and which we discussed earlier, of course, which is the wait-lists. That is a huge pressure point.

Although I take the minister's point that although the budget hasn't been cut, that doesn't mean there aren't programs and services…. There are still some additional pressures that are being faced in the budget and some additional pressures around wait-lists and people who aren't able to get service.

To the minister's point around the balanced budgets and a stand-alone budget, all of us know the pressures that have come down onto contract services, onto ministries. Whether it's something like hydro increases or MSP premiums, all those are costs that are expected to be picked up by the contractor and by the ministries and therefore aren't dollars that could go into services and programs.

[1745]

I think it's important just to make that statement around the programs and services. Families' reality is that although the ministry has not cut the budget, they aren't able to get the programs and services because of wait-lists, because of demand and because of increased pressures that aren't being funded by the ministry.

I believe the minister has something else that she wants to add to the member.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thank you, Member, for noting that.

Just before we do move on, I did want to mention to the member for Cowichan Valley that if there is a specific circumstance or concern of a constituent or that he himself wishes to raise with a specific circumstance or agency or individual that he's aware of, we would be happy to look into it further for him.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I want to ask now a couple of questions around therapy services. The ministry service plan states that the ministry will identify opportunities for increased integration of programs in the therapy service delivery area, including the school-aged therapy services, and that this would occur following stakeholder consultations.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what kind of consultations occurred and what the result of those consultations was.

[1750]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The school-age therapy mapping project that is referenced in the service plan and that the member is asking about is a process by which we're trying to get a better handle on how school-age therapies, whether it be OT/PT, speech therapy, are handled across various ministries — across Health, ourselves and the Ministry of Education — who all have some piece of that. We're looking to identify who is served by whom, in what area and how, and how much.

The maps have been developed now in consultation with our partners, and now we're starting to look at how we can better align the services to get better results and to make them more effective.

We've shared the mapping that was done. It was led by our ministries. We've shared that with our partner ministries, and we are looking to them for their input now on what they see as possible opportunities.

In the meantime, in this ministry over the next year we're looking at that map for our own service delivery and what we are doing and if there are ways we can better align what we're doing internal to our piece of that to deliver services more effectively. Of course, this is probably most important in some of the rural and remote areas, where it's hard to recruit some of the specialties.

C. James: No decisions have then been made at this point around changing services or realigning services or….

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, the member is correct. Nothing has been decided in terms of change at this point. We're looking at, now, through sort of digging deeper into that data and looking at the map, if there are areas where we can see that we could potentially provide some better ser-
[ Page 2192 ]
vice by realigning some things.

[1755]

C. James: Just to ask a question, then, around performance measures, I know that the last time we talked in July the minister said they were looking at expanding performance measures.

[E. Foster in the chair.]

I know we'll get into a little bit of a discussion later about the data collection, but I wondered. There are no performance measures in the special needs area in this section. I wonder if the minister could express why and what the progress is on those.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To the member, she's right. There aren't any. And in the service plan…. There are two reasons for that. One is that we can only pick six. So we try to find ones that are meaningful, certainly. It's a reliability-of-data issue around child and youth with special needs, as we had a discussion about earlier, and I'm sure we may have more.

It's difficult to develop a performance measure that means anything, with measurable targets, if you're not sure that the data you are relying on is accurate or effective. We're focused first on getting to a place where we can feel we've got accurate, reliable data. We can then move to a place of, perhaps, a target.

There are caseload numbers in the performance management report, which we have introduced to the select standing committee and which is relatively new to the ministry — still only about a year old. We are continuing to add to that, and we will continue to add to it.

The current measure is on page 29. If you're wanting to refer to that, hon. Member, you could do that. It is well short of an outcome measure at this point, but it is something we will look to improve upon over time.

C. James: Just one last question in this particular area, and that's related to the wait-list issue again and the particular data that is collected, taking into account that a lot of data isn't collected.

But of that data that is collected around wait-lists in the area of children and youth with special needs, is there a regional difference? Are there bigger challenges in particular regions than other areas? Could the minister talk a little bit about that and actions that the ministry is undertaking to address that?

[1800-1805]

Hon. S. Cadieux: What we know is priority of need across the different areas, although we're not sure yet whether or not it's reliable in terms of breaking it down as far as local service delivery areas or for what service. Again, more consistency of data is required for us to feel confident in that, and because we don't have yet the access to the data for all of the programs, it would be hard to say. We're starting to see trends but not at this point anything that would be reliable enough.

C. James: Just one quick follow-up question to this before we move on to the child and youth mental health area. The minister mentioned the consistency of data. I agree, and I support the direction that the ministry is looking at. It's some surprise, I guess, at it not being in place already.

Does the minister expect — she mentioned a timeline — before next year's budget process, before the minister goes into having to look at the needs in the ministry, that most of the programs for children and youth with special needs will be in the data and will be able to be looked at for pressures so that the ministry can then make an assessment around increasing support?

I think everyone would agree — regardless of what the year was, and I know the minister will get back to us whether it was 2007 or 2008 — that we haven't seen an increase in programs for children with special needs other than demand-driven. I would hope that all of those programs and services will be in place so that the minister can then make, hopefully, recommendations for increased supports that are needed in those program areas.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The short answer is: no, I don't think that we will have that data by the end of the year. We're working to still refine and ensure the accuracy of the data internally. We're looking to roll out with our partners and try to start collecting measurable, reliable data over the next year, but I don't anticipate that it will be fulsome enough at the end of the year to rely on for the purposes of budgeting.

That said, I also think that while I agree that it will be great when those numbers are available, I also recognize that the three-year fiscal plan, regardless, does not have a lot of room for increases for service delivery for any ministry. Although I know ours is certainly a priority area, I don't anticipate that that would make an enormous difference. But certainly, it is a priority area for me to ensure we do have that good data for our forecast and for staffing and for all of the planning work that we do in the ministry. So we'll be looking to enhance this area as we go forward.

[1810]

C. James: We'll move on now to children and youth mental health services and just give the minister a minute for staff to switch around.

Again, it's always hard, within the Ministry of Children and Families, to look at particular program areas and say that they are the most challenge. I think most people
[ Page 2193 ]
would say that the ministry has challenging programs, and children and youth with challenging needs. But certainly, it's a pressing concern for families that are raising the issues around waiting times for services, around lack of supports, around lack of community supports even after they get services.

But one of the consistencies that I hear around the youth mental health — I know I raised this with the minister in July and just wanted to get the minister's comments again — is the back-and-forth that happens between the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Health.

I guess I want to start with the big picture, which are the mental health plans. Again, the ten-year plan in the Ministry of Health, the five-year plan in the Ministry of Children and Families, the two-year strategic plan…. I wondered if the minister could tell us a little bit about how those plans connect with each other rather than oppose each other when it comes to programs and supports for youth and children with mental health.

[1815]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There have been a number of plans, so let's talk about how they all fit together. The five-year child and youth mental health plan ended in 2008. It was reviewed. We learned from that process. That information fed into the development of Healthy Minds, Healthy People, the ten-year plan, which is the cross-ministry plan for mental health between ourselves and the Ministry of Health.

[1820]

From that and moving forward, we developed an MCFD two-year action plan relating to some more concrete steps that we wanted to take to do four things: enhance access, manage wait-lists, active systems navigation and looking at transitions.

On access, there is a new intake model that we are piloting and looking to roll out across MCFD that looks promising in terms of significantly reducing the frustration on the front end of making the initial request for service and determining whether or not you'll be served.

The wait-list management piece. We've issued a directive to staff to use the tools that are in place to accurately let us know about the data — where the wait-lists are and in what circumstances — using the CARIS system and the BCFPI, the brief child and family phone interview, process. The processes and things are in place, but using them effectively and consistently to get the data to where we can rely on it is a theme.

Active systems navigation. We're building a toolkit of resources so that parents can have access to information about mental health and their child while they may be waiting for services — to learn more about it, whether that's through written materials, electronic materials, websites, videos, and so on.

As well, with access — I forgot — there's also an on-line interactive map of services that we'll be releasing relatively soon. It's not complete quite yet, but that will also help families in navigating the system and where the services are in their communities.

Then the transitions piece. Looking at the youth-adult protocol and essentially re-profiling expectations amongst professionals in our ministry and the Ministry of Health around what they should expect from one another and what the families should be expecting. Then adding to that protocol, joint management tables are in each SDA to monitor the ongoing application of that protocol.

C. James: Could minister tell me, then, how many youth are on wait-lists for mental health services right now? The minister was looking at numbers in July. What's the average wait time currently?

[1825]

Hon. S. Cadieux: This member will know from other times. Over 29,000 children and youth will have received mental health services from the ministry last year — this year. Unlike last year, this year we do know that there are about 2,400 children and youth waiting for services from children and youth mental health teams. They're waiting an average of 152 days.

What we don't yet know, because the data is not yet as fulsome as we will eventually have, is what services they are receiving in the meantime. Those 2,400 would be waiting for some level of one-to-one service that's been assessed by the ministry. But that does not mean that they're not receiving service from a contracted agency or a group-type situation for therapy or Strongest Families supports and those types of things that are also provided through the child and youth mental health programs.

[1830]

C. James: But it also could mean, on the other hand, that they're not receiving services. If the information isn't available…. I take the minister's point that they could be receiving services, but the flip side of that is they may be receiving no services. They may simply be on a wait-list for those programs and services.

Could the minister tell us how that compares to last year?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I'm sure the member will remember from last year, the best number we had was 1,000, but we knew that that was not likely accurate.

What we can say as to this year…. We do know that this number is a much more accurate number in terms of children waiting for service, because we've actively canvassed all of the SDAs for their current numbers. We are confident they're now using the system to report those children and the waits.

That said, the data is still not as robust as it could be in
[ Page 2194 ]
terms of knowing whether or not they're receiving some service and not another and which particular service they're waiting for. That is still to come.

C. James: Could the minister tell me how much of an increase to the budget for youth mental health has been put in place to address this wait-list or to address the pressures in the ministry in this area?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The budget for the community-based mental health programs this year is $78 million. It's up $100,000.

C. James: So a status quo budget — a small increase, but basically status quo. With this kind of wait-list, are there are additional…? The minister mentioned four areas that they were working on and outlined the improved access to services, managing the wait-list, management systems navigation and the transition. Are there any additional resources being put into any of those four initiatives under the two-year strategic plan for mental health in this ministry?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No, Member, they are just using existing resources more effectively and putting priority to them.

[1835]

C. James: We have increasing pressure in youth mental health. We have wait-lists. We have initiatives to try and look at support services but no increase to the budget. I take the minister's point around efficiencies, but I'm not sure how many places you can look for efficiencies in one ministry to provide services and supports that need to be there.

Just to continue on, then, in this area, to speak a little bit about residential beds and placements in the youth and mental health area. Again, I know this is an area where there are huge pressures. We've seen a couple of reports come forward from the representative around this area as well. I just want to go back to July and speak to the minister's commitments that were made back in July around residential beds.

The very first one was that Maples would have six beds up and running by the fall, which would have been this past fall. Could the minister explain what the status is on those beds?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, the target date had been early fall. Unfortunately, it took longer than we had hoped to get the facility to the place it needed to be.

The facility is now ready. The six beds are ready to go. The plant is there. We've had to go through two rounds of hiring, which was not anticipated. The first round didn't produce the required level of skill and interest that we had hoped. However, that said, the people are all in the process of being hired for that facility now, and training is scheduled to start the beginning of April, for an April 30 opening.

C. James: Just so I'm clear, on April 30 those beds will be open for placements at Maples?

Hon. S. Cadieux: That is the targeted date to be available to have children move in there — the April 30 date. That said, we're not looking to, as of April 30, fill six beds. We are looking to, given the complexity of the needs of the kids that we will have resident there at various times….

[1840]

We want to make sure, with a new staff and newly trained staff in the interventions, that we do that at a pace that is manageable and provides the best level of care. So we'll be looking to do that over a period of time.

C. James: Given our discussion earlier about the budget and no increase to this budget, where are the resources coming for these additional beds and for these additional staff?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The kids that will be served here are already being served in residential circumstances throughout the region — in many cases, through very, very expensive residential circumstances due to the high needs of the children and therefore high staffing ratios and things like that. The residential budgets of the regions will pay, essentially, for this facility. It's all working together.

What we recognize is that there is a group of children with very high needs that would benefit from an interdisciplinary team approach to either managing or getting their behaviour to a place that is manageable, either back out in the regions, in different circumstances, hopefully. But in the short-term they're perhaps better served by a specific facility. That's why we moved to implement this with a specially trained provincial team that can provide that resource that is not available in all areas of the province.

C. James: Just to follow up on that. As the minister pointed out, Maples is not a permanent facility. Certainly, all of us hope that that wouldn't be a permanent facility for youth. Therefore, they would need specialized services back in the community and back in the regions again. How does that match with the minister's comments? If the resources are being taken from regional residential services, how are you going to have a placement, then, for those children to go back to? If you're taking those resources from the region and putting them into Maples, where are the children then going to go back to in the community in a plan that hopefully has them going back to the regions?
[ Page 2195 ]

[1845]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm sure we can come back to this when we regroup, but I'm trying to get this into simple terms. Basically, we recognize that there is a group of children for whom complex intervention therapy is required, and it wasn't being provided in the way it best could be. That's why we're moving to this facility at Maples, to be able to provide that in a highly intensive way for a period of time. We will look then to have five regional complex care homes as well, which kids could transition back to.

That said, as well, as a part of the process, more of our residential staff will be able to be trained in those complex intervention therapies through outreach from that Maples team. Ultimately, we anticipate that it will all net, because some of the high-cost residential circumstances that are one-off circumstances for these kids we anticipate can be reduced by providing that more intensive assessment and planning up front.

With that, for today, Mr. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Children and Family Development — clearly, it is time — and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:48 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada