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, April 30, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Ministerial Statements

CONDOLENCES FOR VICTIMS OF
SHOOTING AT WESTERN FOREST
PRODUCTS MILL IN NANAIMO

Hon. C. Clark: The member for Parksville-Qualicum, in her prayer today, offered the thoughts of this House, expressed the wish of this Legislature to offer condolences to the people of Nanaimo, to the people of the province and, in particular, to the individual families who have been so tragically affected.

Police were called to the Western Forest Products mill in response to calls about a shooting. The RCMP were on the scene within minutes, and they have a suspect in custody.

Details about the tragedy are still emerging, and officials are still investigating, but we do know that four people were shot. Two are being treated at hospital; two have lost their lives.

Thankfully, this kind of tragedy is almost unknown in British Columbia. Thankfully, most of us here today cannot imagine what the victims and their families must be going through. But they should know that they are not alone.

The people of British Columbia are standing with them. Victim support services are on the ground, available to witnesses and families of the victims, if they need it.

I know that members on both sides of this House will join me in extending our thoughts and our prayers to the victims, their families and everyone in the resilient community of Nanaimo who are affected by today's events.

A. Dix: On behalf of the opposition, I want to join with the Premier in sending our thoughts and prayers, particularly to the families of those that work at Western Forest Products, those who work at mills in British Columbia, those who live in Nanaimo.

My colleague the member for Nanaimo has gone back to his constituency.

My colleague the member for the Cowichan Valley was in this mill many times as a representative of working people. I can tell you that his shock and sense of grief should reflect all of our sense of shock and all of our sense of grief.

Violence affects us deeply, all of us. When these events occur, they have echoes that can last a very, very long time.

It's important for us, I think, to express solidarity with the people involved, the families involved, the workers who are there, their families, what they must be going through today and to reflect in our own lives, as well, that events happen sometimes that come as a shock, that aren't expected to us.

It reminds us of the need with our friends, with our colleagues, with our families, with those we love to not let pettiness and grievance stand unresolved and to call them, to hug them, to express that on this kind of day, because I think these events affect all of us, in that sense — and to take that sense of what it means in our own lives and send it with our thoughts and prayers to the families affected and to the people of Nanaimo.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Joining us in the House today are 12 grade 11 students and two adults from George Elliot Secondary from my riding. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Darcy: Joining us in the galleries today are three students from New Westminster, former students of the New West Secondary School now in university: Rajita Dang, who's a student at SFU; Saba Faremi from UBC; and Brianna Cook from SFU. Two of these students have also been leaders in the Canadian Cancer Society Club in the New West Secondary School. They're joined by my wonderful constituency assistant Nadine Nakagawa. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them here today.

Michelle Stilwell: Joining us in the House today are two very special guests from my days living in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Pastor Bob Jacob — along with his wife of more than 50 years, Vi Jacob — is here. Leading and guiding at Grace Lutheran Church, Bob and Vi were wonderful role models for me and countless other young people who were lucky enough to attend their Sunday school classes, youth groups and services. It's just absolutely wonderful to have them here today. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Shin: I have the pleasure of introducing to the House my oppa, which means "older brother" in Korean. He's just a few years older than me, and we are not blood-related, but with his unwavering support and friendship, he wouldn't qualify for anything less than that. He also happens to be my constituent in Burnaby-Lougheed.

Mark Se-Hyun Lee came to B.C. as an international student and decided that this is where he wants to put his roots down. He has since devoted the last ten years
[ Page 3292 ]
to assisting others from around the world to explore and experience the best of B.C. His young company, which is ten years old now, has expanded across Canada with seven offices, expanded to nine countries and also boasts a global on-line community of 93,000 active members. All this he accomplished in his 20s.

Mark just came back from his business trip abroad and rushed over to Victoria so that he can cheer me on today with his team. I would like to introduce four of them: Kuk Hyun Kim, Max Choi, Nam Young Shin and Hwan Hee Kim. Would the House please make my dear friends and supporters from the Korean community feel very welcome.

E. Foster: In the House today we have members of the B.C. Allied Golf Association: Trevor Smith, Tricha Larsen, Kris Jonasson, Blair Armitage, Donald Miyazaki, Michelle Collins, Andy Hedley and Jerry Rousseau. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. James: I have a constituent visiting today. He is the past film commissioner for Victoria, but his real claim to fame is that he's the father of our wonderful communications officer, Megan Mills. Would the House please welcome David Mills to the gallery today.

Hon. T. Lake: I have two sets of introductions today. First of all, I'd like to introduce two of my constituents from Barriere, Jill and Bob Hayward.

Jill has always shown relentless dedication to the community of Barriere, having been recognized just a few years ago with a Diamond Jubilee Medal and yesterday with a B.C. Community Achievement Award. She is a leader for the North Thompson Agriplex and a strong advocate for agriculture and agritourism. She has shared her abilities with many organizations, such as the McLure Wildfire Monument Society, the North Thompson Fall Fair and Rodeo, Rural Crime Watch, and Learning and Literacy.

Her husband, Bob, is with her in the gallery today. It's the first time, I think, I've seen Bob without his cowboy hat. I hardly recognized him. Would the House please make Jill and Bob Hayward most welcome in the House today.

I also rise today to introduce two guests. Interestingly enough, Sim Hayward is from Australia, so I don't know if she's related to Jill and Bob Hayward, but maybe I've helped to reunite some families here today. Sim is visiting from Australia, where she's chair of the Cairns sister cities advisory committee. She's here visiting Sidney, B.C., to celebrate the 30th anniversary of their sister city relationship.

Also joining her is Sidney councillor Marilyn Loveless, who is the council liaison to the Sidney Sister Cities Association. Would the House please make Ms. Hayward and Ms. Loveless feel very welcome here today.

[1345]

R. Chouhan: I join my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed to welcome one of my constituents, Da Som Lee, who's a member of this delegation which is visiting us today, along with the students and business leaders. Would the House join me to welcome Da Som Lee.

Hon. S. Anton: Joining us in the House today is Mr. Blair Qualey, president and CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to also introduce two of my constituents who are with the Korean delegation being hosted by the member for Burnaby-Lougheed. I would like to welcome Keung Hee and Yee Jin, and would the House please make them feel very welcome as well.

S. Sullivan: One of the privileges of being an MLA is to be able to work with the wonderful legislative assistants. We have one very talented young person who is here today. It happens to be his birthday. Now, he's famous for having the best socks in the building, and, also, he has a lot of talent. I wish I could buy stocks in this young man. I'd like to please welcome and congratulate Derek Robertson.

H. Bains: Within the vicinity — in fact, I believe he's outside, with a little blowhorn — is Morgan Forey, visiting us here today. This man was homeless, with addiction. He overcame his issues. Now he has taken on the task of bringing awareness about mental illness.

He has decided to travel and visit every legislature in this country on his own, and also the Canadian Parliament, to bring the issues of homelessness and mental health and to convince the legislators and every person that he can of the importance of dealing with mental illness and doing more to deal with mental health. So please help me to welcome Morgan Forey — and his attempts.

M. Morris: I have the great pleasure today of having one of my constituents, an extraordinary lady from Prince George, down here. She was one of 31 other recipients yesterday who received the Community Achievement Award at Government House.

This lady has volunteered in numerous societies around Prince George. She's a founding member of the Prince George Community Foundation. She was an organizer of the P.G. Cerebral Palsy Sports Association, and she's just been one of the pillars of the community for a number of years now. Would the House please welcome Judy Dix and her husband, Colin.
[ Page 3293 ]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join in welcoming the delegation of student and business leaders from the Korean community that have been brought here by my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed. I particularly want to express a welcome to Man Young Oh as one of my constituents. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Oakes: It truly is my great privilege and pride today to recognize and welcome to the House five amazing constituents of Cariboo North: Ashley Schmidt, from the Quesnel Downtown Association; Teresa Smith, owner of Circle S Western Wear and the Quesnel downtown promotions chair; Carol Pitkin, owner of Super Suds, owner of Outlaw, owner of Carver's — amazing small businesses in our community; Tracey Roberts, publisher of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, in business since 1908; and Kayla Kinloch, of south Quesnel business improvement area.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are very proud that we have three fantastic business improvement areas in our community. You contribute to build strong communities on behalf of business improvement areas across the province. We're incredibly proud. I know that you've learned a lot. I can't wait for to you bring those ideas back to our community.

Would the House please help me and welcome our constituents.

[1350]

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, want to join with the Burnaby-Lougheed MLA — my colleague, the very able MLA for Burnaby-Lougheed — in welcoming some of my constituents — Sun Hwa Bong, Sung Eun Kim, Sae Byeol Jang — who help make up the vibrant life that we know in Vancouver–West End.

Welcome to the Legislature.

J. Yap: There is a group of 41 students and three teachers from Saint-Charles School in Saint-Brieuc, France, who are visiting the Legislature today. They are going to have a tour just after question period and then will come into the gallery, but I wanted to introduce them.

They are accompanied by Alex Campbell — who I know you know, Madame Speaker — the retired principal in McMath Secondary School in Richmond-Steveston.

These students and teachers are here as part of a unique exchange that has been going on for a number of years, The students from France are here for the next two weeks and here in Victoria today, and in the fall a group of students from McMath Secondary in Steveston will go to France for the reciprocal visit. It's a great program that has been going on for a number of years.

I would ask the House to join me in welcoming these students and teachers who are visiting from Saint-Charles School in Saint-Brieuc, France.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a longtime family friend — in fact, I think he's been a family friend for almost 40 years — Ed Westlind. He's actually a constituent of Nelson-Creston right now, but he's a part-time constituent of Skeena, also, as he's working up in Kitimat. He's here today with his partner, Anne Brewster — Ed Westlind and Anne Brewster. I would ask the House to please join me in making them very welcome.

L. Reimer: Hi. It's my pleasure today to introduce my wonderful legislative assistant, Mr. Suneil Karod. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Barnett: Today I would like to ask the House to welcome with me a constituent of mine, a gentleman who is very involved in the forest industry, a great community volunteer and a director on the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust. His name is Tom Hoffman. Please help me welcome him here today.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M211 — TOBACCO CONTROL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

J. Darcy presented a bill intituled Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2014.

J. Darcy: I move that the bill intituled the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

J. Darcy: I am introducing this bill, which prohibits the sale of flavoured cigarillos and other flavoured tobacco products, because our current legislation does not do enough to protect our youth against the harmful effects of nicotine and tobacco.

These products are often packaged to resemble tins of candy or cosmetics, like lipsticks or mascara, and they come in a wide variety of flavours. They often produce a sweet-smelling smoke instead of the usual harsh tobacco taste and smell. Flavoured tobacco products are often sold in single sizes for as little as $1, all of which makes it easy for young people to become addicted to tobacco.

The tobacco companies have a very, very slick marketing strategy going that targets youth, and the bad news is that it's working. A recent youth smoking survey found that 53 percent of youth tobacco users in British Columbia had used flavoured tobacco products. That's
[ Page 3294 ]
over 30,000 B.C. students.

Tobacco is still the leading cause of death and disease in B.C., killing over 6,000 British Columbians every year. It costs the B.C. economy $2.3 billion a year, and the majority of new tobacco users are under 18.

We have made great strides in reducing smoking rates in British Columbia, but we must do more. Ontario and Alberta have already banned the sale of flavoured tobacco. The Canadian Cancer Society is calling for a ban. The Minister of Health has stated that he supports such a ban, yet we continue to see these products sold to youth in British Columbia. If there ever was a time for us to come together on a non-partisan basis, this would be the time.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

Bill M211, Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

GOLF INDUSTRY

E. Foster: The first golf courses were built in British Columbia 122 years ago, the first at Jericho Beach in Vancouver in 1892. Over the last few years the Vancouver Golf Club, Shaughnessy Golf and Country, Qualicum Beach Memorial Golf Club and Royal Colwood golf and country club on the Island, and Vernon Golf and Country Club — obviously, one of my favourites — all celebrated their 100th birthdays.

Golf courses and the golf industry in B.C. have come a long way from the early courses, which are still among some of the top in British Columbia today.

As many members of this House already know, the appeal of the game of golf is hard to ignore. During the 14.5 million rounds of golf played each year, British Columbians get to go outdoors and enjoy one of the simplest, safest and most often recommended forms of exercise, walking. In fact, a round of golf where the player is walking will burn off more than 700 calories. Of course, if you cover as much of the golf course as I do, that could be as high as 2,000. This is part of the reason that golfers have a mortality rate 40 percent lower than those who don't exercise.

The golf industry is present and is locally owned and operated in every community, and in British Columbia it contributes $1.6 billion to the province's gross domestic product. Directly and indirectly, golf employs almost 47,000 British Columbians, including substantial numbers of youth. Over 43 percent of those employed by the industry are students.

The excellence of our golf courses is well recognized at home and abroad. B.C. golf tourism is the main reason why almost one million Americans made overnight trips to British Columbia last year.

When it comes to taking care of the environment, the B.C. golf industry takes a responsible approach to managing their local environment by naturalizing managed green space into wildlife and plant habitat and by building wildlife corridors for local animals.

As a result, golf is good for our health, good for our environment and good for our economy in British Columbia.

Please join me in welcoming our guests, and when you have time in your schedules, please take a few minutes or an hour or two to visit one of the 300 locally owned golf courses in British Columbia.

B.C. YOUTH WEEK

J. Shin: Madame Speaker, 12 percent of our population in B.C. is young people, like the many that we have here today in the House. Starting tomorrow, for the next seven days our province will be celebrating B.C. Youth Week.

What started just as a little project by a small group of municipal planners and youth recreation leaders quickly spread to a provincewide initiative, and 19 years later, B.C. Youth Week now brings all of us together to not only engage and connect but really empower and celebrate the young British Columbians that we have.

Again this year we can look forward to a week full of fun activities organized by youth for youth. We'll have opportunities to recognize their contributions at youth award ceremonies. I look forward to honouring the work of Burnaby Youth Sustainability Network in my community.

From B.C.'s children waiting for adoption to child poverty, from hidden sexual exploitation to cyberbullying, we can hear from the young people themselves about the issues that they care about and their advocacy presentation as well as forums. We can get inspired by their drive and talent at various entertainment events as well as sporting competitions.

We can also meet the many people in our community making a difference in the lives of youth. I would like to thank just a few from my constituency: our Burnaby school board and trustees, B.C. Adoptive Families Association, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, Burnaby Family Life, task force against sexual exploitation, Rotary Club clothing drive, Masjid al-Salaam and Education Centre, Do What U Luv group and, of course, businesses like UVANU, in the House today, that are sowing into our community.

Wherever Youth Week is celebrated, the idea behind it is all the same. As the member for Surrey–Green Timbers has taught me, our job as a society should be no less than
[ Page 3295 ]
to shower our young people with love and give each and every one of them an equal shot at life.

JOSH DUECK

Michelle Stilwell: With the flowers in full bloom and the sun shining outside today, I'd like to take a moment to go back to the snow in the mountains of Sochi. Last month British Columbia's Josh Dueck earned the privilege of being Canada's flag-bearer for the closing ceremonies of the 2014 Paralympics.

[1400]

Josh won gold and silver as a sit-skier during the games. A former freestyle skier, Josh became a paraplegic in March of 2004 after he broke his neck trying to execute a flip. Ten years later he was standing on the podium in Sochi. That dedication deserves to be recognized.

I know Josh personally through many different avenues throughout our sporting career, and I can honestly say that he has a well-deserved reputation for pushing the limits and leaving nothing behind on the course or in life. Some of you might have heard of Josh in 2012 when he earned that worldwide notoriety for becoming the first sit-skier to perform a backflip.

It takes an incredible amount of courage to face your fears and to push your body to succeed at something that no one has ever done before. But let's not confuse that confidence with recklessness. Josh has become a supporter of workplace safety and a champion of accessibility in sport. He is a role model to many and someone who demonstrates the importance of preparation and training.

To be a world-class athlete you must make sacrifices. I know, from my experience, that having a supportive family is a huge help, and I know that Josh appreciates the support he gets from his family and friends. I hope Josh can also get a boost from knowing that he has the support of British Columbians, including the members of this House.

TAXIDERMISTS AND
EXPORT PERMIT PROCESS

D. Donaldson: They are small business people, they are mainly in rural areas of the province, they depend on good stewardship of our natural systems, and they are artists who deal in still life, quite literally. I'm talking about taxidermists in this province. There is estimated to be about 200 of these small business people across B.C., with many being in rural communities, close to where the animals on which they depend can be found. In Smithers-Telkwa alone there are four taxidermy businesses, all owned and operated by longtime community members.

Taxidermists offer a value-added service that keeps money in local communities. They are highly skilled craftsmen and artists with their services in demand from clients around the world. They are independent, passionate about their work and the animals on which they depend and aren't prone to creating professional associations or bodies, so the impact of their work on local rural communities can be overlooked as people in government focus on megaprojects.

The value-added nature of their work is extremely important. For example, the difference between skinning, salting and drying a hide for export…. It can run in the $350 range, whereas a full, life-size mount of the animal can bring up to $7,000, depending on the species. That is why taxidermists are concerned about the ability of non-residents to take dozens of hides with them under one export permit to be worked on by taxidermists in another country.

There is also a problem with the time it takes for local taxidermists to get export permits for a client — two- to three-month waits due to backlogged permitting in the provincial office. This discourages non-resident hunters from using local taxidermists. Business has been lost.

Taxidermists I have spoken with have some simple solutions to these issues. They just need to be listened to. If that happens, then all of us living in rural areas will share in the benefits.

STAN ROGERS

J. Martin: Legacy — the life of Stan Rogers is the very personification of that word. He passed away suddenly on April 16 at the age of 65 due to a heart attack, but that is not why Stan Rogers will be remembered in Chilliwack and across the province. Stanley Douglas Rogers was a visionary, a community builder and a developer with a tireless work ethic. He had a generous heart and did everything possible for his family, his community and his church.

That is why I rise in the House today to recognize the legacy of Stan Rogers. He spent 18 years growing Rogers Foods before spending the next 24 years in property development, most recently as the founder and president of Legacy Pacific Land Corp.

Through the course of his life, Stan generously volunteered his time and expertise to numerous community and non-profit organizations, seeking to better the lives of people in his community. He worked with the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, B.C. Trade Development Corporation, B.C. Food Processors Association, the chamber of commerce and Rotary, among so many others.

[1405]

Most importantly, he was a father, a husband, an adviser and a dear friend to so many. His legacy in our community is immeasurable, which explains why some 700 people attended his celebration of life last week.

I would ask us to keep Stan's wife, Anita; his sons Collin, Cameron and Corbin; and each of their families
[ Page 3296 ]
in our thoughts and prayers.

PINE FREE CLINIC

D. Eby: More than 40 years ago an innovative new medical clinic opened. Operating out of a ten- by 20-foot trailer, the Pine Free Clinic was a Vancouver first in providing free, confidential care for young people. Since that remarkable start decades ago the clinic hasn't slowed down. They're now based on West 4th Avenue, and they've become Kitsilano's public health care heart, six days a week, all day and after regular working hours.

Three regular nurses, two front-desk staff, a counsellor and a rotating team of part-time doctors, all with a special interest in working with youth, call the clinic home. They take their youth-centred mandate very seriously. "Youth have enough to worry about with their health issues without worrying about being judged by a roomful of other people," said a former nurse.

The employees at the clinic are paid on salary, giving them the chance to spend extra time with scared, confused young people who are looking for medical and, sometimes, life assistance. Youth from all over the Lower Mainland come for over 12,000 clinic visits each year.

While keeping young people at the centre of everything they do, this clinic has also taken the "free" in its name literally, expanding its mandate to serve those left out of our health care system. For example, the Pine Free Clinic offers, of course, free services to refugees not covered by MSP. In fact, anyone who doesn't have an MSP card or insurance can come in for treatment. By providing care for those that nobody else will, the clinic fills an essential public health niche in preventing the transmission of infections and diseases that would otherwise go untreated and undiagnosed.

The recent announcement that this decades-old clinic will close has been met with shock and disbelief. Countless former patients have shared stories about how Pine provided them with knowledge and care that they desperately needed as young people. Former staff are baffled that such a fixture of public health in the Lower Mainland could be seen as a cost liability instead of a cost saver.

Working together, we can save the Pine Free Clinic, because although it has been 40 years, it is just as innovative and essential now as it was when it first opened in 1972.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING FOR
SPECIALIZED SUPPORT SERVICES
AND TEACHING POSITIONS

A. Dix: My question is for the Premier. Across British Columbia school districts this week are facing budgets that as a result of shortfalls, will lead to the layoff and reduction of speech pathologists, teachers, teacher-librarians and teaching assistants — people who provide basic services to students.

Does the Premier not agree with me that these shortfalls and the resulting cuts will dramatically affect students' ability to succeed and seek opportunity in their lives, whatever path they choose?

Hon. C. Clark: We have to support young people in school. We have to make sure that we are making the investment that they deserve so that they can, each of them, fulfil their tremendous potential in the province. We need to do that for them. We owe them a duty as another generation to make sure we're supporting them.

Equally, we need to do it for us, because it's those young people that will guarantee the future of every citizen of British Columbia. You cannot build an economy without people who are skilled and ready to be able to take on those jobs.

That's why we are continuing to make historic investments in secondary and post-secondary education in British Columbia. That's why we've continued to see improved results in districts and in demographics all across the province. We have much, much more to do. We need to make sure that we are aligning our spending and our investment in the right places and spending it as well as we can.

But one of the untold stories about education in British Columbia is that we do it here almost better than anywhere else in the world. We should be very, very proud of that, and it's as a result of government's long-term commitment and historic funding to our system that that's true.

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

[1410]

A. Dix: The success we have in our public schools is about teachers and parents and students and support workers who deliver every day in spite of a government that consistently shows it doesn't care about public education.

Maybe the Premier can explain this — or the Minister of Health, because they're doing it in Kamloops too. Maybe the Premier can explain this, because the government seems angry.

Perhaps it's not the government that is losing access to speech pathologists. Perhaps it's not the government that's losing access to learning assistants. Perhaps it's not the government that's losing access to its shop teachers. Perhaps it's not the government that's seeing more students in classrooms. Perhaps it's not the government who has a special needs student who needs support. But parents do and students do, and this government is letting them down.
[ Page 3297 ]

Announcements aside, does the Premier agree with me that laying off speech pathologists, teachers, support workers and those that support those with special needs is bad for public education in B.C. and that it's the government's policies that have directed us in that direction?

Hon. C. Clark: I'll say this. The member is right about this part of it. It is parents, students, teachers, administrators and support workers that make our education system great. That is absolutely true.

My father devoted his life as a public school teacher in Burnaby to supporting young people and making sure that they could fulfil every bit of potential that they had in their lives and that they had the support and the foundation, the building blocks, of a great public education to get there.

The member's question, though, was about whether government is continuing to fund education. I am happy to report that, indeed, government is continuing to fund education — at record levels, no less — in British Columbia. The average per-pupil operating grant during the school year is the highest level at $8,654 per student. That's a 36 percent increase over 2001. Over the past 13 years we've increased annual funding by $1 billion. That's over a period of time where the number of students in the system has declined by 70,000 overall.

Can we continue to do better? Absolutely. That's why this week we've announced how we want to re-engineer our secondary and post-secondary system and create a new blueprint for the future to make sure that we can continue to produce the graduates, the young people who can fulfil every ounce of potential that they can.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Almost 2,000 specialized teachers lost in the time of this government. I mean, in the Premier's own riding, for every dollar they add, they take $3 away. The result of that is….

Interjections.

A. Dix: You know, it's not students in grade 4. It's not students in grade 4.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: They don't want to hear this because they're contemptuous of parents and teachers in public education. Their contempt was shown in the evidence before the B.C. Supreme Court. That's where their contempt was shown.

It wasn't a child in grade 4 that caused the government's incompetent hydro rate policies that are costing money in public education this year, but….

Interjections.

A. Dix: There they go again, hon. Speaker. They don't want to hear about it. They don't want to hear about the government's policies leading to the laying off of teachers and speech pathologists. At a time when students need outstanding education more than ever, they are being let down by their government.

Those parents, those teachers and those students are being let down by their government. How is it good for public education in school district 23, apparently represented by the Premier, to cut $70 in per-pupil funding every year that they have to find in the classroom — per student? How does that make it better? How does that increase the possibility of going from learner to earner?

[1415]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as is often the case, the reality differs quite differently from the member's perception of it here in British Columbia. B.C. students rank No. 1 of any province in the country in reading and science and are second only to Quebec in math, according to the OECD data.

How did we get there? How did we get to amongst the best results of anyplace in Canada and amongst the best results of anywhere in the world? It's because we have historically high levels of funding per student across the province. It's because class sizes in British Columbia haven't gone up, on average, since 2001. It's because we are the only jurisdiction across the country that tracks class sizes consistently across the province. It's because we have some of the richest data by which we can track how well students are doing, through our FSA tests, all across the province.

We track it, we look at the outcomes, and we ensure that they continue to improve. For example, when you look at the number of special needs students that are graduating, it's increased by 166 percent. The number of aboriginal students who are graduating increased by 103 percent.

We're very proud of those results. We get them because we measure, we track results, we change what we're doing based on the results so that we are always striving to do better, and we continue to make huge investments, on behalf of the people of this province, in the future of this province in our education system.

R. Fleming: I think what we've learned is that the Premier's definition of huge increases is five years of frozen funding to the operating grants of education in British Columbia. The ministry's own data shows that B.C.'s public schools lost 340 classroom teachers last year. This year, despite B.C. student enrolment projecting to
[ Page 3298 ]
grow, school boards are being forced to cut 350 more teachers and teaching assistants.

This government has lost twice in the Supreme Court over the class-size issue. There are 16,000 classrooms in B.C. currently over the limits, and next September it will only get worse for returning students because of provincial funding shortfalls. Parents across B.C. are worried, understandably, about their kids' education as they learn about cuts to teachers; to school libraries; to supports for kids with special needs, kids who are learning English.

When will the Minister of Education assume his responsibility for taking resources out of B.C.'s classroom and start working with school districts so that our kids have the very best education system and chances in life instead of it getting worse under this budget?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Well, the members opposite complain about what's wrong with education. The Premier has clearly articulated what's right with it. Number one, the outcomes in British Columbia are the best in the country and recognized around the world.

Let's talk about investment. All-day kindergarten to give children a great start on their education — $120 million invested in all-day kindergarten. We have also invested in a learning improvement fund that has hired 500 more teachers, that has hired 400 more educational assistants, that has allowed for more hours of educational assistants in classrooms. The results speak for themselves.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister can make up reality all he wants. The current reality in communities….

[1420]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

R. Fleming: I think members across the way should listen to it, because these are communities they represent.

The reality is that in places like Delta and Maple Ridge, school districts are planning to cut supports for children who are learning English and children with special needs. Maple Ridge has seen the number of special needs students increase by 16 percent since 2008. In Delta the number of English language learners has increased by 10 percent. And just as more kids need government's help, this government is forcing school districts into funding shortfalls.

Can the Minister of Education explain to his colleagues as well as to parents in Delta and Maple Ridge why his government is cutting supports for their children and taking away their chance to do their very best in school and get a job in the future?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I've already spoken about the investments we've made in all-day kindergarten, in the learning improvement fund to help with special needs throughout the province. I also recognize that we have clearly said that what's important in this province is that we make the right choices within a fiscal framework that's going to ensure the integrity of our educational system. But $1 billion a year since 2001 invested in education is a significant proof of this government's commitment to education.

I challenge the boards around the province every time I speak to them to work with us, to find the ways to ensure that they balance their budgets and maintain the priorities of a quality education. We work with teachers, we work with parents, and we work with students to ultimately ensure the positive outcomes that the Premier's already spoken about.

S. Robinson: Can the minister recommend which of these positions should be cut so that the Coquitlam school district can balance its budget: three psychologists, four speech and language pathologists, two behaviour specialists, two counsellors, five youth workers, 27 class-size and learning support teachers, 27 educational and teaching assistants or 38 teacher-librarians? In fact, there is no choice. Coquitlam is being forced to cut every single one of these positions.

Melissa Hyndes, the chair of the Coquitlam school district, said: "Minister, you have asked us to tighten our belt. In Coquitlam the belt is around our neck, and we are sucking air."

Maybe the minister can suggest what members of this House should tell the parents of children who will lose support services that they depend on because of this government's downloading and chronic underfunding.

Hon. P. Fassbender: When you look at the budget for education in this province, $5.7 billion is invested in a quality education that's proving results. I recognize that school districts have choices to make, as does this government. We work with them every single day. We support them through programs like all-day kindergarten, like our early learning supports that we provide. I know that every district in this province is committed to learning outcomes for students, as we are on this side of the House.

Madame Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: If the minister maybe got out to a few of those budget meetings, he would see that there were absolutely no choices. This is not about choices.

Kyle Parker is a grade 12 Coquitlam student who uses his iPad to communicate. Kyle says his speech pathologist, his skill development teachers and educational as-
[ Page 3299 ]
sistants are helping him to graduate with his peers. All three of these positions are being cut next year.

[1425]

Kyle is one of the lucky ones, as he will graduate this year with the skills he needs to be successful, but those who come after him will not get the same opportunities because of this government's decisions. How is this situation acceptable to this minister?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As this government moves forward in our educational programs, I want to remind the members opposite as well that since 2001, this government has invested $238 million for capital and seismic upgrade programs in this province.

We have continued to invest in programs for early learning. I have said it already: all-day kindergarten has absolutely changed the landscape for young learners as they enter the system.

We continue to focus on learning outcomes. We do the best. We continue to be a leader in the world, and that is because of the hard work of the teachers in the classroom and the commitment of this government to continue to fund education at record levels.

BURNABY SCHOOL DISTRICT
COSTS AND FUNDING

K. Corrigan: Madame Speaker, the Burnaby school district is doing everything right. It has among the lowest administrative costs in the province, stable enrolment, generates significant revenue from its international students and other programs. It's a leader in innovation and has forged many partnerships. Despite being extraordinarily well run, this district is being forced to make up a shortfall by cutting $3 million in services and programs next year.

That means next fall class sizes will increase. There are going to be cuts to aboriginal education, cuts to custodians, cuts to learning resources and major cuts to adult education — to name just a few.

Yesterday the minister acknowledged that Burnaby school district is "doing a great job" and "running a tight ship." If well-run districts like Burnaby are doing everything possible to keep costs low and generate revenue yet are still being forced to make millions of dollars worth of cuts, how can the minister and the Premier claim that this government is adequately investing in the future of British Columbia's children?

Hon. P. Fassbender: For the member from Burnaby, I would like to maybe bring some facts to the table. I know they're hard to understand, but let me be very clear. In 2001 and 2002 the per-pupil funding in the Burnaby school district was $5,926. In 2013-2014 it is $7,877. Now, I want to help the member from Burnaby recognize that that is a 32.9 percent increase.

I recognize the good work that the Burnaby school district does on behalf of the children in their school district. I acknowledged that yesterday. I recognize that they're looking at their budget, as we've had to. The reason this government has brought in a balanced budget, has made hard decisions, is to protect the interests of every single taxpayer.

I suspect that the Burnaby school district should be doing exactly the same thing, which they are.

RELEASE OF REPORT ON INVESTIGATION
INTO EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: The Minister of Advanced Education told this House that the government's report on their investigation into executive compensation at Kwantlen University was "due sometime in mid-April."

It's April 30. Where's the report?

[1430]

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite was clearly at the announcement yesterday. He was standing in the back, and none too happy with the fact that we're making generational changes in post-secondary education.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, that's the same question that has been posed, I believe, perhaps about 30 times in a row. The report is forthcoming. It should be delivered to the Minister of Finance in due order.

REPORTING OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: Let's try a question that the minister may have more luck with.

This week we obtained an offer of employment letter for a vice-president at Kwantlen. In addition to $170,000 in salary, she was offered an additional $50,000 in consulting fees, a $50,000 moving allowance, a $20,000 research allowance and "a housing loan," the details of which are to be negotiated.

The total compensation for this VP significantly breaks the government's salary cap rule for the Kwantlen president, let alone a vice-president. Now, we've raised this vice-president's consulting fees before, and the minister said that they were previous to her employment at Kwantlen, yet here they are included in her offer of employment.

Has the minister any explanation for how this happened while he was the vice-chair of the board at Kwantlen?

Hon. A. Virk: Once again, at the risk of sounding even more repetitive, the report that has been asked for by the Minister of Finance is due shortly, and we'll be able to report accordingly.
[ Page 3300 ]

CONSULTATION ON CHANGES
TO AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: Last Wednesday the Agriculture Minister said that people around the province would get a chance to weigh in on the future of the agricultural land reserve. He said that all options were on the table, "from amending the bill to leaving it alone to removing the bill." Now, something happened, because this week, on Monday, he said that the bill would be "passed prior to the end of this legislative session."

My question is to the Premier. First of all, who's in charge, and can she tell this House if there will in fact be real consultation with the public prior to changes being made to the way we protect agricultural land in this province?

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

The key thing to remember here is that the legislation was introduced to help sustain the farming sector and those who work in it. The main principles of the legislation — which of course, due to House rules, I can't speak to or debate right now — are to help farmers grow their businesses and earn a better living, to support farming families to continue to produce food on our land and, also, to ensure that the Agricultural Land Commission is independent in its decision-making process.

We have worked hard to make sure, over the years, that that has happened, so much so that we now see we have results of nearly $11.7 billion in gross income for the year 2012. We're heading for 2017 at $14 billion in revenue. We see improvements in the amount of money going for meat inspection systems. We see improvements, $6.5 million, for greenhouse carbon tax relief. We have about $900,000 a year in lift for the Agricultural Land Commission — all of this to help sustain and improve farming throughout British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: An interesting answer, just not to the question I asked. My question was about consultation.

The Agriculture Minister promised provincewide consultation and said that all options were open. Then we find out that the minister means, when he says consultation…. He says: "The consultation piece from the public is when I sit down and go through my personal stories that people offer to me."

Will the people of the province actually get a chance to consult and to provide input to the minister, and does the Premier agree that consultation, according to this Minister of Agriculture, means sitting down and reading his e-mails?

[1435]

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, 40 years ago, when the ALR was brought in and ever since then, there's been consultation all the way through. In 2010 the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission went out and consulted throughout British Columbia and produced a report. At the same time, the Auditor General went through and provided a report. Successive Agriculture ministers have gone around and toured the province, including this one, and provided some information back to caucus and colleagues in cabinet as to what to do with farming and agriculture.

In the last few months we've seen that continue, and in the last few weeks I've received hundreds and hundreds of letters, which I have gone through and read. Actually, I was there last night and reading some more letters. They continue to come in.

It's very important to me to understand the pros and cons of the legislation. I'm getting that. I understand there are many people who support the legislation, and why. I also understand there are many people who have issues with the legislation. But notwithstanding any of that, if anybody else has a particular point of view, I'm willing to hear it. I'm open to hearing it and would encourage hearing it. They should send me letters, and I'll continue working on it.

BAN ON SALE OF FLAVOURED TOBACCO

J. Darcy: Tobacco kills over 6,000 British Columbians every year; 30,000 young people in British Columbia will begin smoking this year. Yet our tobacco legislation in British Columbia does not protect youth from the harmful effects of nicotine and tobacco.

Today tobacco companies are carrying out a slick and very aggressive marketing campaign, marketing fruit- and candy-flavoured tobacco products to young people, and unfortunately, it is working. Over half of tobacco users in British Columbia who are young have used flavoured tobacco, and it often serves as a gateway to lifelong cigarette smoking.

In order to protect young people from the serious risks of smoking, we need commitment from this government. The Cancer Society in British Columbia has called for a ban on flavoured tobacco. Ontario and Alberta have already instituted such a ban. The Health Minister said in January: "We…"

Madame Speaker: Pose your question, Member.

J. Darcy: "…certainly have the commitment to correct this problem, because the last thing we want are young people being turned on to smoking."

Will the Minister of Health commit today to banning the sale of flavoured tobacco, as Ontario and Alberta have already done?
[ Page 3301 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, and thank you for your concern and your genuine concern about young people and smoking — a concern that I share.

I think every member in this House agrees that we must do everything we can to reduce the incidence of smoking in the province of British Columbia, particularly among young people. That is why we have among the most restrictive legislation in terms of marketing cigarettes. They are hidden from view. We have an aggressive enforcement campaign to ensure that young people do not smoke cigarettes.

We have said that we will work with the federal government. I've sent two letters to the federal minister on this issue, and I've also said that if the federal government does not take action, we will take action. We are updating our tobacco control strategy. The members opposite I know will agree that the biggest single thing you can do to reduce smoking is to increase the cost of smoking, something we have already done, and we will always continue to look at ways and means of reducing the incidence of smoking, particularly among young people, in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

D. Eby: I rise to tender an offer letter for a vice-president at Kwantlen University.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP OF
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following:

[Scott Hamilton, MLA be appointed as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, replacing Hon. Norm Letnick, MLA;

Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA be appointed as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Health, replacing Hon. Norm Letnick, MLA; and

John Yap, MLA be appointed as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, replacing Hon. Norm Letnick, MLA.]

[1440]

I've provided an advance copy to the official opposition.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Petitions

G. Holman: I'd like to present a petition gathered by the Canadian Federation of University Women in my constituency, 165 signatures calling for the adoption of a comprehensive poverty reduction plan in British Columbia.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have a petition to present from the Canadian Federation of University Women. I have 36 signatures from the area of the North Shore on poverty as well.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members — the Ministry of Education will be followed by, eventually, the Ministry of Social Development. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 19, the Animal Health Act, is to be followed thereafter by committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

On section 6 (continued).

N. Simons: On the advice of the former Agriculture Minister behind me here, I believe we've completed section 6.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

N. Simons: The question I have relates to the temporary licensing. According to the act, the chief vet can issue a temporary licence, with or without conditions, that's valid for no more than three months. Section 11(2)(e) allows for the chief vet to "issue the licence or permit with or without terms or conditions."

My question, really, is just around what the need is for a temporary licence when a regular licence can be issued for a temporary period. In other words, the authority of 11(2)(e) covers what apparently is permitted in 11(2)(d).

The Chair: I understand the member for Richmond-Steveston wishes to make an introduction.
[ Page 3302 ]

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: Earlier this afternoon I introduced to the House a group of 41 students and three teachers from France. They now have arrived, and I wonder if members could join me in welcoming them to the province of British Columbia and to our Legislature.

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Lake: The temporary licence would be in situations where there's a time-limited activity. For instance, a one-day horse sale would be an example of a temporary licence or permit.

When it says "without terms or conditions," a "term" here does not refer to a time span. It refers to the rules under which the permit is issued, the terms and conditions. That "terms and conditions" phrase refers to the rules that the licensee or permittee has to follow.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

N. Simons: It's a similar question. Sort of the same question applies. The chief vet can "do anything under section 11 (2)" with regard to registration, so is there a similar explanation as to why that's added here?

Hon. T. Lake: Sorry, I'm not understanding the question.

The Chair: Can the member repeat the question?

[1450]

N. Simons: Okay. Well, my understanding of the legislation is that the chief vet is permitted to do essentially everything under section 11 with respect to registration. Perhaps the minister can explain why the need for separate….

I might be getting myself confused here, which would not be the first time, I would add, in case anyone would suggest that. I'm sure the minister is likely to. Perhaps if that question isn't clear…. Perhaps it doesn't make sense, and I'll follow up later. So we'll go on.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

N. Simons: The inclusion of subsections (3)(a) and (b), subject to retest, the inclusion of the subsections could potentially lead to delays in taking administrative action. Is that something that the minister has contemplated?

The Chair: Perhaps the member could repeat once again that question as well.

N. Simons: Off to a flying start here, aren't we?

Section (3)(a) and (b), "Before taking an administrative action, the chief veterinarian must provide to the operator (a) a written notice stating," and then there are four more subsections to that, and "(b) a reasonable opportunity to respond, in writing…." I'm just asking about the delay that section (3)(a) and (b) could cause in taking an administrative action.

Hon. T. Lake: These are licensing administrative actions. This section doesn't really refer to disease control, but it's to provide administrative fairness. So if the chief veterinarian is telling an operator to do something, there has to be some fairness in giving the operator a chance to respond.

N. Simons: Can the minister tell us to whom the chief veterinarian reports to?

Hon. T. Lake: Joining us today is our chief veterinary officer, Dr. Jane Pritchard, who is behind me and supporting us today. Dr. Pritchard, as the chief veterinary officer, reports to the Minister of Agriculture.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

N. Simons: In this section 15: "(4) The chief veterinarian must provide written reasons for an action taken under subsection (3)…and a person may not request further reconsideration." My question really relates to whether or not there's any further review provided anywhere else in the legislation.

[1455]

Hon. T. Lake: These decisions are on applications for licences, including fur farms, game farms, livestock dealer, livestock agent, public sale yard, slaughterhouse. Those are examples of the licences that are issued under the Animal Health Act.

The chief veterinarian, then, would make a decision. If that decision was in the negative, the applicant would have the ability to request a reconsideration, and then the chief veterinarian must, as the member outlines, provide written responses to that reapplication or that reconsideration.

At the end of the day, the chief veterinarian and the ministry work with the applicant to try to overcome any obstacles that they may have in terms of meeting the requirements. But if at the end of the day, after reconsideration, the request is denied, then there is no recourse.

N. Simons: Just to clarify, to make sure that I'm clear
[ Page 3303 ]
on this, after considering a request for reconsideration, the chief veterinarian may take, as applicable, one or more of the actions described. But then it seems to me that there's almost like.... It seems a bit unfair in terms of administrative fairness that an important decision like this would not be allowed to be presented again for an opportunity for reconsideration.

Does it appear to the minister that it's somewhat abrupt that a person's access to reconsideration is somewhat limited?

Hon. T. Lake: Historically, we have not run into a situation where this was a problem for applicants. At the end of the day, there is a reconsideration that is considered in this legislation, but having gone through that process, the applicant obviously is owed a decision, and that decision is then made. It's not a never-ending process.

These are yearly applications, so if there was a concern that the applicant had that they could not overcome, they certainly could address that and apply for that licence in the following year.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

N. Simons: This is clearly one of the sections that has caused the most consternation among individuals who are independent and who consider issues around privacy and personal privacy and protection of information. Can the minister explain the rationale behind section 16, how it relates to or how it may compare with other legislation in other provinces and whether or not in fact the restrictions on the access to information by the Privacy Commissioner are different here than in other provinces?

[1500]

Hon. T. Lake: I know this is a section that did cause some concern the last time the legislation was presented. I think at that time it was explained. So I'll explain again the necessity of having confidence in the system to ensure that producers are supplying information that would protect the public health and protect the health of the industry. When reporting information related to animal disease, it's really critical that government have that information quickly and accurately in order to take the necessary steps to contain any spread of disease.

Section 16 was not done lightly by any stretch of the imagination. It mirrors very closely what the federal government policy is and is similar to other jurisdictions like Ontario, whereby this information is protected to ensure the confidence of producers to submit information necessary to prevent the spread of disease.

N. Simons: According to the Office of the Information Privacy Commissioner — in fact, the Privacy Commissioner herself:

"The bill will prevent public access to information about animal disease reporting and testing by exempting information collected in the administration of the Animal Health Act from the access-to-information provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FIPPA. As a result, journalists, citizens and researchers would never be able to examine the manner in which government is managing its responsibilities under this new act."

Could the minister perhaps provide clarification and explanation if that's not in fact true?

Hon. T. Lake: Under section 16 the categories of information that are protected are outlined in section 16(1)(a) through (f). There is a balance that needs to be struck to ensure that the public has information and the right to information and also the necessary protection of public health, as well as protection of the producer and the industry involved.

The fact is that people's livelihoods are at stake — not just on an individual basis but on a provincewide and, in fact, nationwide basis — if this information is to be disclosed at the wrong or inopportune time.

Having said that, section 25 of FIPPA says that information has to be released if it's in the public interest, and that's why section 16(2) is there — to reflect that mandatory release of information by the minister, if it is in the public interest.

N. Simons: Obviously, the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers and food producers are essential. But at the same time, so is the right of the public to be informed of issues that impact them and actions that their government is taking on their behalf.

In the words of Elizabeth Denham:

"Government proposes this broad exemption despite the carefully balanced set of access-to-information provisions and exemptions already present in FIPPA which protect both the public's right to know and a person's legitimate business interests and right to privacy. This balance is the result of policy and legislative decisions originally adopted by unanimous vote of the Legislature and fine-tuned over FIPPA's 20-year history."

[1505]

Can the minister explain how he believes that the Privacy Commissioner is incorrect, that this balance is not the correct balance and that, in fact, further protections of the public are required through better access to information?

Hon. T. Lake: Under the FIPPA act in B.C., information supplied to government can only be protected under the following criteria. That's, first of all, that the information is scientific or technical in nature. Secondly, the information is submitted in confidence to government. Those two are reasonable and easily met. The third relates to information in commercial or financial situations of a third party where it's believed that undue financial loss or gain could arise from the release of the information or that similar information would not be supplied
[ Page 3304 ]
to government when it is in the public interest to receive such information.

That, I guess, is the crux of it. The first two can be met. The last criteria can be difficult to meet to the satisfaction of those people that are interpreting FIPPA, and that is, essentially, the concern — that producers that read FIPPA don't have the confidence necessary to understand that that information critical to their business, to their livelihood and to the industry would not be released.

Government needs to ensure the confidence of the industry and the producers. If they feel like the information is not going to be held confidential, the result will be lack of information submitted and a lack of an ability to react to an outbreak of a disease, whether it's an animal disease or potentially a human disease.

One of the prime goals of this legislation is to prevent the spread of disease and protect individual producers, protect industry and protect public health, so it is absolutely critical that the confidence of producers to submit samples is maintained. That is why we have done this, and that is why the federal government has a similar legislative approach in their legislation as well and, also, why we respect section 25 of FIPPA, where it is in the public interest that that information can be released by the minister.

N. Simons: Can the minister provide any evidence that the current system in place is incapable of protecting the interests of farmers and the public?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly, what we have found in the experience to date is that when producers do not have confidence in the system, they will submit anonymized samples, so they can't be tracked back to the place of origin. Or they will send samples out of the country, to the United States, where they feel they have confidence that that information will not be released. We lose when that happens. We lose the ability to react and respond to a potential disease outbreak.

N. Simons: I appreciate the answer. I'm just wondering if the minister can provide any examples of that occurring.

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: In fact, what we have had are instances of fish farms that would send samples to private labs in the United States. If there was to be a potential disease associated with those samples, the first time the government would hear about it would be when the border closes to those products. You can imagine that that is not really in the interests of the industry or the province. Again, I want to stress it's critical that the information get to the provincial veterinarian and to the Ministry of Agriculture as quickly as possible in order to protect the industry and protect the public.

N. Simons: Well, it's a laudable goal, I know, but I wonder if in fact there are incidents of fish farms sending test samples to U.S. labs or other labs where they have not been also sent to British Columbia labs. Is this the issue at hand? Is the issue that it's happened in the past that the chief veterinarian officer did not get informed of a disease? I'm just looking for examples and less of the hypothetical what-ifs. How is this justified by what's happened already?

Hon. T. Lake: This is, in fact, what had happened in the past, so it is an example of what would continue to happen if we did not instil confidence in the industry in the confidentiality of the information submitted. This is why it is so critical that we have the confidence of industry in terms of confidentiality — so that we can take action immediately when there is a suspected disease that needs to be controlled.

N. Simons: Is there an example of an industry not reporting to the province because they're afraid that the province will disclose the information publicly?

Hon. T. Lake: I apologize if I wasn't clear in my last answer. Yes, in the fish farm industry this is what has happened, because under the existing legislative framework we have, there is a lack of confidence that the information will be held confidential.

N. Simons: So fish farms had notifiable, reportable diseases, and the government found out that they didn't report it, and somehow we're left with legislation to address their concerns. It seems to me that the minister has said that they didn't report it because the protection of that information would be vulnerable. Now, is that in fact the case — that the concern of industry was that they wouldn't report to the province before because they were worried that that information would become public because of the actions of government?

Hon. T. Lake: My understanding is that information was released because of a freedom-of-information request. That put a chill in the producers' confidence in submitting samples, so samples were submitted elsewhere, leaving the province out of the information loop and out of the loop in terms of protecting the industry, protecting the public.

There are no examples that I am aware of where a notifiable or reportable disease was diagnosed elsewhere, through this evasion, if you like, of the provincial system. But it's certainly not desirable to have a sample sent somewhere else and then not have the ability to act quickly to limit the spread of any potential disease.

N. Simons: Samples were sent to U.S. labs, information became public because somehow that information was accessed through freedom of information, and the
[ Page 3305 ]
government's response is to say: "Don't do that again. If you report to us, we won't tell anyone." Is that essentially it? "Don't worry. You can tell us. Don't keep sending your stuff to the U.S. Don't send it to private labs. Just send it to us, because we have this cone of silence here in the ministry."

[1515]

Hon. T. Lake: What we're saying to industry is: "We understand why you need confidence in the system." We need to create a system in which confidence is generated and reinforced in order to protect the public and to protect the agricultural industry here in British Columbia.

Under the current regime that confidence was eroded. Therefore, other measures were taken by industry so that they would not take the risk of information being released. Now, when the member says: "Don't worry about it. We're not going to do anything with it. We're not going to release this information…." Of course the information is critical. As the member is well aware, this information is critical. So when that information comes into the province, if it indicates a notifiable or reportable disease, we can immediately take action which will prevent the spread of disease from animal to animal or from animal to human.

Having confidence in the system is absolutely tantamount in this legislation. Without it, the legislation just doesn't work. We've seen examples of this over time in the agricultural industry, where producers fear that by coming forward and being open and working with government to ensure that their animals are disease-free…. If they don't have that confidence, if they fear that information will be allowed to hurt their business, they will not have the confidence to submit those specimens.

The member may be aware of the phrase "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." Unfortunately, over the years in agriculture, in places other than British Columbia, we are pretty sure that goes on sometimes. Governments around the world, when they're looking at disease control, recognize that that happens. So we need to engender confidence in producers that that information will be submitted on a confidential basis, that action will be taken if that information shows that there's a notifiable or reportable disease, and if it is in the interests of the public, then that information will be released under FIPPA.

N. Simons: I accept that explanation. I think it's a question of balance. It's always a question of balance. Perhaps I would err on a different side of that centre line, and that's fair. But it's not really necessarily about my opinion either.

I wonder. We have other options as well — mandatory testing. One could provide incentives for the reporting of incidents. I haven't put a ton of thought into other options, but someone who has is the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who says that section 21 of FIPPA "prevents the disclosure of commercial information where that disclosure could be harmful to the business interests of a third party."

That's just one angle. The other possibility is that we do have independent scientists, as well, in this province. I think we as the public rely on a number of tiered controls and checks and balances, as it were.

My concern is that perhaps everything gets funnelled into a system where that information becomes fairly secret. I do think that the Information and Privacy Commissioner…. It's possible under this act to have at least some oversight — not to say that you must release this information or not but to provide guidance and advice from her experience, or from the experience of someone filling that position, that we are in fact taking the concerns of the general public and their right to know into consideration as well.

I'm wondering if the examples that the minister provided with respect to fish farms were provided to the commissioner as an explanation and whether or not that was discussed.

[1520]

Hon. T. Lake: I think when we're comparing British Columbia with other jurisdictions, it's important to understand that some other jurisdictions don't have their own veterinary labs, government labs. They will use private labs, and those private labs don't fall under FOIPPA, or a FIPPA type of legislation.

In fact, if a private lab was doing this testing for us here in British Columbia, we wouldn't even have this discussion, because they wouldn't be subject to FIPPA. But we have a highly respected veterinary pathology lab in Abbotsford here in British Columbia. This section applies because we are doing that testing in a highly regarded government laboratory, and so FIPPA must apply.

What we're saying is that under this act, section 16(1)(a) to (f) protects that information. However, we recognize that where it is in the public interest, section 25 of FIPPA would still apply.

We are not trying to prevent the public from knowing information when we know it is in their interest to know it. But we are trying to instil as much confidence as humanly possible in the agricultural industry to send their samples to this highly respected government lab and to know that they will have the confidence of the confidentiality of that lab, rather than sending it out of province or to a private laboratory where the same high standards don't apply.

N. Simons: Well, I appreciate that we do have the highest quality of laboratory facilities and that our provincial services must meet very high academic standards. My question is about the…. Does the chief veterinary officer have complete autonomy in the lab? Can that person set the goals and objectives of that laboratory? And is it ever subject to government oversight that could influence the direction or the focus of its work?
[ Page 3306 ]

Hon. T. Lake: While Dr. Pritchard is very learned and very capable, she's not all-powerful, I understand. The laboratory is accredited by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians as well as Standards Council of Canada ISO 17025, which pertains to diagnostic labs. There is an advisory committee as well.

These types of laboratories are highly structured and regulated in terms of their accreditation purposes. Of course, Dr. Pritchard is very involved in the workings of the lab. They have to meet the standards of these two accreditation bodies.

N. Simons: Thank you for that response. I have absolutely no doubt of the veracity of your response. My question, though, has to do with the standards that you mentioned, the ISO standards. Are there other labs in British Columbia accredited to that degree by those same two governing bodies?

[1525]

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that we are one of only three veterinary laboratories in Canada that have the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians accreditation, the other two being veterinary colleges at University of Guelph and at Saint-Hyacinthe in Montreal. I'm disappointed to learn that my alma mater of University of Saskatchewan is not one of them that is accredited at this time.

N. Simons: Duly noted. That's good to know. It's interesting. Has that accreditation been ongoing for years? Is this an accreditation that's been maintained? Has it ever been lost?

The Chair: I think the Chair is allowing a lot of latitude on a section that deals with the protected information, but I'll let the minister answer the question.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. I'm happy to, because we're very proud of our provincial veterinary laboratory. It has been accredited for ten years and just received another five-year accreditation.

N. Simons: I do appreciate the latitude, once I was reminded of it. I do think that there are some concerns. According to the commissioner, and to give her due attention, obviously…. This is a person who's got experience and expertise. She notes that there hasn't been an example given to her that has contradicted the purpose of…. Like, there has been not an incident.

I'm trying to find the quote. It's going take me too long, and the latitude previously afforded me will suddenly end. But I do believe that the minister probably understands my question. If, in fact, the act as it stands hasn't been fundamentally a problem, why make it even stronger?

Hon. T. Lake: While we have deep respect for the chief Information and Privacy Commissioner, we sometimes disagree. In fact, it was her adjudicator that allowed release of information that resulted in an erosion of confidence on the part of producers to submit samples.

There is an example whereby a ruling of her office, under the current regime, led to an erosion of confidence in the system. Again, what we are trying to do here is make sure that confidence has been baked into this legislation so that we do in fact have the ability to have the earliest information about notifiable and reportable diseases to protect the public and to protect the industry.

N. Simons: I think that there is the balance of protecting the rights of industry, and there are obvious, important concerns. I worry about the erosion of their confidence in the system. I'm equally concerned about the erosion of confidence of the public in the system. That's, I suppose, where that balance needs to be found.

The commissioner made some recommendations with respect to addressing both her concerns as well as the concerns of government. This is where I have the biggest problem. I don't understand why legislative drafting couldn't be done in such a way as to accommodate the learned opinions of all parties and find a way in which to address those somewhat competing but fundamentally similar concerns.

The commissioner suggested, in fact, "…narrow exemptions that preserve the jurisdiction of access-to-information legislation by either deeming the information supplied by farmers to be commercial information and to have been supplied in confidence" — as they do in Ontario — "or by narrowly exempting specific provisions of access-to-information legislation" — as they've done in Alberta.

Can the minister tell us if those other jurisdictions' examples were examined and in fact why they might have been dismissed?

[1530]

Hon. T. Lake: No model is exactly the same, because each province is a little bit different in terms of the laboratories they have. As I mentioned, in Alberta they don't have a government lab, so their samples are not subject to the government FIPPA laws. In fact, if the situation in B.C. was the same as Alberta, we wouldn't have the necessity of this section.

Ontario is probably closest. The Ontario Animal Health Act is fully exempted from their FIPPA — at least the sections comparable to our sections 16(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e). And as I mentioned, the federal government does exempt it as well.

This legislation that we are presenting is very, very similar to legislation federally and similar to legislation in Ontario. The member is right. It's about balance. It's about what is the public interest versus the public right
[ Page 3307 ]
to know. The minister has the ability to release information when it is in the public interest.

We have landed in a place where we feel this gives us the best balance between protecting information as well as the public's right to know and protecting individuals and their livelihoods, the industry and its livelihood, and public health. So many new emerging diseases are, in fact, those that come from animals to man, and it's critical, absolutely critical, that we get that information.

If you don't have the confidence, as I mentioned earlier, that information is not submitted to the government laboratory. The government laboratory is subject to FIPPA, whereas a private laboratory is not.

We have to make sure that the producer has the same level of confidence in terms of confidentiality of the information when supplying it to a government lab as they would outside of government, which would be the alternative they would tend to take if they didn't have that confidence.

N. Simons: I'm curious as to how industry would provide samples to non-accredited laboratories and have those tests be acceptable to anyone other than the three labs we were talking about that were accredited. Can the minister clarify?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, the University of Saskatchewan has a veterinary college, a proud institution that produces excellent veterinarians.

N. Simons: And politicians.

Hon. T. Lake: And politicians.

They have an excellent pathology lab, but it is not accredited by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians. But the Saskatchewan government would rely upon that information from that lab to exercise disease control measures.

[1535]

Not every lab has to be accredited to the level that our B.C. lab is, but the information is still credible. The government has to decide their comfort level with the credibility of the lab. I know the government of Saskatchewan is very confident in the credibility of the lab at the University of Saskatchewan, despite the fact that it isn't accredited to the level that the B.C. lab is.

N. Simons: One of the things that we sort of rely on as a society is independent science to balance official science. Without in any way demeaning the scientific credibility of anyone, second opinions are often sought, and opinions from independent scientists are often sought.

In a province where there's sometimes a perception that certain industries are promoted more than others and certain balances of concern are on one side or the other of an issue — for example, in the area of fish farming in this province; it's a controversial issue and one that brings a lot of people into political action — if in fact the province has sort of a monopoly over information, if independent scientists don't have access to this information, can we truly be confident at all times? Are we supposed to go into this sort of a "just trust us" scenario?

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly for research purposes, anonymized data can be supplied to any scientists if they make an application for data. But in terms of the information that would track that back to a location or to a person or a producer, that is withheld, subject to the legislation that we see today. So I guess there has to be a level of trust that the government is looking after the interests of the public.

I'm not questioning the member or accusing the member of saying that the people working in our laboratory would be anything but objective. I think I understand the member's concern that there would be a tendency to protect a certain industry.

I think that is an unfounded concern, given the professionals that are working in the veterinary laboratory division of the Ministry of Agriculture and given the accreditation and the reputation that they rely upon to be accredited. They are obviously very proud. They're professionals. They're upheld to a very high standard. I can assure the member that there would be no ability or tendency to want to favour any particular type of industry when supplying information to government that would protect the public and protect the agriculture industry.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for that response. I have scientist relatives who work for various governments, and I would not in any way doubt their sincerity or their commitment to their work. But I would point out to the minister: yes, we like to trust governments, but we also have safeguards that are put in place, including the Representative for Children and Youth, including an Auditor General and including an Information and Privacy Commissioner. I think that a better balance could have been found.

As a member of the official opposition, it's my duty to make whatever efforts I can to push legislation, nudge it if I can, to try and make it slightly better. With that, I propose an amendment to Bill 19, amending section 16 by striking out subsection (2).

[To amend section 16 of the Act by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough:

16 (1) Except as permitted under section 17 [duty to keep information confidential] or 18 [personal information], a person described in section 17 (1) or 18 (1) must refuse to disclose the following:

(a) information that would identify a person responsible for an animal or for an animal product or byproduct;

(b) information that would identify an animal or an animal product or byproduct that is located at or in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle;

(c) information that would identify a specific place at which an animal or an animal product or byproduct is located;

(d) information that would reveal that a notifiable or
[ Page 3308 ]
reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle;

(e) information that would reveal that an animal or an animal product or byproduct affected by a notifiable or reportable disease is

(i) located at or in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle, or

(ii) owned, or in the custody or control of, an identifiable person or body, or that an identifiable person or body is an operator in relation to the animal or the animal product or byproduct;

(f) information that is derived from a sample taken under this Act or that is submitted to the ministry of the minister or a laboratory identified in an order of the minister.

(2) Despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a person who would otherwise be required under that Act to disclose information described in subsection (1) of this section is not required to disclose the information except as required under section 25 of that Act.]

Now, while that might be not the most fine-tuned amendment, it is one that I think brings attention to my concern and the concern of my colleagues and those interested in ensuring that the balance is appropriate.

[1540]

I think that it's an opportunity to correct what I think is a flaw in the legislation and provide the government with an opportunity to correct that flaw, to address the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner who, from her expert position, believes is the appropriate balance to be struck.

The Chair: The amendment is in order. Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

N. Simons: Well, thank you for the latitude. I thought I just spoke to it, my concerns. As I mentioned, I believe that by striking out subsection (2) of section 16, that we, in fact, do not exempt anyone from reporting. I believe that the Information and Privacy Commissioner's role and responsibility and the legislation under which she acts would maintain its robustness.

I hope that the government considers this, and if not, maybe in the future we'll have an opportunity to possibly strengthen the legislation or make it even more precise, as it were, to ensure that the balance, if not at first try, becomes better at the second try.

Hon. T. Lake: I would speak against the amendment and for reasons that I mentioned earlier. I appreciate the member's sincerity, and I would just say that I disagree in terms of where the balance is. This is about protecting the public. I understand that the member is concerned about the public's right to know, and that is why, when it is in the public interest, this legislation says the minister can release that information in the public interest. But above all, this is about protecting people.

Look at the outbreaks of SARS that cost the Ontario economy billions and billions of dollars. Look at avian influenza, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the poultry industry here in British Columbia. Look at emerging zoonotic diseases that have the potential to spread from animals to man and cause extreme morbidity and mortality in the human population. When you're looking at protecting public health, it is critical that information be submitted in a timely way, with confidence for producers.

When you know what happens when you don't have this confidence, when you know that the result of that is that people go around the system and prevent a robust animal disease control system.... When that is the consequence of what the member would want to do, I strongly, strongly speak against that. So I would say that we will vote against the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the amendment proposed by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

[1545-1550]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 3309 ]
The Chair: The committee will take a brief recess for the return of staff.

The committee recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The Chair: We are currently considering section 16.

N. Simons: Would that mean we're on section 17, just for clarification?

The Chair: We actually haven't passed section 16. So if you've got any further questions on 16….

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

N. Simons: Some new subsections were added to enable the sharing of information outside of British Columbia, permitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 33.1(1)(c).

[1555]

Can the minister just explain what those changes entail and whether or not, in fact, this leaves some of the decision-making to the minister, him or herself, as the case may be, in the future?

Hon. T. Lake: This section was added so that information may be disclosed outside of B.C. for the purposes of subsection (2). That is consistent with the Public Health Act, to allow information-sharing with other jurisdictions. This is permitted under FOIPPA, section 33.1(1)(c).

N. Simons: I'm still recovering from the defeat of my amendment, so bear with me. I was expecting something else.

The concern raised by the commissioner…. Again, we're talking about privacy and protected information, so that requires that I talk about this particular section a little bit more. Is it possible…? Maybe I misheard, but is there any oversight, from any independent commission or anything, of a minister's decision as to what to tell the public either in the moment or later on?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, the minister is responsible for making decisions about the release of information that is in the interests of the public. Having said that, the Privacy Commissioner can go back and look at those decisions and, while the Privacy Commissioner cannot reverse the decision, can provide an opinion to the minister as to the nature of the decision-making and provide recommendations for future use and release of information.

N. Simons: Well, let's hope her future advice is heeded, as the case may be, in circumstances where it's merited.

This subsection (3) says: "For greater certainty, information may be disclosed outside British Columbia for the purposes of subsection (2) regardless of whether there is a threat to animal health or public health, or to an animal's health or a person's health, in British Columbia." Can the minister explain why that's in this act?

[1600]

Hon. T. Lake: This is about information-sharing. As mentioned, the Public Health Act is similar, in that information is shared among jurisdictions that informs decision-making and research in other jurisdictions.

Again, it says "may be disclosed," and, of course, there would be discretion in that. But it may be disclosed. Information may be shared for the purposes of informing other jurisdictions and increasing protection of livestock, agriculture and the public.

N. Simons: Can the minister provide an example of situations where that would be important to do, just for clarification?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I was just hoping beyond hope that I would get the opportunity to talk about porcine epidemic diarrhea, so I am. It's a coronavirus, which is a small virus that infects the intestinal tract of pigs. There's an outbreak throughout North America that is causing some real concern, so it's important for us to be able to share information about the results of our tests, which are negative, and the way we test.

We can share that information with other jurisdictions, and that helps in their efforts to reduce the spread of that PED. The benefit is that by sharing that information, we actually help to prevent the spread of disease and prevent it in some way from coming to British Columbia as well.

N. Simons: Could it be said that the commissioner's concerns that there's no oversight by her office or anyone else to make sure that the government is disclosing information in the public interest…? Is that one of those situations where we should just rest assured that government knows best and it's doing what they can? Or is there some other oversight that can reassure the public that they'll be provided information with respect to issues addressed in this section?

Hon. T. Lake: The commissioner had some concerns about the section that we passed earlier. This section is, in fact, permitted under FOIPPA section 33.1 that I mentioned earlier.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.
[ Page 3310 ]

On section 19.

N. Simons: The minister has added that the act has included timelines. Can he explain what the timelines requested refers to in section 19?

[1605]

Hon. T. Lake: The timelines would vary depending on the situation. There would be situations in which it would be very urgent to get that information.

An example would be where there is a disease suspected that is transmitted vertically — in other words, from the mother to the offspring. If a producer, for instance, had a disease in a herd and if this was a disease that could be transmitted from the cow to the calf and if the calf had been sold, we would want to know that information as to where that calf was — essentially immediately.

The inspector would put a tighter timeline on the request for information than they would under other circumstances.

Sections 19 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

N. Simons: This section refers to the reason for seizure, slaughter or destruction. I'm just going to ask a question with respect to some changes that apparently were made. Why were those changes made from the previous version of this bill?

Hon. T. Lake: The cancellation of an operator's licence in the former proposed legislation was grounds for seizure of an animal. That is no longer the case. It seemed a bit heavy-handed, so that was removed. Abandoned animals are not seized unless they pose a risk to animal or human health. Again, that is a change because we felt that was outside the realm of this legislation.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

N. Simons: Because of the potential disruption of such an order, the legislative changes also seem to have occurred between the bill as it was previously introduced and then as it is now — specifically, the new subsection (5) which allows for the person receiving an animal or product or by-product disposed of under section 30(2)(b) to slaughter or destroy, regardless of why it was originally seized. Is that a fundamental change, or is it simply something that was omitted in the first version of this bill?

[1610]

Hon. T. Lake: This section 30 identifies what may be seized by the chief veterinarian, and then, when the chief veterinarian has seized the item, the veterinarian may return or dispose of the animal, animal product, by-product or whatever it was that was confiscated. The order may specify the manner of disposal, including destruction or sale.

Subsection (4) allows the chief veterinarian to seize and dispose of an abandoned animal without confirmation of a reportable disease or exposure to a reportable disease, and subsection (5) was added to ensure that a person who purchases a disposed item that was seized by the chief veterinarian and then acquires full rights to it can further dispose of it as they see fit. If they are to be in possession of a seized item and acquire the rights to that item, they have the ability to dispose of it as they see fit.

Sections 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

N. Simons: Mr. Chair, 36 is referring to deemed control zones and gives the minister quite a significant amount of authority. I wonder if that's something that could potentially be an issue that…. Once again, the apparent lack of oversight with respect to the minister's discretion — is that something that's standard in legislation like this, or is British Columbia creating itself a super powerful minister?

Hon. T. Lake: No, this is not an unusual power for the minister to have. It is to prevent a reportable or notifiable disease from entering B.C. in the first place or to establish or protect an area as being free from a reportable or notifiable disease. These are mechanisms that are employed in disease control elsewhere as well.

Sections 36 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

N. Simons: Can the minister explain what issues around warrants can be made by regulation? I'm just curious as to what would be contained in regulations as it refers to section 56.

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: This allows an inspector to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant "to enter and search a place, including a private dwelling, and take any necessary action…." It says: "…in the manner set out in the regulations…." This allows the development of a form, a standard form, to be used in application to the court for such a warrant.

The Chair: Just for the record, we want to make sure that we have passed section 41.
[ Page 3311 ]

Section 41 approved.

Sections 56 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

N. Simons: Here's another section which refers directly to issues around concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. Section 60:

"During an emergency, this Part applies despite any provision of this or any other enactment, including, (a) in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act, and (b) in respect of a specific person or thing, a provision that would impose a specific duty, limit or procedural re-
[ Page 3312 ]
quirement, to the extent there is any inconsistency or conflict with the provision or other enactment."

This is the same section that was introduced in Bill 37 in 2012, and the commissioner, I believe, made a request that government delete this section. I'm just wondering if, in fact, the minister considered that and what the results were of any conversations he may have had on that in that regard.

Hon. T. Lake: As mentioned earlier, while this Animal Health Act on the surface may seem to be about animal disease — and, of course, a large part of it is about protecting animals from disease — it's also about protecting humans from disease that may originate in animals. This Animal Health Act will work in concert with the Public Health Act, and this section actually mirrors, almost word for word, the wording in the Public Health Act.

Again, it is important that these two acts work in concert to not only protect the spread of disease from animal to animal but from animal to human as well.

N. Simons: Now, I understand that, and I understand the importance of acting in a sometimes more urgent way when there are emergent issues as defined under the act. My specific concern or issue that I think needs to be raised is that there is the possibility of, as the minister himself mentioned, the ability for the commissioner to go back and make sure that everything was done in a way that protected people's privacy and protected the public interest. There was an opportunity to do just that.

I think that the commissioner, perhaps, should have the authority to oversee the emergency actions being taken that are outside of the regular provisions of this act, just to make sure that the public can have confidence that the purpose and intent of the legislation is adhered to, while at the same time making sure that the protection of the public is respected. Can the minister explain why, perhaps, the Privacy Commissioner isn't given that authority now?

Hon. T. Lake: The Privacy Commissioner isn't responsible for the health of the public — or the health of animals, in this case.

[1620]

The conditions to be met before an emergency is defined are outlined in section 59. This is where the chief veterinarian believes that one or more areas of the province have two of the following criteria existing in that part of the province: the presence or suspected presence of a reportable disease that could have a serious impact on public or animal health; there is immediate and/or significant risk of spread of the reportable disease; the incidence of the reportable disease is unusual or unexpected; there is significant risk of travel or trade restrictions as a result of the presence or suspected presence of the reportable disease.

In other words, these are extremely serious situations, and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture are responsible for protecting the public and protecting the agriculture industry under these emergent conditions. That is why we feel that it is necessary to have the same level of protection of the information under the Public Health Act and the Animal Health Act.

N. Simons: Well, I'm not suggesting in any way that the commissioner could suspend or delay or intervene in situations that have been defined as emergency. I'm simply suggesting that once an emergency situation has passed, perhaps that commissioner would have the opportunity to review it to ensure that the public good was protected.

In no way am I suggesting that the commissioner would have any say as to whether something is healthy or if there's a threat to human or animal health. I'm simply saying that in that sphere perhaps the commissioner could have some oversight as to how information is used or collected.

Hon. T. Lake: This section says: "During an emergency, this Part applies…." After an emergency is over, as mentioned previously, the commissioner certainly would have the opportunity to review decisions made by ministers in regard to release of information and provide recommendations to ministers as to her view of the appropriateness of the decision.

N. Simons: As is my proclivity, I believe that this is an opportunity to provide a little more strength to the protection of public interest, so I propose an amendment to section 60, which would add a paragraph.

[To amend section 60 of the Act by adding the text shown as underlined:

60 (1) During an emergency, this Part applies despite any provision of this or any other enactment, including,

(a) in respect of the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act, and

(b) in respect of a specific person or thing, a provision that would impose a specific duty, limit or procedural requirement, to the extent there is any inconsistency or conflict with the provision or other enactment.

(2) The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is granted the authority to have oversight over the collection, use, and disclosure of the information that takes place during an emergency.]

On the amendment.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, thanks for the opportunity to speak to this amendment. It relates to section 60, emergency powers.

This section "provides that when an emergency is declared by the chief veterinarian" — I'm quoting from Elizabeth Denham, the Privacy Commissioner — "an inspector under the Animal Health Act has unlimited powers for collection, use and disclosure of personal information. These emergency provisions are being proposed without evidence of actual need or evidence that FIPPA and PIPA do not already enable this collection, use and disclosure."

Could the minister comment on that?

The Chair: Member, you have a question? You're just speaking on the amendment.

N. Simons: Yes. Oh, that's true.

Well, that's just more evidence that, in fact, perhaps this kind of provision needs to have safeguards in place. The reason for the amendment would be that there doesn't seem to be evidence that FIPPA and PIPA don't do this job already. That's why this amendment, as proposed, would address this shortcoming.

[1625]

I think that, with concern around the fact that it's…. In emergencies there are instances and situations where a process needs to be adhered to almost more carefully because of the emergency type of situation.

As the commissioner stated, the "powers to collect, use and disclose personal information during an emergency" seem to be actually unlimited — that's my interpretation — and are "susceptible to misuse." The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is set up because it has the jurisdiction to oversee how information is collected, even information that's collected during an emergency.

With that, I think the amendment speaks for itself. Once again, the effort is to put some of the balance back into the act to provide the commissioner with the authority that she carefully manages. I recommend that the House support this amendment.

Hon. T. Lake: I would speak against the amendment. The amendment says, "The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is granted the authority to have oversight over the collection, use, and disclosure of the information that takes place during an emergency" — essentially, taking over the power of a minister of the Crown. In an emergency, that could affect the morbidity and mortality of animals and humans. I think it would be highly inappropriate to abdicate the powers of a minister of the Crown to any other office under such circumstances, so I would argue vehemently against this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 60 approved on division.

Sections 61 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

N. Simons: When the act states that "The minister may, in an emergency, make regulations as follows," how is the minister informed of what decisions are to be made about emergency regulations? How is that process undertaken? How does that process fall out?

Hon. T. Lake: This is a highly unlikely situation, but again, it mirrors the provision in the Public Health Act. So in an emergency there can be exemptions made by the minister through the chief veterinarian.

An example might be an outbreak of an avian disease in a particular area and you have a heritage flock of birds that could be subject to that disease. Because they are in a facility that has biosecurity provisions in place that give confidence to the chief veterinarian that that potential disease could not enter that premise, they would then be exempted from repeat testing, for instance, to ensure that they didn't have the disease.

Again, it would be unusual, but there may be circumstances that would occur in which exemptions would be preferred.

[1630]

Sections 64 to 66 inclusive approved.

On section 67.

N. Simons: Speaking on section 67(2), if the minister may draw his attention to that: "The minister may enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of another jurisdiction…." Can the minister define "another jurisdiction"? Is that any other jurisdiction? Could it be Canadian provinces, territories, or are we talking about United States state authorities? Or just anyone?

Hon. T. Lake: The most likely example of entering into agreements with another jurisdiction would be with the federal government, but it could be another province. For instance, in Alberta, where there's a much larger cattle
[ Page 3313 ]
herd and cattle industry, they may have an interest in participating in control programs in British Columbia, as our calves enter into their market in the feedlot.

This gives flexibility to respond to different situations. Again, it would be probably unusual, but if it were to occur, most likely it would occur with Canada or perhaps a neighbouring province.

N. Simons: Could the minister just repeat that last part? There was some distraction to my left. I won't identify it, but it was slightly louder than my hearing ability was able to contemplate.

Hon. T. Lake: Certainly. I said these would be unusual circumstances, but again, it allows flexibility. Most likely that agreement would be with Canada or with a neighbouring province, like Alberta.

N. Simons: I don't remember having seen a provision in any act that allowed for the creation of agreements with other jurisdictions with such broad strokes. Can the minister give an example? Was the example something to do with trade or something to do with sharing of information over diseases or reportable or notifiable diseases? I'm not sure what situations would require this agreement.

[1635]

Hon. T. Lake: There are other acts that allow us to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions, particularly sharing of information. I'm not aware of other legislation in British Columbia that allows another jurisdiction to administer an act. I'm not aware of that, but I certainly can take that on advisement and try to find an answer and deliver it to you.

N. Simons: It was just surprising to me when I saw it the first time. We're essentially giving another jurisdiction the authority to administer a provincial piece of legislation, and I'm not sure if other jurisdictions would have that authority even if we gave it to them. However, maybe that's a moot point, and if the situation arises where that subsection needs to be deleted, I look forward to that day.

I think those were all my questions on section 67.

Sections 67 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 74.

N. Simons: I just wanted to ask if the minister could explain why the chief veterinarian is specifically not named as immune from legal proceedings. I'm here to support everyone.

Hon. T. Lake: The chief veterinarian is considered an inspector and also a person acting under this act, so they are actually covered in this section.

Section 74 approved.

On section 75.

N. Simons: I don't see a reference to an inspector here, and I once again wonder if the…. Oh, I suppose the chief veterinarian is also a veterinarian. I've answered my own question. Is that appropriate in this case? Okay.

Sections 75 to 92 inclusive approved.

On section 93.

N. Simons: I'm asking a question on section 93 of part 8, "Regulations," with respect to Bill 19, Animal Health Act.

My question: does section 93(1)(d) include wild animals?

Hon. T. Lake: It would include game animals that are regulated activities. It would not include wild animals that are regulated under the Wildlife Act.

N. Simons: Just for clarification, is there any section of this act that relates specifically to wild animals and their interaction with domestic animals?

[1640]

Hon. T. Lake: The wildlife can act as a reservoir for diseases that would spill over into domestic animals, so it's important that they are monitored. A good example would be rabies in bats. If rabies is found in bats, obviously the chief veterinarian is made aware of that. Particularly, if there are diseases that could spread through domestic animals and are found in wild animals, that information would be utilized under this act as well.

Sections 93 to 95 inclusive approved.

On section 96.

N. Simons: Can the minister just explain what…? Specifically, section 96(2), making regulations for the purposes of sections 20 and 21 as follows: "(d) respecting conditions under which a person may be exempted from a requirement to make a report under this Act" — what is that intended to cover?

Hon. T. Lake: This is like a refresher course for me, and it brings back some pretty bad memories from the '80s.

An example of infectious laryngotracheitis. In poultry, for instance, it's an infectious disease, but if there was
[ Page 3314 ]
an outbreak of that particular disease and a producer could prove that his facility had been vaccinated for that particular disease, they could be exempt from mandatory sampling and reporting because the vaccine would show up identical to the actual virus. So there would be essentially no information gleaned from mandatory testing and reporting.

It's a situation where, upon the information provided, a decision would be made to provide an exemption to a producer.

[1645]

N. Simons: I believe that did answer my question. I just wanted to put it on record.

Sections 96 to 99 inclusive approved.

On section 100.

N. Simons: Once again, section 100 appears to leave a lot of discretion to the minister. Is that standard in legislation of this nature?

Hon. T. Lake: This is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that has the regulatory power in this case, which is not unusual in other pieces of legislation.

Sections 100 and 101 approved.

On section 102.

N. Simons: I'm sorry. I only have some notes on this. For some reason my bill was missing this. But with respect to the Bee Act, can the minister explain how the Bee Act has been incorporated into this piece of legislation before us today?

Hon. T. Lake: The Bee Act will be repealed, and the provisions of the current Bee Act that are aligned with this legislation are incorporated into this legislation. The other parts of the current Bee Act will be provided for under regulation.

N. Simons: Under the current legislation, the chief apiarist, I believe, is responsible for the provisions of the act. What is the relationship between the chief veterinarian and the chief apiarist in terms of authority and decision-making power?

Hon. T. Lake: The chief apiarist reports to the chief veterinarian. The chief veterinarian is able to delegate powers to the chief apiarist in terms of management of the provisions of the Bee Act that are now in this and the regulations that would be developed for the bee industry.

N. Simons: Presumably, the chief apiarist has inspectors inspecting for disease under his or her authority as well. I'm wondering if those individuals are also…. I don't know how many there are; maybe the minister can tell us. Do they report to the chief apiarist, or are they employees reporting to the chief veterinarian?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that there are seven seasonal employees who act as inspectors who report to the chief apiarist, who in turn reports to the chief veterinarian.

[1650]

N. Simons: My question is: in what circumstances does the chief apiarist report to the chief veterinarian? Maybe they work side by side. Maybe this is something that is not going to change with this new legislation. But if there are any changes, please can the minister advise?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm informed that there are no changes in terms of how the reporting occurs. An example where the chief apiarist would work with the chief veterinarian occurred when there were some bees that were imported from Alberta. Alberta informed us that there could be a potential of a particular organism in these bees. The inspector confirmed that, and the chief apiarist then reported that information to the chief veterinarian.

N. Simons: When decisions are made around issues like quarantines, is that the decision of the chief veterinarian? Or is it on the advice of the chief apiarist? Or could the chief apiarist make those decisions under the previous legislation as well as the current legislation?

Hon. T. Lake: The minister is responsible for a quarantine order but, of course, takes advice from the chief veterinarian, who would, around apiaries, take advice from or work together with the chief apiarist to make that recommendation to the minister.

Sections 102 and 103 approved.

On section 104.

N. Simons: This is the section which has the repeal of the Animal Disease Control Act, sections of the Food Safety Act, the entirety of the Fur Farm Act and the Game Farm Act, and sections of the Milk Industry Amendment Act. Have all the provisions that have been deleted been subsumed by this bill?

Hon. T. Lake: Not all the provisions of these acts that are being repealed are subsumed into this legislation. As I mentioned, a good example is the Bee Act, where the applicable parts were brought into this legislation. Others would be covered under regulation, and that's the case for some of these other acts as well.
[ Page 3315 ]

Sections 104 to 119 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to report completion of the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1655]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

Bill 19, Animal Health Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 9, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 9 — POOLED REGISTERED PENSION
PLANS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:57 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Farnworth: I expect that we'll be able to get through this relatively quickly. There are a number of areas where I do have some questions. I think I talked to the minister ahead of time already about some opportunities for BCIMC. I'll do it in the section under regulations, and we can have a discussion there.

Hon. M. de Jong: Might I simply introduce to the committee Cynthia Callahan-Maureen and Marcus Gill, who are joining us for the debate.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

M. Farnworth: This deals with the acting superintendent. Has the government made a decision on who they intend to appoint as an acting superintendent for the purpose of the PRPPs, or will you be appointing the federal regulator who's looking after it at the federal level?

[1700]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded that "superintendent" under the bill is a defined term and means the superintendent of pensions appointed under the Pension Benefit Standards Act. So that person is in place, and this section allows that person to designate an alternate.

M. Farnworth: So it's the plan of the government, then, for the existing superintendent to be the superintendent in charge of this, but that individual has the ability to make a designation for it to be somebody else? Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct, but I am reminded that the bill elsewhere contemplates the possibility of multi-jurisdictional agreements that would allow the superintendent to delegate intrajurisdictionally certain functions as well. So the statement is correct, but elsewhere in the proposed statute the superintendent also is granted the authority to enter into multi-jurisdictional agreements.

M. Farnworth: Perhaps if we deal with those now, that might be helpful. When the minister says "multi-jurisdictional," we're talking multi-jurisdictional within the province or outside the province with other provinces and the federal government and other extraprovincial jurisdictions?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, it would be extraprovincial.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

M. Farnworth: This is an important section that deals with the limitation on a transfer and the assignments of moneys in a PRPP. I think there are a number of questions in this particular area that I'd like the minister to be able to address. The key one, I guess: what protections against loss will apply to PRPPs? In particular, will they be treated in the same way as RRSPs in terms of the protections that are provided to them or to other pension plans and the protections applied to them? So what protections will be in place?

Bankruptcy, for example. Is that something where if you have a PRPP and you go personally bankrupt…? In the way that your RRSPs are protected to a certain extent, will the same measure be place be in place for PRPPs?

[1705]

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I'll begin with a general proposition, and the member may want to delve down further. The intention is to afford this pension mechan-
[ Page 3316 ]
ism the same protection from creditors that exists with respect to other pensions in British Columbia, and this section specifically lays out the two exceptions to that protection as it relates to court orders relating to a relationship breakdown and family maintenance obligations. The general rule against protection can be overridden in those two circumstances.

M. Farnworth: I just want a bit further clarification on that. With an RRSP, as I understand it, your RRSP is protected in the case of bankruptcy except for the contributions that have been made in the last 12 months, if I am not mistaken. I'm pretty sure that's what it is.

In the case of pensions, they are protected if you go bankrupt, with the exceptions, as the minister was saying, around family maintenance and the other one you just mentioned — division of assets in the breakdown of a marriage. So the pooled pension plan would be treated no differently than an existing pension plan, subject to those two issues.

What would be the general way in which a court would look at the family maintenance and the breakdown and division of assets? Would it require the dissolution of the pension, the withdrawal of the pension? Or would it just be a splitting of the pension benefit at that current date or at a future date, in terms of the breakdown of a relationship?

Hon. M. de Jong: An important issue. The intention is to ensure there is a mechanism in place whereby the court in those circumstances would deal with this asset in the same way it does other defined contribution pension plans. That's why later, when we get to the consequential amendments, the member will have seen the reference to the Family Law Act to ensure that this is now a concept known to the law within the context of the Family Law Act.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for confirming that the intent of this section, and later, is to ensure these are treated the same way as other pension plans are in terms of the protection that's afforded them and also in terms of those circumstances where they are subject to a court order.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

On section 11.

M. Farnworth: This is also, I think, another key, important section, which is the power to make regulations. While much of this act is based on the federal legislation that has been passed, this section allows the province to make regulations. What areas is the minister considering making regulations in or anticipating making regulations in, and when would the ministry expect to have those in place?

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member might expect, the objective here — and part of the magic of the concept, if there is indeed to be magic — is that there be a measure of uniformity across the country. The intention is to adopt, to the greatest extent possible, and harmonize — although I'm not sure we're allowed to use that term anymore — the federal regulations. When I say "adopt and adapt," at this point what I mean by that is simply to ensure that they are adopted to conform with our general legislative constructs here in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: No, the minister is right. I mean, this is a multi-jurisdictional effort where part of…. One of the provinces…. Right across the country, federal regulations are in place, but of course, each province has their own jurisdictional architecture, however or whatever you want to say, and issues that are unique to that province. So there'll be regulations made here to deal with that in British Columbia.

Now, will there be an impact, for example, with Alberta with TILMA in terms of our ability to make sure that our regulations…? Will that impact this particular initiative? Has there been work underway to ensure that the regulations between the two provinces are in harmony with each other?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think you're going to see a striking similarity, for two reasons. One is the reason that the member mentioned. There is, I'm reminded, a multi-jurisdictional working group that's involved in this. Then in the case of Alberta, specifically, the member knows…. I mean, Bill 10 is an example of the coordination that has taken place specifically between British Columbia and Alberta on pension issues. I anticipate a significantly similar construct in the content and substance of the regs.

M. Farnworth: That leads me to my next question. As I said, we have been supportive of the legislation, but we did have some issues that we felt could be addressed or should be addressed to make the legislation, actually, more effective, better and more responsive to the needs of people who are going to be able to take advantage of that.

One of those areas is around the transparency associated with the fees charged for PRPPs. That's an issue that has been raised at a number of levels in terms of the insurance companies and the major financial institutes that are going to be the ones, by and large, offering pooled pension plans.

Has there been thought given by the province to the kinds of improvements that could be made so that people involved know exactly the fees that are being paid? I understand that work has been done or is being done by the federal government in that area. Is the province
[ Page 3317 ]
actively pursuing improved transparency in that area, or are they working with the federal government to try and come across with a multi-jurisdictional standard that will address that particular issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the member for having raised the matter earlier in the debate around the bill, which means I'm able to offer him, hopefully, some helpful information.

[1715]

I think some of this work has been done and is the product of the construct we're dealing with here.

Section 57 of the federal act requires disclosure of information, and of course, this act adopts that requirement. I am further advised that the federal regulations specifically require fee disclosures at a number of stages.

Again, following up on the line of questioning that the member has properly advanced. If I am correct — and I believe I am — in indicating how, in addition to adopting the statutory provisions, our regulations will mirror the federal regulations, we will have, at a minimum, a similar level of disclosure requirement that also pertains to fees being charged. That's about as far as I can go at this point.

M. Farnworth: The regulations that the minister is talking about being developed at the provincial level — will they be in place before the pooled pensions are actually being offered for purchase, for sale in B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: They'd have to be.

M. Farnworth: That brings me to my next topic under this particular section — again, one that I raised with the minister earlier. Yes, it'll be the major financial institutions — insurance companies, banks — that are going to be offering pooled registered pensions, and they have their fee structure in place. And yes, we want to see greater transparency, and that will be the primary vehicle.

At the same time, there are other potential vehicles, particularly here in British Columbia, where we already have the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation who manages our pension plans and does so on a very low administrative fee level and has the ability to save considerable amounts of money.

Has the minister given thought to either encouraging or acquiring through regulation their ability to offer a pooled registered pension plan so that companies may wish to use them as a vehicle and save considerable amounts of money in terms of the fees and the management fees that they charge and at the same time avail themselves of the expertise that they bring to the area and offer another option, a greater choice, that can be just be as beneficial to people who want to participate in a pooled registered pension plan?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I'm obliged to the member for having flagged this issue earlier. By doing so, I'm able to tell him the following. There's nothing in the legislation that we're dealing with that would prevent the BCIMC from offering a PRPP.

The federal legislation that influences this concept only requires that an administrator be a corporation, which BCIMC certainly is. If it were interested in becoming an administrator, it would need to apply for a licence and demonstrate that it has the capability, which presumably it would be in a position to do.

The only part of the answer that I'm cautious about and will want to verify for the member is I'm not certain that…. I am suspicious that the legislative construct under which the BCIMC operates independently probably precludes a direction from the government.

[1720]

I have no doubt that they are, as most people are, glued to the set watching this exchange and will take the suggestion seriously that has been tabled on the floor here.

I don't mean to make light of it. I suspect that it is something that they'll discuss. I don't believe it's something that occurs at the behest of the government, because of the arm's-length nature of the relationship between the BCIMC and the executive branch.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. You're right: BCIMC is arm's-length. It is independent and does not, as a rule, take direction from government. But like you, I know that they are glued to this debate and this discussion right now. They can always go back and review it at a later time on video or what have you.

I do think that this is…. It would be good for them to look at this. I think it would be a real opportunity for their expertise, their management record, to be available for companies that want to participate in a PRPP. It may be a product that they want to offer and that they, I think, would be an excellent administrator of. I hope it is something they are looking at, and I hope this discussion is something that will allow that to take place.

My final question on this particular section. The working group that the minister has talked about: is there any indication when they intend to have all their work completed and to have the regulations in place by?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies for the delay. What I wanted to verify is, of course…. The member in the House knows that several other jurisdictions have passed similar legislation. I wanted to confirm the status of their work.

They have not completed regulation, so the working group is engaged in that work and finalizing an agreement that will establish a measure of uniformity. I think the best answer I can give at this point, based on the advice I'm receiving, is that the parties to those discussions and to that work would like to have the work completed by the end of this calendar year.
[ Page 3318 ]

M. Farnworth: That would be the point at which PRPPs would actually be available for purchase, then, in B.C.? Or would it potentially happen sooner?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, the finalization of the agreement and the proclamation of the regs would be the prerequisite to the availability of the product.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

M. Farnworth: Just very quickly. The next series of sections, 12 through 16, deal with the Family Law Act. The ones after that, 17 through 21, deal with the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

[1725]

These particular sections relate back to what we were talking about earlier in terms of how pooled registered pensions will be dealt with in the same way as current pension plans are, and these are all amending sections to the required and appropriate legislation that falls under family maintenance and family relations.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

Sections 12 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

M. Farnworth: Yeah, I did want to confirm that amending the definition of "spouse" is putting that in the context with spouse and how it applies to all of the other government legislation across the province.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, it is specifically intended to adopt the Family Law Act definition, the one that will appear, similarly — the definition — in the new Pension Benefits Standards Act.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 9 — POOLED REGISTERED PENSION
PLANS ACT

Bill 9, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:30 p.m.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

S. Robinson: I was wondering if the minister can explain this section on election advertising.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. This section just establishes a new key concept in this act around the concept of election advertising. The definition will allow for clear rules that will address the task force recommendations that they brought forward.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

For example, third-party sponsors of election advertising are required to register as a third-party advertiser. Another example is that all election advertising be included in the information about who sponsored the advertising. It just really is consistent with the Election Act. This is just defining it and putting it into the scope of this legislation. If there's something more specific, I'd be happy to address that.

S. Robinson: Just doing my best to understand the broad definition. It's not clear to me. Does that mean that any issue that's part of a platform of any election campaign in the province, I'm assuming, is captured? If there is a community group or a social advocacy agency promoting their particular issue and they're out and about and then there's an election called and, lo and behold, now somebody takes that on as a campaign, does this group now have to register, even though that was never
[ Page 3319 ]
necessarily their intent? They'd been doing this for years, where they promote a certain position.

Hon. C. Oakes: As we go further into the act, we go into the specifics around the registration requirements as well as the more specific type of election advertising. Again, if we're looking at the period of 46 days before an election, folks will have to start the process of registering with Elections B.C., and there are more specific definitions outlined within this legislation on what that will look like.

S. Robinson: If I understand the minister correctly, then it means that advocacy groups that spend a whole lot of time out in the community promoting their particular issue in that 46-day period would have to stand down, I would imagine, or cease promoting that. They would have to, in essence, sort of shut down what they're doing unless they wanted to register with Elections B.C.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this just follows what we do within the election advertising currently on the provincial Election Act. What it requires is that we'll have a very simple process through Elections B.C. on how folks can register. That follows suit with what we currently do on the provincial scene.

[1735]

S. Robinson: Just following some of the logic. I'm just trying to make sure I can wrap my head around all the ifs, ands and buts here.

If the minister can explain what would happen in the case where an advocacy organization is advertising, let's say, in a more provincial paper like the Province or the Vancouver Sun about a particular issue, and there happens to be a by-election somewhere, like in Kamloops or in Barriere or in some small community.

Would that group…? Would it be beholden to them to know when there was a by-election happening somewhere in the province when they're doing this? Do they risk having committed an offence?

Hon. C. Oakes: When we talk about election advertising, really it's about the election of a candidate or an electoral organization that is endorsing that candidate. Again, if there was a by-election in Barriere, the group around election advertising would be for that candidate.

Certainly, if there's a group in Vancouver that's a lobby or an advocacy or an organization that promotes that and there is a by-election for a particular candidate in Barriere, they should be aware of that. On the election notice they'll have to put…. So it's around the candidate in a particular community. They'll have to register if they're supporting that candidate or electoral organization.

S. Robinson: I'm thinking a little bit more around issue advertising. If there's a group that's promoting a pesticide-free B.C., and there's a by-election happening in, let's say, Barriere — we'll use that as an example — and somebody has in their promotional materials that they want to ban the use of pesticides in their community…. There is no current ban.

Would the pesticide B.C. people, who are doing this provincewide and wouldn't necessarily know whether or not there was a by-election in some smaller community, be in violation of the act? Would they have committed an offence?

Hon. C. Oakes: Elections B.C. has a significant role in determining under this new legislation what it would look like for election advertising. Again, it would look at means of how long they have been planning this particular election piece. But that candidate would also, if it was the pesticides they were looking at, have to come out and that would be their issue that they stand on as a candidate.

They're running in a by-election, and they're running for something around advocacy, around looking at the use of pesticide. And there is an advocacy group in Vancouver that said: "Look, we want you to support candidates that are aligned with that." They will have to register. But again, it's around the candidate or the electoral organization, and it is their responsibility, working through the new regulations with Elections B.C. on registering.

S. Robinson: I'm still trying to wrap my head around how this plays out, so I hope the minister will forgive me if I keep asking the same kinds of questions. It's not really clear to me that if a candidate is influenced by some lobby group over a number of years….

The reason I used pesticides was because that was my campaign when I very first got elected. It was one of my pieces of platform. And yes, they certainly did influence my thinking and certainly supported what they were doing. If it had been, let's say, a by-election in a small community and they were doing their provincewide advocacy — doing ads in newspapers, maybe ads on television — would they have to register for this by-election that's happening in some small community?

[1740]

And does that mean these advocacy groups, wherever there's a by-election, have to register if they are doing provincewide advocacy work? Does that mean that for every by-election they need to register just in case somebody picks up on it as part of a platform piece, and that somehow will have some sort of implications around this piece of legislation?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this specific act, section 7, is just defining what election advertising is. When we go into sections 38 and 39 — we had identified earlier on
[ Page 3320 ]
— that's when we start that dialogue of what third-party registration will look like. Probably it will be a better time to start going through the specifics under sections 38 and 39. That really answers those specifics.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain this section about who is a sponsor of election advertising, non-election assent voting advertising, just for clarification?

Hon. C. Oakes: Following in what the task force recommendations were for election advertising, they asked to include sponsorship information within the section. It sets out rules that are used to identify the sponsor of election advertising and non-election assent voting advertising. It identifies the sponsor. It's important because under this new act, the sponsor must be advertised specifically on the advertising. Again, the approach to identifying the sponsor of election advertising is consistent with what is currently within the Elections Act.

S. Robinson: Given that that's the case, did the minister consider a registration threshold for this piece?

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, that was considered, but we looked at going with what was consistent with what we currently have within the Elections Act.

S. Robinson: Can the minister explain what some of the pros and cons were about this consideration?

Hon. C. Oakes: There was a recent court decision that has come about, and with the rise, of course, of Internet advertising, whether Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, one can no longer assume that advertising below a particular threshold would not have an impact on elections. Therefore, we did not implement a threshold for the registration for third-party advertising. The proposed third-party registration requirements are consistent, like we said earlier, with the Elections Act.

Again, in the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v. British Columbia, the court upheld section 239 of the Elections Act, demonstrating the justification of a limit in a free and democratic society. They stated that the implementation enforcement of third-party election advertising regulations and in turn the increase of transparency, openness and accountability during the electoral process is really what we were looking at. So that is why we went and made that move to support matching with what is currently within the Elections Act.

S. Robinson: If the minister will again indulge me in this example as I try to understand it and make sure that certainly those who are going to be running in the next election understand it. I already have people coming to me asking.

So a kid makes a sign, an issue sign. We'll stick with pesticides. It's an issue that's near and dear to my heart. They put out a sign that says that so-and-so is running and doesn't support pesticides on lawns and to please support that person — a kid-made sign. They put it on their lawn, or they put it in their window. Is that child now in trouble because they have put out their homemade sign?

[1745]

Hon. C. Oakes: It's interesting when we were talking…. These are the exact types of things that we've been in conversation over.

Currently under this legislation, it's complaint-driven. Somebody could complain about a child who puts together a sign, as you just described, around use of pesticides on lawns. It would then go to Elections B.C., and Elections B.C. would have to determine what enforcement they would look at. Again, within this legislation there is that requirement to register. However, let me be clear that it's complaint-driven, and Elections B.C. has the role on what the enforcement would look like.

S. Robinson: I don't know about the community that the minister comes from, but certainly in my community it can get pretty petty about the number of signs and what they look like. I'm sure there would be complaints if people don't follow the rules.

I have another question. It's similar to that, and that has to do with, let's say, a school teacher who's promoting banning smoking in parks — there is a candidate who wants to do that because they legislatively can do that — and she's teaching students about getting involved. As a class, they decide that they want to do signs and maybe put them in all along their school property because they want to participate in the electoral process. Would this also be a challenge? And would the teacher then have to register as an organization that is a sponsor?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, we all want to be promoting democracy and getting our youth engaged and supporting these types of initiatives. Yes, if they were to put that sign up and there was a complaint that was driven around that, Elections B.C. would look at the enforcement of this legislation and say that they should be registering.

I would also comment: we are looking at how we can engage youth in this process. From a democratic process, I think it is also a great opportunity for youth to understand, to get engaged and to register and be a part of this process. They would have the ability to go and work with Elections B.C. to register. That could be part of this
[ Page 3321 ]
whole learning process of getting involved and learning that good civic ability to get involved in your community.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for her explanation, although I happen to think that the way to get children engaged in the electoral process is actually issue-driven and not bureaucracy-driven.

What this is doing is creating some bureaucracy that, really, most of us can't be bothered with, never mind children. I think that when their hearts move them, then we ought to go with the energy rather than put in another piece: "Oh well, before you can do that, you have to sign up and fill in this paperwork." I don't know that that's the best way to go, necessarily.

That was all I had on this item.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

S. Robinson: I want to ask the minister a question that has to do with campaign contributions. Did the minister consider a cap on donations as part of this legislation?

Hon. C. Oakes: There was no recommendation on this from the task force.

S. Robinson: Does that mean that the minister, if I understand…? If there was no recommendation, then there was no interest in considering it at all?

[1750]

Hon. C. Oakes: The task force, as we all know, consulted for many years with a number of different organizations and groups and thoughtfully put forward the recommendations for this legislation. This was not an item, based on all of their consultation, all of the work that they did with the groups to bring that forward…. They did not make a recommendation on this item.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

S. Robinson: I do have a question that relates to (2)(b). This is the valuation rules for campaign contributions. I would like to know from the minister about: "the market value of the property or services, if no price is paid or if the price paid is less than the market value." There is no direction on how to determine the market value. I just wanted to know if there was some other protocol that the minister knew about that would be helpful guidance.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, thank you very much for bringing that forward, because it certainly helps clarify it. Within the definitions we do have identified what "market value" is: "in relation to property or services, means the lowest price charged for an equivalent amount of equivalent property or services in the market area at the relevant time."

S. Robinson: I'd like to thank the minister for that response.

I have another question. This is about (5)(b), which speaks to "election advertising transmitted without charge if such transmission without charge is also made available on an equitable basis to all other candidates in the election."

I don't know about the minister's experience of local elections, but certainly, everybody wants to have the same information at the same time. There's nothing in here that says that it's also communicated. It needs to be made available. My experience is that something could be made available, but it doesn't mean that everybody knows about it. So I wanted to know if the minister had considered that part of this, this piece for this legislation.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. The relevance of this particular piece of legislation…. Often, in many of our communities, a local paper or radio will offer to each of the candidates the same amount of equivalent time, whether it's a show to talk about their candidacy, debates or what have you. It just needs to ensure that all candidates have equal access to that. It would be the same format, whether it's a newspaper that prints all of the answers to each of the candidates….

S. Robinson: No, I actually do understand what this is saying, and I certainly have had the opportunity to avail myself of that. But I also am fully aware that there are some of these opportunities that are made "available" — I'll use quotation marks — but might not necessarily be communicated.

For example, they may be made available, but only those who know about it can actually avail themselves of it. And unless you actually go out of your way to ask if you could, then you don't even know to ask if you could. Certain candidates are left in the cold, while those candidates who are in the know, who perhaps have done it before, can avail themselves of some opportunity.

Unless you know, unless this group has communicated it…. It doesn't mean that everybody knows that it exists. It only means that it is available to whoever asks for it. It doesn't mean that people know to even ask. That's all I'm suggesting around this.

[1755]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for your question and for your experience with this. It has to be equitable. If you find that that wasn't being equitable, then they would end up having to register as a third party, because then it would be selective around election advertising. So again,
[ Page 3322 ]
it has to be equitable.

But you know what? Thank you for putting that forward. We'll make sure that becomes part of the education process that we also do moving forward.

S. Robinson: So am I to understand, then, that if someone finds that it isn't equitable — in this case, those who know you can go to this newspaper or you can go to this radio station and get this opportunity — they would have to make a complaint? This would be, I'm assuming, complaint-based. And then in all likelihood it would be well after.... I'm assuming it wouldn't be investigated until after the election.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, thank you for the question. I guess the example, following up on this, is that if a candidate didn't know…. Say five knew, and two didn't. It then becomes what Elections B.C. could.... For the five people that did know, it could now become part of their financial disclosure. It becomes valued as a contribution.

It's in the best interest of the media outlet or what have you to ensure that all candidates have equitable access to that opportunity.

S. Robinson: Because this is new, I suspect there will be some folks who will not get all the rules right. Those candidates who did not know, for example — would they then complain to Elections B.C.? Would that be the appropriate place for them to take their complaint?

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, it would go to Elections B.C. for that, and then there would be that determination of whether a supplementary report would have to be made by the other members, who would financially have to disclose that value.

[1800]

S. Robinson: Following that logic then, given that there are no campaign limits, in some ways it almost doesn't matter. Whether you put it in or you don't put it in, it really doesn't matter, because we don't have campaign limits. This feels really moot without any campaign limit as part of the package.

I wonder if we're going to get compliance on it. Really, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You just can write a number in about whatever you got because this is the market value. But if there are no limits, it's really insignificant — if that's what I'm understanding.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, this is really about transparency. That's the idea of this whole legislation, and it puts that power back to the citizens. They'll have to now…. On this particular one, if it's not equitable and they have to disclose it, then the citizens have the ability to see who has contributed to folks' campaigns.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

S. Robinson: I just had a question. It was prompted, actually, when I read section 19, and then I went back to section 18. So I thought I would ask it here because it's the piece that's missing.

In section 19(5) it notes that when a financial agent resigns, dies or meets some other fate… It describes how the elector organization must act. There is nothing in here, in section 18, that suggests what happens when a similar fate might happen to a financial agent here. I'm wondering if the minister can speak to why that's the case.

Hon. C. Oakes: In the case of an individual that's running, under section 18, that the financial agent…. You have the ability to be your own financial agent, or you can have a financial agent for you. So if something happened to your financial agent, you could take over that role. And if something happened to you, then….

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for her response.

So if I read it correctly, then, you can't assign another financial agent. It's either your original financial agent or yourself. There's no opportunity, then, to identify another person to step in?

Hon. C. Oakes: By default, if something happens to your financial agent, you have the ability, the powers, to revert it back to yourself. But then you have the ability to reappoint and find a new financial agent.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

S. Robinson: In section 20, "Requirement for elector organization campaign account," (5)(f) talks about "making payments for reasonably incurred expenses, other than election expenses…." I'm just going to ask the minister: what might these reasonably incurred expenses look like?

Hon. C. Oakes: An example of this is you could use your account for fundraising activities.

S. Robinson: I want to make sure I heard properly. Did the minister say that if your expenses that you use in order to host a fundraiser…? Is that what I understood? Are there any others, or is that just it?

[1805]

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, to look at that as an example, say a year and a half outside to the 46th day of an election…. There was a fundraiser that was held, and things needed to
[ Page 3323 ]
be purchased on behalf of that fundraiser. Then this is what this (f) item provides that ability to accomplish.

S. Robinson: Thank you. I appreciate that. That makes good sense.

If there's nothing else that we can possibly think of, why not just call it fundraising expenses and leave it at that, rather than "reasonably incurred expenses"? Always, whenever there is something fuzzy, there's all kinds of stuff that can get thrown in that might not be the intention.

Hon. C. Oakes: There are other items outside the scope of 46 days, years in advance of an election — for example, a voter list or databases that you're creating. You're still incurring a cost, but it's outside of the scope of that 46-day election period. But it technically still applies once you get into that election period. This just tries to capture that.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

S. Robinson: In this section in (4) it talks about records and materials that "must be retained in British Columbia" and then who has to retain them. What if these people leave the province? Five years is a long time. It's getting shorter as I get older, but it's still a long time. What happens if the candidate or the financial agent or both of them leave the province in that time?

[1810]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. This is consistent with the Election Act, but it's certainly something we'll also bring up with Elections B.C., in case there is a circumstance that it may arise. Thank you for clarifying and bringing that forward. We'll raise that with Elections B.C. as well.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

S. Robinson: Can the minister perhaps explain this section — the restrictions on making campaign contributions?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. Again, this section is around the restrictions on making campaign contributions in relation to how contributions can be made. It really is from the task force recommendations. It's all around transparency and ensuring that all campaign contributions are made directly only to authorized individuals and with the required contributor information.

This section also prohibits making anonymous campaign contributions that have a total value of more than $50 to the same candidate or electoral organization in relation to one or more election campaigns for elections being held at the same time.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that explanation. I want to know: was all of this as it appears here in this piece of legislation…? Was this the full recommendation of the task group, or have there been some things that are different than what the task group recommended?

Hon. C. Oakes: Within the white paper there is a slight alteration of what we heard when we did stakeholder engagements through the white paper process that happened in September and October, as well as the subsequent meetings that we had with electoral organizations and area associations across the province. When we had the dialogue around moving from three to four years, the one item that continuously got raised, specifically in rural communities, was around allowing for $49 and under to provide the opportunity around campaign contributions — to allow that to continue.

What was really felt, and you heard time and time again…. Sometimes there'd be a senior in a small community that wants to provide $5 to each of the candidates. We heard very loud and clear that they felt that if they now had to put their name and address down, it was infringing on their ability to be involved in local elections. We felt that under $50 was an amount that still allowed the individual to be engaged in the political process — didn't feel it infringed upon their civic ability to do that — but also provided the transparency that we're really requiring on all of those items over $50.

S. Robinson: In terms of clarity about this $50, the task group recommended to ban anonymous donations, and upon additional consultation, the minister thought that it would be against good democracy. I find that fascinating, because there are other issues that challenge democracy that were recommended by the task group, and they're not presented here.

I want a bit of clarity here around the $50. It says, "more than $50," so I'm assuming $50 is okay. It's not $49 and under. If the minister can please clarify that, that would be great.

Hon. C. Oakes: You can do an anonymous contribution of $50 but nothing over $50.

[1815]

V. Huntington: I am rising to propose an amendment to section 26 of the bill.

[To amend as follows:

By deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 26 (1) An individual or organization must not do any of the following:

(a) make a campaign contribution to a candidate or
[ Page 3324 ]
elector organization other than by making it to the financial agent or an individual authorized in writing by the financial agent to receive such contributions;

(b) make an anonymous campaign contribution that has a value of more than $50;

(c) make a number of anonymous campaign contributions to the same candidate in relation to one or more election campaigns of the candidate for elections that are being held at the same time if, in total, the campaign contributions would be equal in value to more than $50;

(d) make a number of anonymous campaign contributions to the same elector organization in relation to one or more election campaigns of the elector organization for elections that are being held at the same time if, in total, the campaign contributions would be equal in value to more than $50;

(e) make a campaign contribution, other than an anonymous campaign contribution that is permitted under this Act, without disclosing to the individual receiving the campaign contribution the information required to be recorded under section 29 [campaign contribution information that must be recorded];

(f) make a campaign contribution with money, non-monetary property or services of another individual or organization;

(g) make a campaign contribution indirectly by giving money, non-monetary property or services to an individual or organization

(i) for the individual or organization to make as a campaign contribution, or

(ii) as consideration for that individual or organization making a campaign contribution.

(2) Except as permitted by regulation, an elector organization must not make a campaign contribution of money to its own campaign or to the campaign of a candidate who is or is intended to be endorsed by the elector organization.

(3) Only individuals may make campaign contributions.

(4) For greater certainty, contributor classes (b) to (g) are prohibited from making campaign contributions.

(3) (5) An individual or organization that contravenes this section commits an offence.]

The Chair: The amendment is in order.

Does the member wish to speak to the amendment?

On the amendment.

V. Huntington: The House will recall that during debate on the bill in second reading, there were a number of queries of the minister or a number of comments made that the bill should consider restricting the size of campaign donations. The minister mentioned, in response, that it was the municipalities, through their organizations themselves, that had felt that they needed time in order to develop with the province a consistent framework for donations.

This amendment doesn't propose to interfere with that discussion about size of donations. What it does is restrict donations to individuals only. In other words, it is banning corporate and union and other organization contributions to a candidate.

It follows in line with the member's bill that I introduced in 2013, the Election Finance Amendment Act, which was a proposal to restrict campaign donations provincially to individuals and to residents of British Columbia. In fact, this would do so at the municipal or local government level.

The comments I made at the time of introducing my member's bill hold today, and I believe that I can repeat some of those comments. I would remind the House that Manitoba and Ontario have banned corporate and union donations at the municipal level. They are banned at the federal level. They are banned provincially at the Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia provincial level.

It is high time that British Columbia become one of those jurisdictions that acknowledges that there is a public perception out there that money is talking and that democracy in this province is increasingly bankrolled by special interests. It is a conviction among the public that undermines the legitimacy of our democracy and our trust in the institutions of democracy.

This amendment, I would submit, reasserts the principles of our democratic values by limiting the right to donate to the very people of British Columbia to whom we report — the individual voter. The amendment to section 26 is a practical change that I hope the minister considers and that will show all British Columbians that we honour their vote and we'll be accountable to them and only to them. I would hope that both sides of the House would consider this amendment carefully and accept it in the good faith in which it's intended.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment….

[1820]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for bringing forward this amendment. It's difficult, just receiving it in the House, to try and thoughtfully provide the consideration that I feel you deserve.

From the information that we have, the task force did look at these through the recommendations of the task force, and it wasn't brought forward that we should be looking at that. They felt that looking at expense limits, which is the next phase of what we are looking to accomplish, will achieve more fairness for communities.

We'll be looking at items when we go through the expense limits part, phase 2, of legislation that we'll be bringing forward. We'll be looking at that. We do not support this amendment.

V. Huntington: If I could, with respect, Mr. Chair, suggest that expense limits are an issue totally separate from who is making the contribution. You can set whatever expense level you want, but it has nothing to do with whether it's a corporation, an individual, a union, an electoral organization or a non-profit making that contribution.
[ Page 3325 ]

I think the minister's position on whether or not this amendment is appropriate is misinformed, should I say, respectfully. I really don't think that argument is justifiable, given that all we're talking about is who is entitled to make a contribution.

A. Weaver: I rise to speak in support of this motion. I wish to reiterate: unions do not vote; corporations do not vote. Yet they can sway an election through the unbounded contributions that are being made.

One is left with the question: whose interests are being served? Is it the people who vote? Or is it those corporate and union vested interests that are able to get the candidates of choice in? Ultimately, when those candidates of choice are elected, who are they representing? Are they beholden to those who've got them there or to those who elected them? It's very unclear.

While I recognize that we're debating the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, the same is true at the provincial level. In British Columbia it's very odd. We are looked at oddly as being a province that allows this kind of influence of corporations and unions in all forms of our electoral systems.

I find it fascinating here today that the two people speaking strongly in favour of this resolution are the independents, who, basically, got elected to this Legislature through individual donations and not through corporate and union donations.

I rise again to reiterate that I strongly support this. We must eliminate — seek means and ways of eliminating — the influence of large corporations and large unions on our electoral systems in order to restore confidence in our democratic systems. What better time than now to do this in this bill that we're looking at right now?

With that, I will be voting in support of this amendment.

Hon. C. Oakes: Organizations have a legitimate role. We were talking earlier about the importance of the advocacy group that was bringing awareness around pesticides, as an example. Within our democratic process, there are organizations out there, whether it's bringing awareness for pesticides, bringing awareness for the environment, bringing awareness as an organization for something that you're passionate about.

That's where the task force looked. They felt that we need to…. From a democratic process, we allow this in the provincial elections. The task force supported the recommendation that we move forward on the legislation to include both individuals and organizations.

[1825]

V. Huntington: I'd just like to reply to that. This bill is putting enormous restrictions on donations and on the rights of third parties to advertise. Why? Because we fear the ability of a third party to influence an election.

What is a corporation? It's a third party. It does influence elections. It does create an uneven playing field out there among the different candidates. It creates an onus to oblige that corporation or that union once the election is complete, once that candidate has won.

This is an anathema in the modern democratic world. It is something that is skewing decisions at the government level. And with great respect to the work of the task force, if they did indeed discuss this issue, they are wrong. The government is wrong if it says that the people don't believe special interests are obliging the decisions of a candidate and of a government. It is our duty to prevent that, to stop that from happening in order to protect the very nature of the democratic process that we all apparently believe in and espouse.

There comes a time, and perhaps the time is now, when we have to stand up and say: "Look, the people are extremely concerned. We have a problem here. There is a perception that we are not serving the people, that we are serving other interests, and we have to stop that perception. We have to stop it in its tracks, and we have to protect the very nature of the democratic institution that we all operate within." I strongly believe that the banning of corporate and union donations, restricting political donations to the individual voter, is the only way we can do that and the only way we can restore a democratic trust in our institutions.

S. Robinson: I, too, support this amendment. It certainly speaks to something that we have been calling for on this side of the House around provincial elections and certainly would welcome at the local government. If we can lead in that direction, that would certainly be welcome.

The idea that corporations, unions and special interest groups can influence — with money, with services, with materials — the outcome of elections is just wrong. We need to make sure that there's a level playing field for everybody. Local elections are the grass-roots piece of our community. There are those haves and those have-nots. Those who have access to large sums of money…. We don't have election expense limits. Yet we're allowing people to just spend whatever it is they can collect from large corporations that have deep pockets, large unions that have deep pockets, when what we're really saying is: "Who do you want to represent you?" We need to make sure that people who are running for local government can do that equitably.

The minister earlier talked a lot about the importance of things being equitable. Well, right now it's not equitable. This amendment, I think, brings that very value to the forefront of this bill. I would certainly support the amendment.

Hon. C. Oakes: Again, to speak to the concerns around conflict of interest, there is legislation and local government policies that speak to conflict of interest. Absolutely, we are looking at tools to support local
[ Page 3326 ]
governments with that. But not allowing legitimate participation in the electoral process would be problematic.

This legislation is about ensuring transparency and ensuring accountability. Organizations now have to disclose who they are providing money to as the candidates. A voter in British Columbia now has the ability to find out, when they're looking at a candidate, who is providing them with money. It provides the citizens of British Columbia the ability to look at who is supporting those candidates — while protecting the legitimate participation in the electoral process.

A. Weaver: First off, I'd like to correct what I said earlier. I will thank the official opposition, also speaking in favour of this amendment. I did say it was just the independents speaking, but it is clearly the independents and the official opposition, and I'd like that to be corrected on record.

[1830]

Secondly, I would like to address the points that were just raised. Our federal colleagues and the Conservative government of Canada recognized that this was a problem, and they brought in legislation at the federal level to do precisely that: ban union and corporate donations for the obvious perception of conflict when large donations can come from vested interests to elected individuals — from people who are not voting. What's more, what's important here, is that people do not see who funded them — the people who elect these people — until after the election.

So while I recognize there is transparency, that transparency is only there when it is too late — too late to see which vested interests put up their dollars to ensure that their candidate got elected at some level of government. This is wrong. It's wrong at a very fundamental level. It's wrong because it undermines our democracy.

It's one of the reasons we're seeing a lack of participation and a cynicism within the general population, particularly with our youth, when they're seeing vested corporate and union interests essentially buying government at the local level, as discussed here, and in broader contexts in other jurisdictions as well.

So this is a wrong piece of legislation in that regard. Other aspects of course I support. But this amendment truly must pass for there to be a true recognition that democracy at a fundamental level is important to all British Columbians.

H. Bains: I'm listening to this debate very, very carefully, and it just made me stand up and make this observation on this amendment. I agree with the amendment, but I think some of the statements being made here are a bit farther away from what the reality is.

Statements are being made that the federal government, Mr. Harper's government, recognizes this issue. They don't. It was the Liberal government that brought those limitations on unions and corporations, limitations on how much they can donate. The Harper government is actually turning the clock back. That's the reality. They are turning the clock back.

We need to, if we are really serious…. Let's be frank about it. I think our mandate was very clear. We said in our last election, the previous election, that there should be a ban on union and corporate donations during elections. The federal government had that in there. It's this current government in Ottawa that is turning the clock back.

So I just want to make it clear that that's what the reality is. If we really want to see who…. If the citizens, in this particular bill, want to have their real say and it's not tilted because of heavy donations coming from one or a few other people with deep pockets, then the ordinary citizens who want to represent their communities have hardly any chance of succeeding.

I think the amendment is right. But I think the statements being made…. I thought I needed to stand up and correct them.

[1835-1840]

The Chair: The question is the amendment proposed by the member for Delta South to section 26.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 3327 ]
Sections 26 and 27 approved.

On section 28.

S. Robinson: This section talks about dealing with prohibited campaign contributions. In (2) it notes that if a financial agent is not able to return money that is given inappropriately, it's paid to the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer. I just wanted to know if the minister had thought about…. What does the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer do with those funds?

Hon. C. Oakes: It gets put into the consolidated revenue fund.

[1845]

Sections 28 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

S. Robinson: I'm just looking for some clarity from the minister on this one. It's the application for registration, and (2)(b) notes that "the name of the sponsor and the mailing address, telephone number or email…." Does that mean any of the three, or all of the three? I'm just not really clear, in the writing, if all of those need to be provided.

Hon. C. Oakes: It is the name and then one of the other, whether it be mailing address, telephone number or e-mail address.

Sections 38 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

S. Robinson: In this one I do have a question about the candidate disclosure statement. It talks about, in (2)(d), "campaign contributions received by the candidate, including information respecting identification of significant contributors…." If the minister can please provide us with examples of what a significant contributor would be in this case.

Hon. C. Oakes: Significant contributor — we have a definition point for it in the "Definitions" section. It's in relation to a campaign contribution having a total value of $100 or more.

S. Robinson: If I understand that correctly, then if somebody provides $95, they're not considered a significant contributor, even though they're just a few dollars short. There are different…. So we're already making some distinction between contributors. That's what I understand.

Hon. C. Oakes: That is correct, but that is consistent with what currently happens.

[1850]

Sections 49 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 58.

S. Robinson: In reading this "Public access to disclosure information" piece, there is a piece in here that talks to the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer having discretion in making some decisions. What criteria or situation was the minister thinking about that would leave things open to discretion?

Hon. C. Oakes: The significance of this is that it establishes rules that protect personal information associated with campaign finance. When we met with the privacy folks, one of the things…. Sometimes people provide more information than what is required, and this just provides the ability for Elections B.C., the authority, to obscure information before providing that to public access.

Sections 58 to 73 inclusive approved.

On section 74.

S. Robinson: In section 74 it talks about reviews, investigations and audits by the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer. It permits the Chief Electoral Officer.... Actually, it says: "...must conduct periodic reviews of the financial affairs and accounts of candidates, elector organizations, third party sponsors and assent voting advertising sponsors…."

So must conduct periodic reviews. If the minister can clarify what "periodic reviews" means. There's a "must," and then there's a "periodic review," and I can't seem to bring those two together.

Hon. C. Oakes: This just ensures that Elections B.C. has the powers and duties necessary to carry out effective compliance and enforcement of the act. They will be going through the financial disclosures and doing that review, so it just provides them that authority to do that.

S. Robinson: If I understand correctly, they can choose to do them or not to do them. Or must they do them? I guess I'm getting tripped up by "periodic" rather than that you either do them or you don't do them. There's no time frame that says you must do them every six months or you must do them every election. Does that mean you can skip four elections and do it once every 16 years? I'm just trying to get some sense of time.
[ Page 3328 ]

[1855]

Hon. C. Oakes: They must be reviewing the financial disclosure statements.

Sections 74 to 79 inclusive approved.

On section 80.

S. Robinson: So 80 is about general rules and defence of due diligence. I'm wondering. In section (3) it talks about: "An individual or organization is not guilty of an offence under this Act if the individual or organization exercised due diligence…." If the minister could please explain how due diligence is understood in this context.

Hon. C. Oakes: The test of due diligence puts a positive obligation on those seeking relief to demonstrate that they did all that was responsible to comply with the disclosure requirements.

Sections 80 and 81 approved.

On section 82.

S. Robinson: I'm wondering if the minister could explain paragraph (2) of this section.

Hon. C. Oakes: This just denotes that it is the day that the Chief Electoral Officer had knowledge made available of that. And then that is submissible in court.

Noting the hour, the committee rises and reports progress and seeks leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $5,350,361,000 (continued).

M. Farnworth: My questions for the minister are around school district 43, sometimes referred to as Coquitlam school district but also encompasses not just Coquitlam but Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Belcarra and Anmore. It is one of the largest districts in the province, as the minister knows, in a province where the average per-pupil funding is $7,538. Yet in school district 43 it is only $6,966.

If you look at since '09-10, had the per-pupil funding kept up with inflation, the per-pupil funding should be about $7,492. Can the minister explain why the government has failed to keep up with the inflationary pressures for school district 43 and other school districts?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I know the member is aware, having played the responsibility of the Finance critic…. I'm sure he knows the numbers very well, but he has some wrong, actually. The per-pupil funding in school district 43 in 2001-2002 was $5,767. In 2013-2014 it's $7,910, which is a 37.2 percent increase over that period.

The other thing that I want to say to the member, because I don't believe he was here yesterday when I spoke about the effect of inflation, is inflation does not affect the entire budget, as I'm sure he knows. The vast majority of the budget is salaries. Less than 20 percent of the budget is affected by inflation factors, and even in that, not equally, because different items are affected differently.

[1455]

The other thing is that the funding formula, the way it is, looks at all of the elements that are involved in establishing the funding block for each school district. Enrolment, of course, is one of the key factors, and our full-time enrolment in school district 43 is down 3.2 percent from 2001-2002 to 2013-14.

What I did say yesterday, and it is on the record, is that one of the things we're doing is we're looking at re-engineering our education system, looking at the priorities and the changes that have taken place over the last number of years and, more importantly, the changes we
[ Page 3329 ]
see in the future.

We will be working with school districts and the BCSTA across the province to look at the funding formula, because it has been established to try and ensure that there is some semblance of equality throughout the province between districts. There are challenges there, of course, because of the unique nature of different districts in the province, be they rural or urban.

So there are a number of factors that are in play, but our commitment is that we are going to take a look at the funding formula.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like to correct the minister. I think his hearing may have been wrong. I didn't mention 2001; I said '09-10, the numbers for school district 43 that I was referring to. These are the numbers that school district 43 uses that are causing them considerable problems in terms of the decisions they are having to make.

Their questions that they're asking are…. They're facing significant cost pressures in a number of areas, many of those areas which are inflationary. Many of those areas are due to pressures that have been downloaded by government. One that the minister can acknowledge is the cost of salary increases that school boards were told to absorb.

The point is this. School districts right now are concerned about a funding formula that is causing considerable inequity in a number of districts and causing them to make some significant decisions that are impacting their particular district in a way that has not happened in previous years. In the case of school district 43, they're saying: "Hang on a sec. Our per-pupil funding is significantly less than the provincial average."

I understand there are all kinds of issues that go into the formula, but the bottom line is that the formula, as it is right now, is starting to have an impact on districts. I think the ministry needs to address those, because you're seeing districts such as school district 43 and the minister's former community in Langley and other districts that have never had financial challenges before all of a sudden facing financial challenges that are not of the normal scale. That's what I would like the minister to look at.

Then my second question is on school capital and school construction. As the minister is aware, and I raised this with him last year, this is around Burke Mountain and the significant growth that's taking place on Burke Mountain. There are some 8,000 residents that have moved in there, and it's projected to go to around 25,000 over the next number of years.

Initially, the school district wanted a high school, thinking that that was going to be where much of the demand was going to be. As it turned out, the demographics have not been on a high school requirement but more have been young families with young kids, so the need has been for an elementary school.

I know the school district has been in contact with the ministry on that, so I've got two questions on that that I would like the minister to deal with. One, have they moved to the issue of the elementary school? And can the ministry tell us when the residents of Burke Mountain can expect the new elementary school to be built?

[1500]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I want to go back to the member's numbers that he was referring to. In 2009-2010 the per-pupil funding was $7,466. As I said, in 2013-14 it's $7,910, so we're looking at an increase of about 7.5 percent over that period of time.

Speaking to the capital projects, I want to clearly say to the member that the Coquitlam school district has done a great job in consulting with the community. They have worked well with the civic governments within that district to look at where the pressure points are. What they have done is developed a plan, some of which requires some disposal of property, which will free up capital to acquire other property.

Our ministry is absolutely working very closely with them to do what we can to expedite that process. It has to go through the steps. As I'm sure the member knows, disposal of property is not as quick or as easy as you might like it to be sometimes, but definitely the priorities are clear. We understand those and will continue to work with them as expeditiously as we can to make sure that we move those projects where the pressure is ahead as quickly as possible.

The other thing, as I've said, is we absolutely are going to be looking at the funding formula moving forward for all of the districts in the province.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that. We could duel over the numbers, but all I'll say is this. He has his numbers, the school district has their numbers, and clearly, they're not in sync. That may be one of the challenges that the school district is facing. The ministry might want to work with them on that.

Final question. There is not just growth on the Burke Mountain side, but there is growth in terms of changes in community plans in communities such as Port Coquitlam, for example, where land that was industrial is now becoming residential. There are about an additional 1,000 units of housing being built. One of the concerns I have is to whether or not or how the ministry is keeping in touch, in contact, with school districts and municipalities and local government to ensure that those school sites that we're going to need are there.

In the area known as the Dominion Triangle you'd be hard-pressed to find an area for a school site. That is going to have significant pressure in terms of school boundaries and the populations for a number of schools in that area and will also impact, I think, on Burke Mountain. I would encourage the ministry to work with the school district on addressing that particular issue.
[ Page 3330 ]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate those comments. I can assure you….

I did not, yet again, introduce staff that are supporting me here today. I have my deputy minister, Rob Wood. The superintendent of achievement, Rick Davis, is here. Our resource management ADM, Deborah Fayad, is here. The executive director of the capital projects, Joel Palmer, is here as well. Joel, particularly — along with other members of the ministry staff, but particularly himself — is very creative in working with the school districts on shifting demographics.

[1505]

What we have encouraged, as well, and I think the member knows this, is for school boards to sit down in a much more robust planning process with their local governments so that when local governments make shifts in priorities or in land use plans, the school district is engaged in that at a very preliminary stage so that we can start projecting much better to the future. We're only as good as the numbers that we can project based on those plans.

Our commitment, as the ministry, is absolutely to work closely with school districts to make sure that we are as far out of growth and projected increases as we can be, realizing that sometimes even the projections that were given are not realized because the family makeups that move into areas are not what people anticipate. That's always a challenge. We do the best we can with the best information that we get from the district.

The Chair: Member for Alberni–Pacific Rim.

S. Fraser: Thank you, hon. Chair. You're prescient. I hadn't even stood up yet. You knew I was standing up, so I must have looked anxious.

Thanks to the minister and your staff for being here today. I don't have much time, so I'll go right to literacy programs and Decoda funding. The minister knows I raised this in question period on April 8. On that, the minister said he was correcting me — that the facts are that "this government did maintain 100 percent of Decoda funding this year," that there were no cuts and that they continue to invest. This is April 8 — so this year, this fiscal. That's 2014-15.

The same day the minister stated that in the Legislature, a letter went out to all the members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance, who unanimously recommended the full $2.5 million be provided annually to Decoda for their great work with the literacy programs throughout the programs. They say in the letter to the Finance Committee members: "Our concern at this time is that we know of no financial commitment for community literacy coordination in the 2014-2015 budget year, putting the community literacy work in jeopardy yet again."

I'm pleased with the minister's answer that indeed the full funding is there and that the government will continue to fund Decoda, presumably to the amount that the Finance Committee said — the full amount, the $2.5 million. But I guess the question is: when was the minister planning on letting Decoda and the literacy organizations, like Literacy Alberni in my constituency…? When will they be let know that the money is there, the full funding is there? They are under the impression that it's not there. Again, this is for this fiscal, 2014-2015.

Hon. P. Fassbender: When the decision was made to ensure that the full funding was done, I immediately phoned the chair of Decoda and informed her. The money, from my understanding, has been transferred to Decoda for this year. The allocation to the various groups is done by Decoda, not the provincial government.

We originally had a discussion where there was a question whether or not we would be fully funding them. We did make the commitment of $1 million plus an additional $500,000, and then I informed her that we were able, through efficiencies that ministry staff were able to find, to top them up to the full $2.5 million in this fiscal.

They, I think, were lobbying very hard even before the decision was made. Their members were concerned that funding might be cut back. I think there's a crossover of previous communication, or it may be that there are organizations that Decoda has determined they're not going to fund at the same level. I can't speak to that because I don't know what they've done with the funding we've provided, but our funding for this fiscal is secure.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. The $2½ million — I know last year the minister claimed that the full $2½ million was there. That was including the half a million dollars that was for the Raise-a-Reader program. So that's just a flow-through. I mean, that was never…. The full $2.5 million historically never included the Raise-a-Reader funding.

[1510]

I know the minister even said in question period…. In his response he suggested that "Decoda is the one who makes the decisions on local funding to community groups, not this ministry or this government." The minister just repeated that.

There is no discretion for Decoda in dealing with Raise-a-Reader. It's just a flow-through, in my understanding. That isn't going towards the community coordination, the coordinators — the $2½ million that has historically been there.

What is the amount for community coordination? Again, the recommendation from the Finance Committee was clear: $2½ million, otherwise there are cuts to local agencies for sure in my constituency — Bamfield, Tofino, Ucluelet, and certainly out of Literacy Alberni.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think there's historical context here as well. We have worked with Decoda. Our intent
[ Page 3331 ]
was to hold them to a $1 million cap from government. That does not include what they were receiving from Advanced Ed or from Jobs. This year they lobbied very heavily that they would have to make some significant cuts if they were held to $1 million.

Raise-a-Reader has been in place for about three or four years, and it is definitely a flow-through. That said, this year if you take the $500,000 out, it's $2 million they are receiving now. They received that the year before, so we've kept that level.

We've encouraged them to look to other sources, as well, in terms of community fundraising. When I met with the board and we talked about the fact that we were limiting their funding to $1 million initially this year, they said they didn't have time to broaden their envelope and to look at other sources of revenue. That's why we worked very hard to see if we could take them up to the $2 million level for this fiscal, and we were able to do that. The $500,000 absolutely is a direct flow-through.

S. Fraser: I am running out of time. In essence, though, the funding for community outreach coordination is down half a million dollars from historic levels. I don't mean from last year.

[1515]

Last year there was only $1 million budgeted, as the minister said, but at the very end of that fiscal — the last week, I think — another $1 million was put in there. That's a very difficult way to run an organization, any kind of organization. The minister is nodding in agreement.

They're going to be short half a million. I know that Literacy Alberni is already facing federal cuts on English as a second language and others. There's not a lot of money out there.

The Finance Committee was very, very clear in their recommendation to continue the historic levels of $2.5 million for coordination. Is the money, the $2 million — which is short, which I would argue is not in keeping with the recommendation from the Finance Committee — available now? Or are they going to have to wait till the end of year-end fiscal to try to deal with this? How do you run an organization like that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is right. We have budgeted, clearly, $1 million. We were able to find the other $1 million. Their fiscal year is the same as the government fiscal year. There is no guarantee for next year, because these are discretionary grants. When I met with them, I suggested that they do need to look to the future in terms of other sources.

We're working with them. We're looking at some options. Staff is developing some options moving forward. I did say to them, and I repeat here, that the work they do at the community level is of great benefit for a variety of reasons.

Our challenge, of course, as I've been saying, within our fiscal framework is that there are only so many dollars available, and discretionary grants are year by year. There is no guarantee that they're going to continue. We, again, took the recommendations from the Standing Committee on Finance. We're trying to see what options we have available for them and will continue to work with them and communicate where we're at with them.

V. Huntington: Last estimates I canvassed the issue of busing and transportation. It may already have been canvassed by my colleagues, but I am absolutely determined to bring up the issue again on behalf of the residents of Delta.

I met with ministry officials late last summer to discuss the issue of the student location factor. During estimates the minister commented that there were five or six districts that he knew of that were having difficulty with the busing of students and that the student location factor would be reviewed in respect of those five or six districts. That was done, and we were advised that there would be no change to that factor.

Then again, I understand that Peace River North, school district 60, also complained and in March was once again told that the student location factor would not be changed. The funding allocation branch said at the time that it would continue to review the funding allocation formula and will seek ways to improve the formula.

[1520]

I wonder if the minister could explain the nature of that ongoing review of the funding formula. What's being considered? Can we ever expect to hear an improved result for some of these districts that are having extremely difficult problems with the busing issue?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is well aware that the Technical Review Committee met with the districts that had indicated they have some challenges. They did a very robust review.

From my perspective — the report that I received, and when I was in some of the other districts — this subject keeps coming up. I think the member needs to understand that one of the challenges is the way the funding formula currently exists.

Transportation is part of block funding. The decisions on the provision of transportation, of course, are the local school district's purview. But in those cases where there may be extenuating circumstances…. Some of them are that students in some areas have to cross mountains. They're in very remote areas. They may have to take ferries. There are farming communities that have great distances.

The Technical Review Committee looked at that, and the decision was made not to change it. The reason was…. As we review the entire funding formula, one of the challenges is if you make a change to the transportation
[ Page 3332 ]
component within the block, then there is a ripple effect throughout the rest of the block. If you change something here, you're going to have to take it from somewhere else.

We feel it's very important that we take a look at the whole funding formula, of which transportation is one of the components within the block. We're committed to doing that, as I've said in this set of estimates.

Staff is working on that, and there will be dialogue with all of the districts in terms of the effects. We're going to be working with the BCSTA on a review of the funding formula to make sure that we look at it from the point of view of where we are today and where we need to be tomorrow.

V. Huntington: I appreciate the ripple effect that the minister speaks of, but I would also respectfully suggest that the student location factor is too rigid. It's incapable of the flexibility needed for these exceptional circumstances. I really have always believed that ministers are there especially to deal with those exceptional circumstances that crop up every once in a while.

I would really urge the minister to take a very personal interest in this issue. I suspect that Peace River North has an issue of extremely dangerous natural resource roads. I don't know if your Technical Review Committee has gone up there and taken a look at the huge trucking business in the oil and gas sector, but it is a dangerous system. Children really have to be hauled in from long distances in a dangerous road situation.

Similarly, Delta, which you know…. The students there in the agricultural areas are being forced to cross four major highways. It's dangerous, it's increasingly unacceptable, and the parents are having a very, very difficult time.

I would very much urge the minister to consider the exceptions that have to be looked at in this case and to take that personal interest that's required to resolve this issue.

Perhaps I could just ask another question quickly. Some years ago decreasing enrolment, we were advised, would start to turn around about 2014. That is indeed happening, at least in Delta. We have seen a slight bump — 55 students, I believe.

[1525]

I'm wondering what the ministry is doing in its long-term analysis of how to adjust for the increases of enrolment between now and, say, 2020.

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the greatest challenges, I think, in communities and in the school system is predicting real growth. However, the indications, if you were to use Stats Canada…. I have challenges with their numbers, sometimes, in certain areas. They've predicted growth over the last five years, and it hasn't been realized. What they predicted five years ago — if we would have used that as our means to project where we were going to be, we would have been wrong.

By the same token, I look at districts like Surrey, which is growing every month in terms of population and the amount of growth in school children as a result of it, the factors that contribute to it, immigration — all of those things. We're working with each individual school district to look at it.

I was visiting a school. I opened a new school in Surrey. I had the official opening, and the principal told me that while we had capacity for 555, they only had 325 at that point. But she said: "We just have three new kindergarten classes that we've signed up for September, so we know the growth is coming." I'm glad we were able to build a school with a larger capacity to meet that growth.

There are other districts, like Langley, where we planned. Building a new high school is not something you do overnight, as I'm sure the member is well aware. The high school was projected at a certain number. It's already over capacity. So they're already planning, before they finish building the building, to put some — what I think are not what most people think of as portables — modular classrooms on that site, because the growth that's actually come because of the growth that the municipal government has allowed, in terms of density, is now resulting in students that they hadn't projected years before.

One of the reasons we're looking at the funding formula is to give us some more flexibility in that area. You look at Langford, here on Vancouver Island, one of the faster-growing school districts. You look at the school district of Surrey. There's moderate growth in other districts, like Delta. Fifty-five is manageable growth.

Is that going to explode? When I look at what Delta is doing or not doing in terms of densification and so on, it depends on…. What is that going to result in? We're working with them and the school district to see if we can project what impact it's going to have. The review of the funding formula is going to be done to take out some of those inequities that the funding formula has shown us as a result of that.

[1530]

I think we're all optimistic, with the growth in our economy and with industry moving ahead, that we're going to have growth in the province of British Columbia. That's a good thing on one hand. It poses the challenge in communities.

We're looking at some of the northern districts right now where we have job growth coming. Is that going to result in students, or is it something that will be a construction growth for a period of time and then the actual full-time labour force that might be left in certain communities, not all of them, may not result in additional students? We're doing the best we can.

The review of the funding formula will give us, I hope, in the future, more ability to be flexible and ensure that we try and meet all of the districts' needs — those that are declining and those that are increasing.
[ Page 3333 ]

V. Huntington: I won't ask a new question, but just very briefly…. Does that answer mean, then, that we can anticipate the Education budget expanding in order to cope with projected growth between 2018 and beyond, or are we looking at a demand that the school district start absorbing it within their core budgets at the moment?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I am not going to make any predictions on the budget at this stage. What I will say is that we are hoping that the provincial economy expands, that we maintain our balanced budget, that we pay off our debts so that we can start investing in critical issues like health care and education and other social services.

I am not the Minister of Finance. I'm a member of cabinet in my role as a minister. We're looking at the pressures. The first thing we have to do is to build the strong economy so that we have the resources to invest.

H. Bains: My question to the minister will be, obviously, about Surrey, district 36. There's a general question, and then there are a couple of specifics that I would move to.

The general question is around the overcrowding of Surrey schools, as the minister fully well knows. There was some funding, capital funding that was allocated, I think about a year ago. I believe it was in the amount of about $120 million. That would give us some expansions and some new schools.

That, according to the ad hoc committee and according to the school board, according to…. Everyone involved in education in Surrey is saying that that probably goes, at best, about half of where they should be even today. They're looking at capital expansion of about $273 million in order to accommodate all the students that are in the system today.

When you consider that close to 7,000 students are in portables today, and it will take a few years to build these new schools with the funding that was allocated…. The growth in Surrey that the minister just mentioned will continue to increase. That was projected ten years ago, 20 years ago, and it will continue to grow. People are moving into Surrey at the rate of about 12,000 a year.

We know the demand is there. We know the need is there. We're not even where the current population is. There will be more people moving in, and there will be higher demand.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

My question to the minister is…. We keep on getting the same answer year after year from every minister This minister gave us the same answers last time, but I'd like to have some specific timelines.

When will the minister be able to convince his colleagues at the cabinet table to have some more capital available, capital funding available, to build more schools so that there is a timeline they can start to work on and then have the parents agree, or at least have some understanding, that their kids someday will be in a real classroom? Can the minister say when we can expect some funding, a capital funding announcement to build more schools?

[1535]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'm sure the member is aware of these numbers, but I'm just going to run over them. Since 2001 we've spent over $300 million in the city of Surrey. We have just recently, as he's aware…. Panorama Ridge and Fraser Heights — we've done additions to those two to deal with the growth that's there. I just opened Goldstone Elementary School.

Katzie in Clayton has moved ahead. We have and are waiting for the project scope and the final documentation for the high school in Clayton. We have worked with the Surrey school board and the city of Surrey on the Clayton high school and are looking at some other potential partnerships that might be attached to that. We have acquired two new sites in South Surrey in the Grandview area.

I will say this to the member. I know that everybody says that portables are terrible and we need to get kids out of them. At some risk, I'm going to say this. I'm not so sure that portables are the worst things in the world if we have need and we can accommodate students in a warm and safe environment. I've been in a number of the portables.

Throughout my high school career I spent time in portables the entire time, and I'll tell you: they weren't anything like the modular facilities that we now use. Some of them are very nice facilities, and we try and react. I mean, ideally every child should be within a single building, within classrooms and that. But when we can't do that because of growth, we need to accommodate the kids and ensure that they can stay as close to their neighbourhoods as possible.

So we're working very closely with Surrey. Surrey is probably one of the most creative school districts that I've had the opportunity so far to deal with. The city of Surrey is being very cooperative in looking at where growth…. We've even had some developers who have floated the ideas by Surrey, which we've talked about, in terms of them actually being creative and building schools and looking at some sort of a formula.

Those are unique new approaches that we are looking at. We want to make sure that they're in the best interests of the taxpayers and the communities and that all of those things come together.

But Surrey is absolutely a priority, and it's not just because that's my riding in Surrey, as well, but because the pressure is there. We recognize it, and we are continuing to work with the Surrey school district to meet those needs.

[1540]

H. Bains: I'm so disappointed. I expected better from this minister, being from Surrey. Obviously, we're not going to get the answer. It was a very simple question: is there any plan to have additional capital funding coming than the list the minister has read?

I'm going to move on. The people will know exactly where this government is coming from.

There are some specific issues that I want to draw the minister's attention to because of the time. The Punjabi Language Education Association has brought this issue of Punjabi in schools. In 1994 this policy was adopted by the government here that would allow students to take Punjabi, Mandarin and other languages as a second language during their time.

Right now the Surrey schools, because of the resources, have put three schools…. Surrey Newton, Beaver Creek and Strawberry Hill — all of the Punjabi classes are there. But at a school like in Chimney Heights, there are 36 students who have signed a petition that they want to have a Punjabi class as a regular class in their school. At first, the principal said they had never heard of the program. Now they're saying: "Well, we don't have funding." The school board said: "We don't have funding. We don't have the space. We don't have…." All kinds of excuses. They said: "Unless we get additional funding from the government, we cannot provide you with that service."

The promise that is made to all these students who have a different language…. They want to take Punjabi. Punjabi is more and more in demand for economic reasons and to protect their heritage as Canadian citizens.

If you look at the students who are living in the minister's riding, they have to take Punjabi…. They want to take Punjabi. Chimney Heights is not too far from where the minister is. For them to travel all the way to the other side of Surrey…. Surrey is a pretty big city geographically. How is that fair to the students who want to take Punjabi? The government promised that they can have Punjabi where there is a demand, but because there are no resources, they can't have Punjabi in their school.

The proof is here. There are 36 students who said, "We want to have Punjabi," who are moving from grade 4 to 5, but they're not offered that Punjabi class in their school.

I'm asking the minister: can you work with the school board, provide them the resources that they need so that they can have Punjabi in their school, in their own neighbourhoods?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: This committee stands recessed until after the division.

The committee recessed from 3:43 p.m. to 3:54 p.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Catching up on the question before we had to depart for a bit. The member, I'm sure, is aware that language programs, any immersion programs, are at the discretion of the school district. The ministry is not directing those. They are permissive.

I would appreciate the name of the school. I don't expect….

[1555]

Interjection.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Chimney Heights. We will contact the school district and see what we can find out about that cohort of young people who seem to want to be able to do that. The challenge, of course, is a qualified teacher in all of those, which should not be a problem in Surrey. I don't want to say that unequivocally until we actually have the conversation, but I commit to the member that we will do that.

H. Bains: I would appreciate if you could cc me the response that you receive and any position that you have taken. Thank you. It is the Chimney Heights school that I mentioned.

The other issue I spoke to the minister on earlier, a couple of weeks ago. It's about Khalsa School, which is a private school. There are some serious issues for parents, for students. There are about 70 students who have signed a petition. I'm sure the minister may have received that letter on behalf of the students. There are some issues about education, the quality of education, the treatment. All of that is listed in the letter.

Because of lack of time, I just want to leave it with the minister. Is the minister is going to respond to those students, to the parents on how to address those concerns? For them, going back to the board isn't good enough because they're not getting anywhere with the board.

The minister…. Because they're getting some funding for the school, there is some responsibility on the provincial government. I think the students and parents deserve an answer from the minister. What is the minister going to do to make sure that their issues are identified and addressed and the education standards are met? I would ask the minister to cc me any correspondence that you have in reply to the parents and students. Because of a lack of time, maybe the minister can respond, or maybe we can move on.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I have not personally seen the letter. It may be in my office, but I've not seen it. I will ask, and I will look into it. The one issue that the member did talk to me about was resolved. Perhaps there are other issues that you're alluding to. We'll make sure that we look into it.

C. Trevena: I have just one question for the minister,
[ Page 3335 ]
although I represent three school districts, school districts 85, 84, and 72. It's a question about school district 72. I know the minister did visit school district 72 not long after he was appointed.

The budget for school district 72 this year is going to have a $912,000 shortfall, a $1.2 million shortfall next year and $1.6 million the year after that. The school board, as the minister is well aware — he was full of praise when he came to visit — has done everything possible to ensure that students get a high quality of education. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, left to cut, and they are facing a serious financial shortfall there.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me, and I can relate that to the school board, how they're supposed to plan for the coming years.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I did visit the district. They are doing some innovative things that I saw at the high school with Canfor and with other partners, including the Ministry of Forests. From what I saw, the outcomes of that are to the benefit of the students that they have.

[1600]

Their per-pupil funding is $9,135, which is up from $6,000 in 2000-2001, yet they've had significant reduction in enrolment. Their overall capacity utilization is one of the lowest in the province at 78.8 percent.

The challenge for them — and I did discuss this with them when I met with them — is that they've got a very low utilization of capacity. They have declining enrolment. They're challenged. They are doing some creative things. I think they have to make some of those choices that all of the districts and the province face when it comes to the fact that we don't have additional dollars at this point.

J. Rice: Speaking of visiting districts, we all think we're special and we all think our constituencies are special, but I do think that some of the needs in rural communities are pretty unique.

On that note, I wanted to ask about school district 50, which is on Haida Gwaii. I'm actually just sort of trying a different venue. The superintendent for school district 50 had written a letter to the Minister of Transportation in November and didn't hear a response. Subsequently he wrote a letter to B.C. Ferries in March of this year and didn't get a response. So I did say that I would try a different venue, just in relation to how the recent cuts and changes to B.C. Ferries may have saved money in one area but have downloaded costs into another department. I wanted to highlight that.

I just wanted to paraphrase some of the points that he made in a letter to Minister Stone on November 27. It's how the recent…. This is in relation to the Kwuna, which is the little ferry that runs between Moresby and Graham islands. I hope that makes sense. Most people are like: "The who and the where?"

Impact to learning. He talked about the removal of the Monday-Tuesday…. Sorry, I'll go back. He did mention some of the impacts from the ferry to Prince Rupert and how that has some consequences. He talks about:

"The removal of the Monday-Tuesday ferry from Skidegate to Prince Rupert will mean, inevitably, a reduction in the amount of student travel to the mainland for events, such as our university tours and a girls' volleyball tournament. Simply put, we cannot afford to keep students out of regular classes and in hotels and gyms for a further two days. The same will be true of cultural visits, exchanges and the like" — coming from Haida Gwaii, of course.

I know this is out of your realm, but I'd love any opportunity to highlight some of the challenges that we face in the north.

Even high school students that have orthodontic work in Prince Rupert used to take Monday off school and get to Prince Rupert Monday evening. The orthodontist, who's a visiting orthodontist, would stay open and do a night clinic and service all the kids on Haida Gwaii. Then they would get back on the ferry and arrive in Haida Gwaii on Tuesday morning and go to school from the ferry. That's no longer an option because they would subsequently have to take three days off school. Now the question is: do you take that much time off school and service your braces or not have orthodontic work?

He also talks about reductions in correspondence and external support.

"Many specialists, both directly utilized by the district and those used by the community in the medical, dental, maintenance and psychoeducational fields rely on this ferry. Some will either not come, or we'll have to increase costs. These costs are, in turn, supported by the district, which, of course, is reliant on Ministry of Education funding."

So again, he's just flagging some of these challenges.

"An impact on innovation, cost savings and efficiencies. As superintendent of a small, remote and shrinking district, I am tasked with providing a quality education to the students of Haida Gwaii. First, the removal of the late-evening ferries from Alliford Bay means our board of education will be unable to hold board meetings in Sandspit. Our board prides itself on meeting in all our communities, and this will no longer be the case."

[1605]

I'll move on. Lastly:

"Attracting quality employees. Retaining excellent employees is important in remote locations, and further service erosion will make this more challenging, which in turns has a spiralling effect on educational service in our district. Even within our district this change will mean it will be impossible for qualified teachers living on Moresby Island to work long term on Graham Island and vice versa, further eroding the economic viability of these communities, as well as the B.C. Ferries utilization."

That's from the superintendent/secretary-treasurer of school district 50, written November 27 to Minister Stone.

I am getting to a question, believe it or not. I just wanted to actually highlight some of the points that he made in his March 31 letter which he wrote to Peter Simpson, director of fleet operations of B.C. Ferries, because he didn't hear anything back from the Minister of Transportation.

He's talking about the adjustment schedule, which is
[ Page 3336 ]
happening during the current school year.

"We now have to move our entire bus schedule by about five minutes to allow the students from Sandspit to return home at a reasonable hour."

Sandspit is on the lower island, which is Moresby Island.

"If they miss the 3:40 ferry, there are issues concerning supervision…."

The Chair: Member, do you have a question?

J. Rice: I do have a question, actually. I'm getting to it, if you could just let me finish this one last paragraph.

"If they miss the 3:40 ferry, there are issues concerning supervision that I do not think the government considered when they reduced our funding envelope. As a consequence, our entire south-end schedule has been altered, including shortening a lunch break at one elementary school to accommodate this. There are potential costs to this change, both financial and educational, for the school district.

"Then secondly, the impact of the scheduled change makes it potentially catastrophic for the people of Haida Gwaii. To expand our changing bus schedule in mid-year is difficult, impacting the summer tourism season, which would close down businesses, sending people off the island for work, which in turn creates an economic death spiral."

What he's asking is that B.C. Ferries delay the scheduled shift for the ferries until September so that they can actually just get through the rest of the school year. That would be my question to the minister: if he would be willing to advocate with other ministries or B.C. Ferries or his colleague in the Ministry of Transportation to allow the ferry schedule to return back to normal, to allow them to get through the rest of the school year. They've actually also had to renegotiate contracts with bus providers, etc.

Thank you for your patience in that long preamble.

Hon. P. Fassbender: If the member could provide the letters, I will commit to talk to my cabinet colleague in the Ministry of Transportation. I'm not going to attempt to answer the questions. It's not my responsibility.

M. Mungall: My question pertains to Trafalgar Middle School in Nelson, which is administered by Kootenay Lake school district, SD8. I believe it was about five years ago that SD8 had put forward to the ministry that the number one capital project that they wanted to take on next in terms of a school renewal was for Trafalgar Middle School.

I was just there a little while ago getting the tour of some of the ancient plumbing and ancient infrastructure that is in that school — how it's starting to fall apart. The school district has made that decision, that they see this as their number one priority for capital infrastructure, to the point where they have looked at ways to make it feasible so that it could be done sooner rather than later.

One of the things that they've suggested is that the elementary school, which is just a little bit down the road, would then become a part of that new build.

My question to the minister is, I think, pretty straightforward. Where does this particular project, in terms of funding, sit in the list of priorities for the ministry?

[1610]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the member would be pleased to know that the deputy attended that school in 1982. Even then it was old. It's about a 100-year-old school.

Right now that particular school is not in the capital plan. Our ministry staff are well aware of the condition. The gentleman, Joel Palmer, who's behind me with the grey tie — which he has on today, compared to what he wore yesterday…. Sorry, I had to do that. He's well aware of it and working with them.

The district needs to look at their priorities, and they've done a good job in keeping that school up. I saw another one up in Cranbrook the other day that was 100 years old, and it is in need of help as well. We're well aware of the challenges that they have.

I'm also pleased to know that the parents in that community are pleased with the learning outcomes of their students in the school, which is a testament to the CUPE workers and the maintenance that they do on the school, and the dedication of the staff. The member's comments are noted, and we'll continue to work with them.

I don't have a deadline in terms of when we may be able to move ahead on that.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the opportunity to pose a few questions to the Education Minister.

I wanted to raise some questions of concern in Vancouver-Kensington, particularly from John Oliver School, that have been brought forward to my attention. Also impacting high schools is the possible elimination of the athletic director from Vancouver's secondary schools.

It has been raised to me, certainly, the importance of having this coordinating position. It allows for, on the one hand, developing programs and also providing coaching for many teams. Often it's on a volunteer basis. Coaches, teachers and students have advocated in terms of bringing in athletic directors. It would certainly be a loss to the support of programs and athletic participants.

[1615]

Recognizing that athletics and sports play an important role in the public education system, there's concern raised about the elimination of this position caused by the funding shortfall at the Vancouver school board because of the lack of a sufficient budget. I'd like to raise that to the minister and ask for support for adequate funding, specifically for this position of the district athletic coordinator.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We canvassed this yesterday. I'm sure you can read my comments from yesterday. But just to cut to the chase, the bottom line is the district makes
[ Page 3337 ]
its choices based on the funding envelope that they have. As you know, the funding in Vancouver has been declining, yet even at that, the per-pupil funding has been going up.

We are working closely with the school district to look at their entire financial picture. That's one of the reasons that we're working with them on a project office in the city of Vancouver — for the Vancouver school board to deal with the number of challenges that they face, not the least of which is undercapacity in some areas.

We continue to work with them. It's probably the single school board that I have spent the most time with, and our staff continues to work with them. But the choice on the position is indeed the Vancouver school district's choice, not the ministry's.

M. Elmore: This issue is being brought forward by the Vancouver Secondary Schools Athletic Association, the Vancouver Elementary Physical Activity Association and the Vancouver school board.

I'd like to talk about a petition. I can also table a copy, if the minister hasn't seen it. It's a petition to retain the valued services of children's support workers, and it's initiated from parents of kindergarten-to-grade-12 students in Vancouver's public schools concerned about the reduction to services for vulnerable and at-risk students, particularly the services undermining support and a loss of budget to fund Vancouver school board support workers such as multicultural liaison workers, settlement workers in schools and youth workers.

There is a concern, particularly with youth workers, the engaged immigrant youth and SACY workers. Certainly, they provide important services in the Vancouver school district, particularly in Vancouver-Kensington, and have a value to ensure that students are successful in their schools.

This is, I think, a compelling petition that's come forward. I can forward you a copy of that, again, tabling the necessity of these services, these workers — the importance to support students and teachers in the school for success for students and also the difficulty of declining funding from the ministry to the Vancouver school board.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I'll receive those comments, and the documents can be given to us.

M. Elmore: I have a few letters that I have received from constituents of concern in terms of the ongoing discussions. I can table that and forward to you, from Tammy Lofstrom. As well, a letter from Ryan Hill, and a letter from Carey Mahark, a letter from Trish Mugford and also a letter from Mia Stark, a parent from David Livingstone Elementary School, expressing concerns around a shortfall of funding and loss of services at the Vancouver school board.

I can table those and submit them to the minister. I appreciate that.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Mr. Chair, I'm not getting argumentative here. We don't table things in estimates. You can pass them on, and they will be passed on to me.

If I'm correct, hon. Chair, I think that is the procedure, so I will receive those. Thank you very much.

[1620]

R. Fleming: I know, by agreement between the House Leaders, that we'll end debate in a few minutes and resume tomorrow. I want to just ask the minister a few questions prior to that occurring.

The question I wanted to ask is…. I'm aware that the Ministry of Education has leased space in downtown Vancouver at the SFU Harbour Centre. I'm just wondering if the minister can give the costs for that space, the square footage as well. There's concern that this space is underutilized, and given its address in the downtown peninsula, it's pretty expensive space. So if the minister has any details that he could share.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don't have the figures of the exact square footage and the monthly lease cost, but I'll ask ministry staff to provide that.

I do want to say that I spend quite a bit of my time, when we're not sitting in Victoria and I'm not in Victoria, in those offices with meetings with numerous stakeholders. What I've clearly seen is there are many, many meetings of curriculum development committees from all over the province that come in. We use that space. It's used for many other factors of ministry operations.

I believe that the space is not underutilized by any stretch of the imagination any time I've been in there. I've seen a host of people tucked in various corners in there. But I do commit that ministry staff will provide the member with the monthly lease cost and also what the square footage is.

R. Fleming: Well, that'd be great. I appreciate the minister's answer. I think a lot of officials from local government have seen that space, and they thought it was pretty fancy and nice, but they just want to make sure that efficiencies and that theme that is being pushed by the Minister of Education isn't a one-way street. I'll look forward to getting some information that he can provide on the costs of the ministry maintaining that space for use to have when the House isn't sitting and for meetings.

I want to ask the minister about independent schools, specifically what the agenda is that this government has for independent schools.

We have been privy to some information that was the subject of freedom-of-information requests about any plans that the ministry may have to change either the mandates or policies of the ministry relating to in-
[ Page 3338 ]
dependent schools. The FOI documents we've received back have been heavily redacted, so it's difficult to glean anything about what the government's agenda might be around independent schools.

We know they have an agenda, I would presume, because there's a parliamentary secretary for independent schools. I would presume he's a part of some kind of government initiative, but we don't have anything on the record yet about what direction government may be taking with regards to independent schools.

I'm just wondering if he can describe any policy changes that are anticipated with regards to funding or administration or oversight of independent schools in B.C.

[1625]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Before we note the hour and provide opportunity for the next group to come in, to the member opposite: there are no anticipated policy changes. Our funding formula for independent schools remains consistent. They are an active part of the education system in this province, and the province has been clear that we will continue to support independent schools.

They participate in a number of initiatives within the education system, as we're looking at curriculum development, as we look at other policies that we would be doing within the entire education system. They're an active participant in that. But there are no anticipated policy changes, and I do not have anything more that I can add to that.

R. Fleming: One of the areas that I could maybe decipher where there has been a policy change is around distributed learning. B.C. has public and private systems in distributed learning education that's delivered in B.C. Typically, many school districts have distance education school programs where they provide instruction for students. It's of very high quality — excellent supervision around exam results. Completion rates are good.

This is an area of growth on the private side that the minister will be aware of. While independent schools enrolment grows at something like 1 or 2 percent per year — it's a very modest rate — independent distributed learning has grown astronomically: 125 percent, from 4,300 FTEs to 9,700 FTEs, in 2012-2013 alone.

The one policy change that I'm aware of that this government has made very recently with regards to independent education is that they increased the distributed learning funding that private schools get. They used to get only 50 or 35 percent as per the group 1 and 2 schools of the independent school section. They now get 62 percent. In fact, I think it even increased inexplicably in 2013-14 to 63 percent funding.

No wonder it's a growth industry. The subsidy that's available publicly — at a time of scarcity, as we've heard from this minister throughout this set of estimates — has increased rather dramatically. It's a very profitable and lucrative business getting an increased amount of subsidy. This is also, of course, competing with the public school distributed education systems that they have.

I'm just wondering. The ministry documents that we have suggest that this policy change was a result of lobbying done by the Federation of Independent Schools. Is this part of a bigger agenda? Why was this decision made — at a time when you're rationing education for the public system — to almost double, in some cases, subsidies available to independent schools who do distributed learning?

[1630]

Hon. P. Fassbender: Noting the hour, I'll try and give as much information within the time that I have. The member is correct in terms of the increases. The funding policy change that was implemented in 2012-13 did amend school funding to a percentage of the public DL provincial flat rate, which is $5,851, instead of the local district per-pupil amount as its base. There is a separate flat rate.

This change was made to address an inequity created when some of the independent DL schools were receiving greater grants than other independent schools. That created a significant issue that we were made aware of — as compared to, even different than, their public counterparts.

At this time the Federation of Independent School Associations, FISA, argued that DL funding at 50 percent and 35 percent for group 1 and group 2 schools would create significant pressures on these schools, to the point where closure was necessary, yet the request for DL was increasing. They lobbied for 62 percent of the public DL flat rate, or $3,627.

The policy decision in the spring of 2013 has further increased independent DL funding rates to 63 percent, or $3,686.13, and 44.1 percent, respectively, for the 2013-14 year. What it does not do is signal any change in terms of government policy as it relates to other aspects of independent schools.

Before I note the hour, I would like to say that at the offices at suite 1550, 555 Hastings Street, the cost is $154,000 a year, and the square footage is 310.92 square metres for the facility. I would invite, if the member has not been there, to come and visit one day when I'm there, and I'll show him how well utilized it is.

The Chair: Minister, I think the member has another question.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Chair, and I thank the minister for both of those answers around the cost of the offices. But maybe just one final follow-up question to the information he gave about the independent schools. This is interesting. I mean, it was never done in the light of day. This is the creation of a brand-new category, if you will, a
[ Page 3339 ]
new subsidy rate for independent education.

Given everything that the minister has said to public education leaders about there being no money for all sorts of unfunded cost pressures that they're facing, I find it is interesting that there was money in 2012-2013 to allow a dramatic 125 percent expansion of this line of business from independent schools and further subsidy enhancements in the current fiscal year.

It defies the logic that the minister offers on a regular basis, through the media and as we saw in question period today, to treat the private education sector with a generous new subsidy enhancement on a new line of business and to treat the public education system very much differently when they talk about the needs they have and the funding shortfalls they're facing.

What my question is about, though, is quality. We've seen a dramatic expansion in the business end of distributed learning by private education.

[1635]

I think the biggest provider in the province is Heritage Christian. They're quite large. They certainly advertise a lot in the National Post, and they offer free courses and free iPads — because they have a 63 percent subsidy behind them that the taxpayer provides — to enrol in their B.C. on-line schools. They may well be providing a quality product. I'm not here to say, because I don't know.

What I have distinctly heard is that there are some independent schools that are now in the distributed-learning business that have, first of all, a 400-to-1 student-to-teacher ratio, which is double what public schools have, and that some of them are allowing students to write exams at home unsupervised. Now, that would present a serious compromise to the integrity and quality of Dogwood certificates being issued if those are the examination conditions that are being allowed. These are specific complaints that I believe have been brought to the ministry's attention.

We talked yesterday about international education here. The minister said that since 2012 his ministry has been trying to get better quality control on overseas schools. I would ask him: is there any plan to have better oversight of domestic schools right here in British Columbia — schools that are growing by leaps and bounds as a profitable industry because of the 63 percent subsidy now provided by his government?

These are serious allegations. I wonder if this is something that has been brought to his attention and whether he's taken any action as a result of potentially unsupervised exams compromising the integrity of graduation.

Hon. P. Fassbender: A brief answer. They are supervised, probably more rigorously than our offshore schools are, on an ongoing basis because, indeed, they are here. They are providing a quality education.

If the member has any issues with any given school that he has been made aware of or allegations that have been made, I would appreciate it if those are passed on to the ministry, and we will investigate those. I am convinced, from what I've heard from many parents that I've talked to, in remembering that they have other sources of funding besides ministry funding. They do significant fundraising activities across the spectrum. I think they do a good job in augmenting what they're doing.

With that said, I move that the committee adjourn debate on Vote 18.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Committee A will recess for a few minutes while we wait for the next minister.

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

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,529,819,000.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, would you like to make a statement?

Hon. D. McRae: I will be brief, because I know we're starting a little late. I would like to start by introducing and thanking the ministry staff who are joining me here today. To my right I have Sheila Taylor, who is deputy minister for SDSI. To my left is Len Dawes, acting ADM and executive financial officer, corporate services division with the ministry. Behind me is Doug Woollard, interim CEO of Community Living B.C. — and an amazing choir member as well, I hear. Other staff members will join us later as we go, and I'll introduce them as they come.

In a very brief statement, please let me take a moment to discuss the progress we've made in serving people with developmental disabilities. I'm pleased with the progress being made at Community Living B.C. as the agency continues to implement the recommendations made in the deputy minister's 2011 review. This process supports a sustainable and long-term strategy to strengthen supports for people with developmental disabilities and the services that they rely on.

Over the three-year fiscal plan, Budget 2014 allocates an increase of $243 million for Community Living B.C. Budget 2014 realigns the CLBC budget based on 2013-2014 actual baseline costs to better reflect maintaining existing services and accommodate caseload growth.

CLBC's base budget is increasing to $800 million in 2014-15, an increase of $71 million over the 2013-14 budget year. CLBC's total operating budget, including
[ Page 3340 ]
contributions from the B.C. government, is $827.2 million for 2014-2015.

Government will also increase CLBC's base budget by $20 million in each of the following two years. We're monitoring progress of the work underway at CLBC, and we'll continue to do so.

I thank CLBC in advance for the hard work they do for persons with developmental disabilities and their families across the province of British Columbia. I look forward to the questions from the members opposite.

J. Kwan: I thank the minister for his quick opening comments. As well, I thank the minister and his staff for the half-hour briefing that I received, wherein we tried to get some questions answered, to which I received some documentation about 20 minutes ago regarding the questions that I had asked.

I have not had a chance to really go through that documentation. So I'm putting it on the public record that from that briefing I may well have follow-up questions from the documentation I have received. I would certainly appreciate the minister confirming that I would be able to do that at a later time. He can answer that question, I know, quickly.

I'm going to just race through these questions. We have two hours — as I understand, less than two hours now — to ask all the questions around CLBC's budget. I actually have a lot of questions that I have sort of formulated, along with many questions from stakeholders who wish me to put on the record these questions to the minister as well.

Knowing that we're going to run out of time to ask all of these questions, I also will ask the minister to confirm that if we're unable to answer all of these questions in this session, that I would be able to do so with the minister either by writing or through a briefing at another time.

[1650]

With that, I'm going to just jump right into the questions.

As we know, so far there's been no reliable information with regards to wait-lists despite many, many requests. I wonder if the minister can provide information about the current CLBC wait-lists, and if he doesn't have the information or if it takes a long time to gather all that information, if he would commit to provide that to me in writing.

When I talk about wait-lists, I'm talking about all of the different programming within the CLBC sector to which services are being provided to clients.

Hon. D. McRae: I think we canvassed this a little bit last time. The request for service list is a way of providing services for persons who are looking for services from CLBC. An individual may come and request services, and they may request services — maybe three or four or five different ones. Depending on the need at the time and the opportunity of availability, those services are provided — or trying to make sure the person is supported in the way they are.

As to a wait-list, we do not actually have wait-lists. Requests for services are out there. We try to ensure we work with each individual client to try to provide them a level of service. Of course, this is reviewed as their needs progress through the system.

J. Kwan: I'm going to actually park this question, because I think it's going to take a long time to get to the bottom of it. In the briefing I did talk to the staff from the minister's office about the request for services information, the lists and so on. I'm going to continue on that discussion, in that vein, so that we don't actually spend time doing that.

I want to actually get into, very quickly, the increased costs imposed by government: for example, the new statutory holiday cost; MSP premium plan increases — 25 percent increase; the minimum wage. All these increases will of course have an impact in the cost of providing services to individuals and families. Yet the government, of course, does not provide additional funding to the individuals or the families or the organizations who have to absorb these costs — which, of course, ultimately results in a reduction in services.

[1655]

My question is: will the government commit to providing the funding for these mandated increases, as per the work of the government/non-profit initiative, which recommended that "a full-cost financial model also emphasizes the need to put in place substantial funding models for agencies delivering services to clients on behalf of government." Of course, there are no increases provided in their budget accordingly for these areas.

I wonder if the minister can actually advise: how does he expect the organizations or those individuals to provide the services that they need to provide when, in fact, they're going to be faced with a shortfall with these mandated increases?

Hon. D. McRae: The CLBC fund the increases for municipal pension plan and Family Day stat. They were able to find the moneys for that. Further expenses — for example, EI premiums — we allow service providers to offset against the funds from undelivered services that they provide.

J. Kwan: What about wage increases?

Hon. D. McRae: For the collective agreement that was just signed this year — 2014, a five-year agreement — the government is committed to providing the funding.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Did the minister say that the government is providing the wage lift that was mandated for the organizations? Will they actually fund it with addi-
[ Page 3341 ]
tional funding, or is it with the existing budget that the organizations are expected to pay out of?

[1700]

Hon. D. McRae: For the agreement signed in 2014, it is funded.

J. Kwan: For the fiscal year of 2012-13, which would be the last fiscal year ending — right? —which these estimates would include, was that funded as well?

Hon. D. McRae: That was through cooperative gains.

J. Kwan: Was the lift funded?

Hon. D. McRae: By definition, no. It was through cooperative gains.

J. Kwan: In that vein, it does actually highlight the very essence of the problem, because the organizations were expected to actually reduce funding from other sources, and frankly there was really no other place to reduce funding in the service which they delivered to their clients.

The only place where they could have actually done that would be, of course, the reduction in programming. I know the minister would like to say that that doesn't happen and is not real. In reality, it is, so let's just get that on the record here. And that's not just on the wage increases; it also includes MSP premium increases, municipal plan increases and so on.

Aside from these increases in costs to organizations who are trying to provide for the services, there are also increasing costs in the cost of living, in and of itself. Food, utilities, fuel, insurance, rent — all of these items are increasing. Does CLBC have money in their budget to address these cost pressures for service providers, or are they expecting agencies to reduce services to individuals and families?

Hon. D. McRae: Just if we go back in history a little bit, under cooperative gains — and I know it was an issue that was front of mind, especially a year ago. If we use…. For example, there were 140 unionized service providers working with CLBC. We asked service providers who were challenged to meet savings in the cooperative gains…. And again, those savings would be traditionally through aspects like administrative savings or working with the family and the individual involved. Maybe the service would evolve to a different place.

Five organizations did come forward, out of the 140, with concerns about how to meet the cooperative gains, and I'm pleased that CLBC was able to work with those individuals. With the new collective agreement, just signed recently, for five years, my understanding is that no organization has come forward yet. However, if an organization does have concerns about how it will meet its service provision levels, CLBC is more than willing to work with them to see if they can find a solution. But that has not happened yet.

J. Kwan: Yeah, just going back to the cooperative gains, with the exception of this, it is my understanding that the organizations received a commitment from the government side at the negotiating table that they would actually get a lift in funding — in addition to the moneys that they got to deliver services — to meet the increase in demands that the government had mandated. That is the reason why the organization signed on to those collective agreements and accepted it.

[1705]

Then of course, after the fact, all was forgotten, and no moneys were forthcoming. The organizations had to somehow suffer through and manage without the additional dollars, without somehow magically not cutting services to their clients — which as I said, is not reality.

I wonder whether or not the minister has any documentation whatsoever that would indicate that the government had, through somebody within his representation, made a commitment to organizations that they would actually fund those mandated wage increases outside of their existing budgets.

Hon. D. McRae: Again, the whole definition of cooperative gains is that there is no new money on the tables. CLBC, as far as I'm concerned — or am led to be aware — has no documentation and is not aware of any documentation where new moneys were promised.

J. Kwan: I just wanted to get that on the public record.

Okay, moving back, then, to the question on increased costs for living in British Columbia. I don't believe the minister actually answered the question on food, utilities, fuel, insurance, rent, which are all increasing for these organizations. Are they supposed to somehow…? Actually, how are they supposed to pay for these increases? Is that meant to be in such a way that they would have to reduce services to their clients or families?

Hon. D. McRae: The short answer is no. But that being said, if a service provider did have a struggle financially to meet certain obligations — and obviously, service provision is something that we're very, very concerned about — they could approach CLBC and explain these issues at any time.

So if the member opposite actually knows an organization in question that is having trouble meeting its service demands, by all means, please encourage that organization to approach CLBC. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to work with that organization.

J. Kwan: When the minister says that they would be
[ Page 3342 ]
willing to work with the organization, what exactly does that mean? Would they be able to negotiate more dollars for their operations? Or does that mean that they're going to be told: "Sorry, if you can't meet these demands, we're going to take your services, go somewhere else and ask someone else to do it"? What does that mean exactly?

Hon. D. McRae: I'd prefer not to engage in hypotheticals. If an organization is struggling, by all means, please have that organization come to CLBC, and we could have that conversation with the said service organization. In that way, we're not going to guess about the speculation part of it.

It is really important to make sure that individuals realize that we want to make sure their service levels are what they've committed to and are adequate. If an organization does struggle…. They could struggle for many, many reasons, hypothetically. For that reason, I'm sure CLBC would like to work with them individually if such a problem does arise.

J. Kwan: Okay, then, on that basis, could the minister just confirm on the public record that when an organization does come forward, they will not be penalized in any way, shape or form?

Hon. D. McRae: No, they will not be penalized. I think an example of good will is that there were five organizations — when we talked about cooperative gains — who had issues. They went forward to CLBC. They were not penalized.

Again, going forward, we can't predict what'll happen in the future and there are concerns. Obviously, we're very concerned about the individuals that those service organizations do support. So again, if there is an issue of note, please ask any of them — and if you're watching on TV — to come forward to CLBC and express their concerns. CLBC is more than happy to work with them.

J. Kwan: Organizations are concerned; I can tell you that. People are concerned about bringing the issues forward — not just organizations, families are. They rely on the government for their services. When that happens, when people make these complaints, they feel that they are threatened in some way. That's real.

[1710]

I'm glad to get this comment on the record from the government that there will be no threat to them in any way, shape or form. That's now on the public record, and we'll hold that to account.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. Every year a portion of the CLBC funding is made available for new services when people move or pass away. How much has CLBC projected that it will need to find savings from existing services this year to fund new service requirements?

Hon. D. McRae: In 2014-15, CLBC is forecasting $14 million in recoveries. Again, that's for issues such as death, moving out of province, agreed-upon service changes. That $14 million goes right back into services, though there is no guarantee that those services are going to be with the same organization.

Also, because I know this also gets asked occasionally, there is no reduction in individual services without agreement of that individual being served.

There is, like I say, $14 million in recoveries that do come back through various means.

J. Kwan: Okay. So the minister is saying that all $14 million will go back into service delivery in the organizations — not to the same organizations but service delivery to organizations — and that is to say that this will be a provision of new services.

Hon. D. McRae: The short answer is yes, in new or additional services.

J. Kwan: The collective agreement, as the minister mentioned…. In this year the wage increases would be funded. That is the case, as I understand, for unionized organizations.

[1715]

But for the non-unionized agencies, it is my understanding that they were referred back to specific funding ministries to try to recover that cost. Is that correct? If so…. I mean, in the provision of these services, how does the minister expect these organizations to actually meet the increased cost that they're faced with?

Hon. D. McRae: For the 2014-2015 fiscal year going forward, based on the new contract — I'm sure the member opposite is aware — there are no fiscal pressures because it is zero percent this year.

The non-union obviously do not have a collective agreement with government, so that's another issue. However, the non-union organizations are in conversation with CLBC as well.

J. Kwan: Will CLBC commit to providing equivalent funding increases for non-unionized agencies as well?

Hon. D. McRae: I can't make that commitment right now. However, there are ongoing conversations going forward.

J. Kwan: Then I'll just simply say this. It is important that these organizations do get their increases if they're going to be faced with salary increases that they have to pay their staff. Otherwise, the minister can just imagine what the net result of that will be if they're not able to make those commitments with their existing budgets.

At the end of the day, it's a zero-sum game, and the
[ Page 3343 ]
money has to come from somewhere. I know that the minister would agree with me that we would not want to see the funding come out of service provision to the clients. At the end of the day, I think the minister needs to step in and assist with that through his staff, through CLBC.

I'm going to move on to my next question. CLBC says they want innovation, and there is a need for pilot projects regarding residential options, day services and employment. What funding models does CLBC have to support innovation?

[1720]

Hon. D. McRae: I'll give the member opposite an example of how CLBC is supporting innovation. For example, CLBC is working with Inclusion B.C. on a project for shared living where the individual actually owns their own home and support is provided by a service provider. In regards to this innovative idea, CLBC is providing dollars for research and data collection to better inform the decision-making process.

J. Kwan: Maybe we can do it this way. If the minister can ask his staff to provide me, at a later time, a list of the innovative approaches that CLBC has adopted, I would appreciate that, and to sort of outline for me how that works and what it is doing and the models that CLBC is using. I would appreciate that. I don't want to go into a lengthy sort of answer back and forth around that, given the tight time limit that we have. If the minister can at the next question please confirm that on the public record, I would appreciate it.

Many of the people that organization supports want to live independently and semi-independently, as the minister knows, in their own community. CLBC actually does not provide funding to address the gap between the housing amount that is provided to them through PWD. Therefore, many people are not actually able to reach the goal of living independently or semi-independently.

I wonder whether or not the minister would consider funding the gap in those instances for those individuals. Would that not be an innovative and effective way of helping people to achieve their goal of living independently or semi-independently?

Hon. D. McRae: In response to the first question about providing a list, yes, by all means. A list will be provided.

As the member opposite knows, B.C. Housing is the primary agency responsible for housing in British Columbia. CLBC does continue to work with B.C. Housing to expand access for its people they serve in regards to affordable housing.

[1725]

J. Kwan: Yes, I know, but that wasn't the question I asked the minister. I'm asking the minister whether or not CLBC will provide for funding to fill in the gap between the cost of renting a home for a person in the community at the market rent, because the PWD amount usually — the shelter amount — does not actually meet the cost of what the market is.

As the minister also knows, B.C. Housing's wait-list for access to affordable housing units is longer than, I think, my lifetime, until the end of this universe. Realistically, for people to access those units, it's almost zero. Effectively, those people that wish to live independently or semi-independently are severely curtailed because they cannot afford to pay the rent in the market universe if they cannot access a B.C. Housing unit.

Following that, I'm asking the minister if CLBC would consider providing funding by way of bridging that gap between what they get with PWD and the market rent so that they can actually achieve their goal of living independently or semi-independently.

Hon. D. McRae: The answer to the member opposite's question is no. We're not able to provide the funding through CLBC for that funding gap, if you wish to describe it as such. However, that being said, CLBC continues to work with individuals and B.C. Housing to see if we can provide solutions for housing needs. I know it's never easy, but there have been many successes to date, and we continue to work with individuals to provide housing.

J. Kwan: I will just simply make this comment, then. I would urge the minister to consider that option and evaluate each individual's needs accordingly and then have flexibility in their approach as opposed to simply saying no across the board. The reality of that, particularly in some instances, is that the circumstances of those individuals are so unique, and the communities in which they live also demand flexibility in the approach. I would urge the minister to consider that and perhaps work in collaboration with his colleague the Minister for Housing to find solutions to that.

I'm amenable to government working across all branches to find a way to make that a reality, even to the point of actually accessing the Ministry of Health, in terms of financial support from that ministry, as a collaboration to realize this goal. I'll leave that with the minister.

Now, CLBC has indicated they'd planned to transfer the administration of CLBC-contracted home-sharing arrangements to service providers. Is this the case, and has the necessary funding for this transition been established?

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: CLBC has made the decision to gradually transfer home-sharing from CLBC to agencies. This includes the funding, which will also transfer. However, I
[ Page 3344 ]
want to reinforce to the member opposite that this transfer is gradual.

[1730]

J. Kwan: Okay. I'm not quite sure that the minister has answered the question, and again we're pressed for time. I wonder whether or not, then, on the question around home-sharing, if the minister can ask the staff to outline for me what has been done, what budget has been allocated to get this work done and what sort of transition we are looking at, the timeline and so on — all the details associated with this. If the minister can commit to providing that information to me.

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is yes. It was a long quick question, and I know we are pressed for time, so we'll make sure we get the question off the Hansard, and we will provide that information.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, and I'll also have a list of questions, as well, because the government actually came forward with a report called the Home Share Service Review that was released on February 3, 2014. I had a brief discussion with the minister's staff in the briefing around this, but I have another list of questions coming out of that.

For example, there was talk about a five-year plan. When can we expect the five-year plan to be available? When would the detailed response to the Hughson report be completed? I did ask the minister's staff this question: why was funding for home-sharing not included in the scope of this review? The minister's staff said that they didn't actually have — the person or the organization who was doing the review — the expertise to look into that issue, as an example, so I would like to further elaborate on that point. When will home-sharing funding be addressed, or will it be addressed at all? If so, when?

Other questions for the minister around that would be this shift from directly contracted home-sharing to agency-coordinated home delivery and what challenges this model has encountered, as an example, which follows the line of questions that I was raising just previously.

Anyway, I have a long list of questions regarding home-sharing, and I'm reluctant to sort of read them all onto the public record so as to not spend time doing that. Maybe I can get a commitment from the minister to follow up with this, and then I can certainly pass on my written questions to him accordingly. I think the minister is going to say yes, so I'll just wait for that answer.

Hon. D. McRae: By all means, and thank you for acknowledging that there is minimal time, not enough time. Yes, please do provide with us a list of the questions. We'll make sure the CLBC gets them, and we'll answer as soon as we can.

J. Kwan: Thanks very much. Yeah, I guess those two hours — every minute counts.

I'd like to ask the minister actually, segueing into a different area here…. The question centres around CLBC addressing the request for service list with respect to transitioning youth. This is more specific. It's not just on the overall but more specific with respect to transitioning youth.

It is my understanding, and the minister's staff confirmed, that the youth will receive $2,800 per year and that those youth who require a higher level of service would receive more, although the $2,800 is not a maximum but a minimum. I just want to get that confirmed from the minister.

[1735]

Hon. D. McRae: The families of the individual or the individuals are offered the minimum, like the member said — and she was correct — of $2,800. Based on my experience, many times the families of the individual will use this for respite, but it is possible they could use it for employment or other supports that are necessary for the individual. Again, the $2,800 is offered to everyone as a minimum, but there could be more.

J. Kwan: Can the minister confirm that CLBC bases its resource allocation decisions on an individual's current disability-related needs and that these are determined, generally speaking, using the guide to support allocation, commonly known as the GSA?

This component of resource allocation relies on a detailed and accurate understanding of the individual and their support needs, and therefore, the GSA allows an analyst to consider information in ten areas and then assign a numerical level to an individual's disability-related needs. Therefore, it is a tool which CLBC uses to learn about the individual's support needs and to make presumably good decisions based on that knowledge. Can the minister just confirm that?

Hon. D. McRae: The guide to support allocation is one tool CLBC uses to understand an individual's current disability-related needs and to make decisions about the funding and services. The guide is completed by a facilitator working with the family, and it focuses on an individual's current support needs rather than needs that existed in the past or those that may exist in the future. It can be reapplied at any time if an individual's needs do change.

J. Kwan: I have a copy of Community Living B.C. Resource Allocation, a Practice Guide for Analysts and Facilitators, so the stuff that I just put on the public record is actually quoted from the document. I assume I read it correctly and understood it correctly. I just wanted that confirmation, and I think the minister just did confirm that by adding some additional information to that.
[ Page 3345 ]

In that vein, I wonder: does anybody not get the full funding which the guide, the resource allocation document, identifies and has evaluated that the individual is deemed to need at the level which they require? Does anyone actually not get the funding level that has been identified by their GSA score?

[1740]

Hon. D. McRae: Funding for individuals is prioritized based on most urgent need. As the individual's need changes, it is reallocated or relooked at or re-examined as they go forward.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer my question. I'm asking whether or not anybody who has been assessed under this document that says Resource Allocation, A Practice Guide for Analysts and Facilitators to Determine the Individual's Needs and then they're assigned a GSA score — called the guide to support allocation score…. Did any of those individuals who have received their score receive less funding than what the score indicates they should be getting?

Hon. D. McRae: The score on the guide does not correlate to any immediate funding. It all depends on the individual and the needs that they do have.

J. Kwan: Well, then let me ask this question. Does the minister consider approximately 140 hours of support a year, which equates to about 2.5 hours per week, adequate for a transitioning youth who has been assessed by CLBC as needing 17 to 23 hours per week?

[1745]

Hon. D. McRae: There are certain circumstances where not every service requested is able to be provided. CLBC remains in contact with families and re-examines services as necessary or as circumstances change.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question, either, that I put to him about whether or not he thought it was adequate for someone who is assessed, based on the government's own assessment tool, to require 17 to 23 hours of funding support to only receive 2½ hours. That's a simple question. I think common sense will tell the minister that the answer is a short no.

I know what the minister is trying to do: to evade answering the question with some other answer. That doesn't erase the fact that this is the reality — what families are faced with today.

Let me give just the minister some examples of individuals who are in this scenario so that the minister has full understanding of it. I'm going to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to use the names, for privacy reasons. Although I have authorization, I'm not going to do that. I'm simply going to refer to these individuals as participants.

In 2014 we have a 19-year-old young woman with intellectual disability, anxiety disorder and cerebral palsy. She uses a wheelchair for long distances, and both her parents are self-employed full-time in businesses. At different times one or the other travels out of the country for work, sometimes for a month at a time, leaving the other parent to run their business full-time and try to cope with her complex behaviour.

The participant has been assessed at a level 4, based on the government's own tool, requiring 17½ hours per week of day supports. However, her mother has been given the heads-up by a CLBC facilitator that she should not expect more than $2,800 in respite funding. The family is unsure as to what to do and what they will do if services for their daughter are not funded by CLBC. They need services beginning in late June of 2014, and the family is exhausted by the complex behavioural needs of their daughter. There are no other family support networks that they can rely on in their community. Example 1.

Example 2. The participant turns 19 in November 2014. However, he wishes to "graduate with his classmates" and does not wish to return to high school for another year. He has an intellectual disability. As of April 24, 2014, his family has not been advised what his GSA score is, though they suspect it is likely going to be a level 4, which would mean that the individual would require 17½ hours per week. Both his parents work and are unsure how to handle his day supports if CLBC does not provide funding when he turns 19, given he is adamant about not returning to school.

The family needs services to begin in September 2014 using MSD funds, with CLBC funds to take over when the young man turns 19. We don't know yet what the funding's going to be, but if it's going to be the base level of $2,800, it's not going to meet the needs. Then there is the complexity of the person not wanting to stay in school. As a result, there are no supports in terms of day programs, creating a huge problem for this individual.

[1750]

Another participant, No. 3 in 2014, is an 18-year-old male who turns 19 in June 2014. These are, therefore, transitioning youths. He has an intellectual disability and poorly controlled and unpredictable epilepsy, which can result in individual seizures with injury if he's standing or in a dangerous location. He wears a helmet at all times to avoid further head injuries. Clusters of seizures, up to 16 an hour, can happen unpredictably and require constant supervision and the administration of emergency medication until they stop. Clusters happen every week to two weeks.

This particular individual is very physically active and enjoys all kinds of sports, including basketball, biking, soccer, baseball and rock climbing. He's unable to travel anywhere independently because of the unpredictabil-
[ Page 3346 ]
ity of the seizures. He lives with his self-employed single mom during the week and spends weekends with his father, who lives in another community most of the year. His father has a full-time job, and when he's having seizures he requires close supervision and care, making it impossible for the mom to run her business.

As of April 29 the mom has not been advised of his GSA score, and if day services are not provided by CLBC, the mother will be unable to provide financially for her son to maintain their home and her business. So this is another example, and if the base level is at $2,800, this family is going to be in dire straits.

Now, I know that the minister is going to say, "Well, that will be all subject to further evaluation," and so on and so forth. But I want to give these examples to the minister so that he's aware of the current situation. I have a stack of files full of individuals where they are not being funded to the level to which their score says they should be funded — in fact, substantively.

I have records here that demonstrate individuals who had to fight for almost a year in order for them to get the full-level funding that they should be getting, and then it was almost a year after the fighting when they finally got that funding. This meant that that whole year of fighting, they weren't getting that funding accordingly.

I'm very worried that those individuals and others that are new to the system would be in that boat, which would compromise their health and safety. That is the reality of it. So I want to bring this to the minister's attention, and hopefully, these issues would be addressed.

I want to put another example on the record here. This individual has Down syndrome. He has a visual impairment, as well, and is physically challenged. He requires extra support at school and manages daily routine quite nicely.

The family writes: "What I can't understand is why, all of a sudden, because he's turning 19 should his needs not be met? He's still the same individual who's always needed support." But already the family is being told that they should not count on any extra support. The individual also has to care for the spouse, who also suffers from mental health issues and a heart condition. This is from an individual who is very worried about their child and their family's well-being.

Another case. I think I will stop with this last case because I'm running out of time fast. In 2014 this young woman turns 19, in August of this year. She has autism spectrum disorder and loves everything, from Disney to art to furry animals. As of April 29, 2014, her family has not been advised what her GSA score is, though her single mother suspects that, again, it is a level 4, requiring 17½ hours per week.

Her mother works ten-hour-day day shifts, five shifts a week, managing a home-based licensed child care facility. In addition, the mother supports a younger child of 15 years of age who also has autism spectrum disorder, with the added difficulties of OCD as well. This family requires a lot of support to maintain daily life. If day services were not provided by CLBC, this mother would likely work herself…. Well, we can just imagine the situation there.

I want to again highlight yet another story for the minister's understanding of the situation here for these various individuals and families.

So going back to that question, I wonder — maybe not at this time, because we're pressed for time…. I know the timeline is such that the minister and the ministry won't be able to formulate all of the calculations of those who have been assessed by the GSA score on how much they'd be receiving — is it the $2,800 as the bare minimum, or is it going to be what the score assessed them to be? — and that all that information won't be available until, I think, towards the end of May.

[1755]

Once that information is available, I wonder if the minister can provide me with the information of how many individuals are getting the funding that they're assessed at, and how many are not.

Hon. D. McRae: I think there is a whole bunch of questions. I'll try to give three answers here. If a person is assessed at level 4, basically, they have the ability to access up to a maximum of 17 hours a week of supports. That does not necessarily mean that there are 17 hours. It's a maximum of up to.

The other piece. CLBC will share information from the budget management plan when it becomes available. This will become available, I would think, in early to mid-June. When it becomes available, we will provide it.

The other piece is that it's also really important for people to understand that there is a complaints resolution process that is available to everybody who works with the CLBC. So if a decision is made or perhaps they're afraid a decision is going to be made that's not going to be to one's best needs or they think that a decision is not timely in coming, a person can go to the complaints resolution process, where a whole new person adjudicates the issue and will relook at the case.

J. Kwan: Just so the minister knows, interestingly…. He says that they're not entitled to 17 hours, but they can get up to 17 hours. But this is the case history of the government since 2001.

[1800]

One participant assessed at level 4 GSA in 2010-2011 got zero hours, in 2011-2012 got zero hours funded and then in 2012-2013 got ten hours. Then it wasn't until 2013-14 that the individual got what they should have got, which is 17½. Okay? So participant No. 1.

Another case would be somebody who's assessed at a level 3 from the GSA score in 2010-11 got zero hours and in 2011-12 got zero hours. Then in 2012-13 they got 11 hours, and it wasn't until 2013-14 that they got funding
[ Page 3347 ]
for 12 hours, as an example.

I'm sort of just highlighting a few examples here. It's not to say that those individuals did not require the funding. It was through relentless advocacy that they finally got the funding that they required in those subsequent years. I have many, many examples of participants who are in that scenario.

I have another ten participants who have been…. Some of them are assessed at a level 4 GSA score, and already they've been told that they only get $2,800 — so therefore 2½ hours as opposed to 17½ hours, which is really what they require.

You can imagine that these scores…. I read through this document in quite some detail trying to understand it. It actually cites how this is the best model that British Columbia uses. It says all kinds of swell things about it and talks about how the government spent years in coming up with this assessment tool, only then for the minister to say that the assessment tool is, well, just something that we consider — somewhere in these estimates.

Families understand and facilitators have been told that when they've been assessed using this score, this is how much they should be funded and calculate the funding accordingly. The minister is now sort of switching that to say, "Well, gee, they're able to get up to 17½ hours of funding," and not actually what has been identified according to this guide. I find that extremely troubling.

Now, I am fully cognizant of the time and the lack of time that we have in getting into a full debate about that, but I do want to flag it for the minister around this issue and my grave concern about the government not providing the necessary funding to meet the needs of these individuals to ensure their health and safety. I want to put that on the record.

I'll be looking forward to receiving the documentation from the minister around how many of those individuals are getting the funding which the GSA score says they should be and how many are not — that means to say those that are only getting the $2,800 as the bare minimum.

I understand and families do know that there's a complaint process. They also understand that there is a representative, as well, to which they can bring these issues, amongst other avenues, which of course is available to them.

That said, one would hope, though, that when the issues have been brought to the minister's attention, that people wouldn't actually have to exercise those avenues, through enormous challenges and grief, to try to get the basic supports that the government's own tool assessed these individuals to be requiring, to ensure that their children have their health and safety needs met.

I'm going to move on, and I'll accept the minister's answer in receiving the documentation when it becomes available.

Now, it is my understanding that there are regional CLBC offices that started the fiscal year in a deficit. Can the minister explain why this is the case, given that there was an announced increase in funding of $243 million over the next three years?

[1805]

Hon. D. McRae: There will be no deficit once the new allocations are made. And again, I'm pleased to say that there is $35.7 million more going to CLBC. However, it is all, of course, contingent on the budget passing later on, in May.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister, then, can provide me, at a later time, with a list of the CLBC offices that started with a deficit. Once the allocation is made, then maybe that will erase it. I would be delighted to have that documented for all the offices. I would certainly be interested in looking at the offices, going backward with their budget, to see how many of those were in a deficit situation and how much their respective deficits were.

At this point in time I am actually getting very anxious about the time. What I'm going to do, instead of waiting for an answer, is I'm going to read off a whole bunch of questions. I'm really hoping that the minister will then commit and that he will ask his staff to provide me with these answers so I can get these questions on the public record.

Aside from getting a list from the minister, I wonder if the minister can tell us which CLBC offices started the year with deficits and, if so, how much the deficit is. How many 19-year-olds does each CLBC office expect to serve this fiscal year? Of those transitioning youth, how many will receive the full level of day services based on their GSA scores versus how many will receive only the $2,800 or an amount less than their GSA score indicates is necessary?

I understand that the data collection and communications between school districts, MCFD offices and CLBC offices have improved immensely, and many CLBC offices can now forecast four to five years in advance the number of transitioning youth expected to require adult services.

Given this information, why is it that the local CLBC offices are underfunded and ending up in deficit situations each year? Or is the minister saying that that was last year and that this year it will not be the case as they will all be fully funded, so therefore, they will not end up in a deficit situation and all the youth who come into the offices will get the full funding as required?

[1810]

I understand that among the most poorly supported populations in CLBC are youth in transition, despite initiatives like the services to adults with developmental disabilities.

As an example, families of transitioning youth on the south Island created an innovative model to support
[ Page 3348 ]
youth in transition — it is called Inclusion Works — in which families pool their individualized funding. This model of service delivery has received recognition from CLBC and the Ministry of Social Development and addresses ten to 12 of the recommendations from the December 2012 deputy minister's report.

Despite this, a new group of families desiring to replicate the Inclusion Works model has been informed that they are unlikely as a group to receive the funding needed to serve their youth. I wonder if the minister can explain why recognized innovation is not being supported by CLBC and the ministry.

I understand, from families of transitioning youth, that there is a gap issue for students who are not yet 19 at the end of a school year but who desire to leave school with their typical peers. This would be a student, for example, who might have their 19th birthday in October or January. We have heard from families that many of these students with developmental disabilities are being forced to stay in school an extra year, even if they don't want to, due to the lack of CLBC funding for day services.

What supports are in place from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support transitioning youth in community day services until 19, when CLBC takes over responsibility? Is it not a concern for the government that, because CLBC lacks adequate funding, CLBC offices will not provide day services to these young people when they do turn 19 — instead forcing them to wait until the July after they turn 19?

That's the school issue that I gave to the minister by way of example. There are individuals who turn 19 who don't want to stay for another year of schooling, but they don't have the program supports in place, and CLBC would not fund them. Consequently, they're forced to stay in school for another year, as an example.

I wonder if the minister can address this batch of questions, and then I'll go to my next batch of questions. When I say "address," that's by way of committing that the staff will answer these questions in writing to me at a later time.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

J. Kwan: I like it. Thank you very much. We're making progress. I want to get all these questions on the record. Then I have some colleagues who want to ask some questions for their constituents.

I have a question around issues that have been raised around the 12-point recommendations from the minister's report that came forward. In the last set of estimates, I know that the minister said the 12-point plan is now complete. I believe that the ministry at the time had actually allocated $40 million to engage with the community to implement a plan that would improve services to people with developmental disabilities. The net result…. We seem to have additional creation of navigator positions, I believe, and there was a series of community consultations.

With that information, I wonder if the minister can break out for me where the $40 million was actually expended. Where exactly did that money go — if, in fact, that figure is correct? Maybe it's not exactly $40 million. I wonder if the minister can advise, in writing at a later time, where that money went and how it was broken out, accordingly.

The other issue I want to raise is that one of the objectives from those recommendations was to improve the on-the-ground workings between the ministries — i.e., Health and CLBC. People on the ground tell me that this is actually not happening and, in fact, things are getting worse. Historically, services and moneys were set aside for health services for Community Living, but now in the Vancouver Coastal Health region instead of having a dedicated nurse for health services for Community Living, the nurse function is being distributed to the community nurses.

[1815]

Up until now the health services for Community Living nurses, trained as employees, are what is called delegation of task or transfer of function. The nurse trained the staff in nursing functions, such as tube feeding, seizure management, and so on. In the new model they are not being trained at all. Many people that require these complex health care needs are not getting the training that's required to support them.

Recently the CLBC has created a program called Thriving in Community, and this was paid for by CLBC. People say that this was, in fact, excellent training for the community program managers so that they understood the process of delegation of tasks.

However, they're now in a situation where the training is being removed from Health, and CLBC has not funded an alternative way of training the employees to ensure the health and safety of the people they support. They have also identified that the nurse will no longer write health care plans, which of course creates a dangerous situation with our plan for replacement of these services. It further complicates and compromises the clients' care.

I'm wondering if the minister can address this issue in collaboration with his colleague, the Minister of Health, because clearly, this branches into two areas. I wonder if he can provide me with an answer related to the issues that I have identified at a later time.

Hon. D. McRae: We will do our best to provide that information.

J. Kwan: Okay. I take that as a definite yes. I don't sort of like this, "We will do our very best" or "We will attempt to do that," which, of course, leaves room to actually, ultimately, not provide the information. Maybe I'm too suspicious, but just a yes would be great.
[ Page 3349 ]

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Okay. So I'm assuming that's a yes. If the minister disputes me, I won't come back to it.

I'm going to move on to my next area, which is collaborative service delivery issues. Individuals have written to me, and they have raised this issue — that their families and other families affected need to know why their children's combined CLBC-Health funding, using the 2010 collaborative guide process, results in considerably less funding than what their children would be entitled to if they were strictly a Health-only, high-intensity-needs client.

Again, this is an issue that ties into health, but it seems to me, though, that the shortfall is coming from CLBC. Let me just put this on the record:

"The impact of this so-called collaborative service delivery is that our children do not now have equal access to health care and/or the Community Living services they're entitled to. Families are left with the full weight and negative results of their children being discriminated against solely because they have a developmental disability in addition to their high-intensity health care needs.

"CLBC and VIHA's failure to develop formalized policies or procedures as outlined in the 2010 collaborative guidelines have resulted in funding allocations being subjective, arbitrary," and so on.

"Why would CLBC, being the designated case coordinator for collaborative service delivery, develop allowed contracts for their already marginalized contracts that blatantly discriminate against them in the provision of services?"

The individual states that since 2010 herself and others have been documenting, complaining about and discussing this practice with CLBC representatives. So far, to date, there has been no action.

I would like the minister to commit to providing answers in addressing the concerns that have been raised around the collaborative service delivery issues I have identified here.

Hon. D. McRae: CLBC will be happy to provide that information.

J. Kwan: I quite like this process, actually. I might actually switch to this model of estimates from here on.

Onto my next question. Benefits trust is an issue that I want to raise with the minister. I would like to get some understanding around this. It is my understanding that there is a health benefits trust that sort of was outdated.

[1820]

Agencies have, from those trusts, an outstanding liability with their health benefits trusts. I wonder whether or not that is the case. If so, what agencies have liabilities and how much? What is happening with these liabilities? What are these agencies supposed to do with that? Has the government eliminated these liabilities? What action has been taken to address this issue?

I would love to get an understanding on this issue from the minister. I would also like to know whether or not these agencies have been sued or the agencies have sued the government relating to the payments of these liabilities. If the minister can provide me updated information around this broad issue of the benefits trust, I would appreciate it.

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite knows that there is an issue where this is before the courts. We'll do our best to share information that does not prejudice the outcome of the case, but it may not meet the test of what the member opposite is looking for. But we'll do our best to provide information that we can in regards to this issue.

J. Kwan: Presumably, the items or the organizations that are before the courts…. I would assume that the minister would not be able to deal with those organizations. But there are others, and if there are other liabilities with the other organizations and so on, I would look forward to those answers from the minister and whatever else he could provide me with, regarding this overall issue — the history of it, where it is at and where it is going to go.

Moving on to yet another issue, I think this is actually a valid issue in the sense…. It does cross over with the Minister of Children and Family Development as well.

The individual sent me information that said there is great concern that, in fact, the ministry does not put effort into improving functioning for individuals with developmental disabilities, either before they transition or after they transition. In fact, if you do provide for supports to enhance the individual's functioning, feasibly the cost both individually and perhaps to the system would be lessened over time.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide some information to me in writing about what steps are taken to try and improve the functioning of the individuals with developmental disabilities before or after they transition, and to what extent the minister thinks that it is effective. Has there been any analysis that has been done, any evaluation of the programs that the ministry has in place with respect to addressing this particular issue?

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, I'm not the Minister of Children and Families. However, the areas that are under the purview of this ministry and CLBC we'll do our best to provide. You can also make some requests through the Ministry of Children and Families, but again, that is obviously another ministry.

J. Kwan: For the individuals before they transition, it would be MCFD, and after they've transitioned, it will be with CLBC. I would appreciate the minister's effort in working with his colleague to see what information he can obtain regarding this issue.

All of these things should be theoretically seamless, right? It shouldn't be, like: "Because it's over there in that ministry, therefore, I know nothing about it; I can-
[ Page 3350 ]
not talk about it." It doesn't work that way. Life doesn't work that way. We have to actually find a way to blend it all and to try and address these issues as best as we can for the individuals who are in need. I trust that the minister will endeavour to do that and provide me with that information and any analysis or information or reports that he has on this. If he could provide that to me, I would greatly appreciate it.

I have a quick question. I kind of suspect that I know the answer, but I feel compelled to ask this question anyway, at the request of the individual who sent it to me. The person would like to know: why have only approximately 500 individuals signed on to use the individualized funding option that CLBC has for adults with developmental disability when, in fact, there are approximately 13,700 clients?

[1825]

I kind of have a sense of what the answer is, but I'm going to put the question on the books with the minister, and he can answer that question.

I'm going to move on to a whole bunch of individual cases. I'm going to say what these cases are, and I'm going to fire them over to the minister at a later time, once I have them more coordinated. I will be happy to work with the minister's staff with respect to these individual cases.

Then I'm going to hand the floor over to my colleague, who has questions on specific individual cases as well.

This is regarding an individual — I have his family's consent to put the name on the record: Cameron Mannix. People will recall, the minister may well recall, Cameron Mannix's case. He has complex, intense needs and was hospitalized for a very long time. The family wishes for him to be home and process…. There is some progress with respect to that, although not to the degree that we had hoped, because he's still not home. At this point, though, this is the latest update that I have got regarding Cameron.

"The transition to home is still going to take a while. Squamish just isn't ready for him yet. I'm looking for a group home in North Van for him for the time being, until everything is in place for him in Squamish. It's sort of a stepping stone," the mother writes.

"I would love to help with CLBC, if CLBC would consider either building or buying a home here and turning it into a group home for people like Cameron with severe disabilities. There are no group homes like that here in Squamish."

The mother is asking for help with respect to that. The reality is that the mother is a single mom, and she has a full-time job. She has to drive to Lions Gate Hospital to visit her child at the moment. Even as he gets transitioned into a group home in North Van, she has to drive to North Van to visit her child. There is no facility in her home community where she could get closer to Cameron.

At Christmas — it breaks your heart to know this — she could not visit Cameron because she could not get time off work, so Cameron spent Christmas alone in the hospital with no visits. That's the reality that families face when there is no home community facility which they can access. Because of the delay in giving him an individualized plan to move him home much earlier, Christmas after Christmas, Cameron was left alone.

I urge the minister to take these comments to heart and to look for options of seeing whether or not a group home could be developed in Squamish. I wonder if, in that process, the minister's staff could also identify how many people in and around that community have what they would call complex, high-intensity needs where the creation of a group home — not just for Cameron but for others like him — would actually make it cost-effective and then, of course, address the quality of life issue as well.

I see the minister is nodding. I'm going to accept that he's going to say yes to my request in answering this question and move on to the next one.

This is an individual who's come to my office. I also have her permission to put her name on the record: Cathy Grant. Lots of issues here. She served on the transition steering committee, and she raises issues around self-advocates on the board and felt that there was a reduction in self-advocates on the board, which she says is inappropriate. It was reduced to one from two. According to the act itself, the requirement is for two self-advocates to be on that board, which is now not the case.

She states that at these public board meetings the public is not allowed to ask questions. I don't know if that's the case, and I wonder if the minister can confirm that. I hope that is not true. She also states that the community council meetings may be eliminated. They were also told that they were not allowed to speak at these community council meetings and that they were only able to observe. I wonder if the minister can clarify that point for me as well. I hope that is also not the case.

She has been trying to get information about funding for herself in terms of the funds that are allocated to her and where they have gone. She has not been successful in accessing this information. I'm wondering whether or not the minister can provide that information to her and have staff work with her to access this information.

[1830]

The file on Cathy is actually quite lengthy, and given the time, I'm not going to go into all of the details around it. Suffice it to say that this is an issue that I'd like to talk with the minister's staff about and to try to hopefully get resolution about her personal situation as well as try to get access to the information that she wishes to obtain.

I'm going to pause here and take a breath and let the minister say yes and then come back to more cases and hand the floor over to my colleagues.

Hon. D. McRae: I want to give a long sort of time to answer this question to give my colleague on the other side a chance to literally catch her breath. That was an impressive run. So yes.
[ Page 3351 ]

J. Kwan: Well, thank you very much, Minister.

Okay, then moving right along, I have a very complex case involving an individual as well, and again, I've got her consent, the family's consent to deal with this situation. I have a litany of questions around this individual.

The system has failed this individual, suffice it to say, because currently she's homeless, and through her transition years she did not get the services that she needed. In that process she's also fighting an addiction challenge as well. She was promised addiction services at various locations, only to have been forced to wait for a period of time and then be told that that facility is not the right one for her and then to have to wait again for yet another one and then be told again that that's not the right facility, until the point where everything simply fell apart.

The file on this individual is thick, as the minister can see, and I would dearly love to work with the minister and with this family to find resolution here to provide the necessary assistance to this family. I think the parents actually feel that they are on their last legs with respect to their daughter's outcome here. The family's name is Tim and Barb Windle.

They have a series of questions. What funding supports is their daughter Alison eligible to receive? Where is the written plan? Why has this not been put in place? Why did CLBC not intervene sooner and, more appropriately, when things started to go wrong?

The family says that there were over 70 critical incident reports listed on their daughter's file, many of which, they say, they were not properly informed of. As well, they say that CLBC's own policy states that a series of critical incident reports are supposed to trigger a third-party review. Why was this not done?

Their daughter had so much trouble in the society that they were assigned to. Why didn't CLBC step in to find more suitable supports? The family says that there was about a six-month period in late 2012 when their daughter received no support services at all, yet payments were made to the society, which triggers another set of issues related to that.

I'm not going to say all of the issues and questions here on the record, but if I can get a commitment from the minister to work with me on this case to find resolution, I would appreciate it.

Hon. D. McRae: For clarity's sake, the form allowing access — is that signed by the parents or signed by the individual?

J. Kwan: I have documents here that indicate it is signed by the parents, and in this pile there may well be a document from the daughter as well.

Hon. D. McRae: Just for clarity's sake, if the person is over 19, we would need to have a release signed by the individual.

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. D. McRae: Well, I'm sure we didn't call the vote.

J. Kwan: Before we run off to vote….

The Chair: I'll move to recess.

J. Kwan: Can I just respond quickly, and then we'll go to a recess?

The Chair: Certainly. I'll allow that.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. I'll endeavour to get the family to provide that and engage in that discussion with the minister.

The Chair: I call recess.

The committee recessed from 6:34 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

B. Routley: I won't use the entire name. Let's call him Danny. He's a 61-year-old man that's under the care of CLBC. He was removed, just before Christmas, and put into a different facility. He was, according to his closest family — a relative, his sister — very happy in this kind of hobby farm type of arrangement.

Apparently, the nub of the issue…. I do want to thank the minister and his staff for having the patience to work with us at the local constituency level. But it is a frustrating one for me to have gone through and to see a fellow who was very happy in his circumstance. The ministry was concerned because there were children involved in the home that was looking after him, and because of some incident in a file that was, in my view, outdated and old…. More than 21 years have gone by, and there haven't been any of the kind of incidents that would be involved in what the assertion was.

In what I would call an attempt to close the barn door after the horse was already out, there was a psychological assessment. That was quite short — whether it was an hour or a couple hours. I'm sure there was some money involved in that.

What I'm here today to ask for is for the minister to review his files, for the staff who have already acknowledged to me that this case could have been handled much better…. They could have done a number of things differently that wouldn't have created the stress for the family, for the individual involved who was removed from his happy home.

What he has been stamped as, as of today, as a result of this psychiatric evaluation, is someone who can't be around children. That as an outcome, Minister, is totally unacceptable to his family, his sister, who is very close
[ Page 3352 ]
to him. She's cried about that a lot, that he somehow is stamped or branded in that way.

We think that a proper outcome for the ministry, given that there was some admission that CLBC, in the transfer from hard-written files to electronic files, had missed some important information that later came to light…. As a result of that, all of this other mysterious action took place.

I know that it's a complex field that you deal with. I do get it and accept that there are a lot of good people trying very hard to make it all work. But in this case, it was clearly botched. At the end of the day, I think that we owe it to this individual, who I shall call Danny, to do a neuropsychiatric evaluation. For the sake of brevity, I did lay out the reasons why we think that that's better. It's more comprehensive. It would give him a chance to be reviewed in a more fulsome manner.

I honestly believe he should not be branded as somebody…. He was actually raped and abused himself while in care. So it's particularly grievous to his family and those who know him that he should be, at the end of the day, somehow branded as somebody that shouldn't be around children.

We think that's not the case, given the fullness of time. We think that with a proper neuropsychiatric evaluation, that would bear that out, and that would do it for us.

[1850]

Like the critic, I would love to have a yes today, but I'm happy if you can give me an answer at some point and take the time to review this. I think you'll agree with me that given all of the curveballs that this gentleman and his family have had to deal with, this would be a fair outcome at the end of the day if it makes the family happy.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd also like, before you get the answers…. We're going to review this and get an answer back to you as soon as we can. I know it has been important to you.

I also want to just highlight for the members who are here and, also, for people that may be watching on TV that at the ministry we have the opportunity to serve individuals across the province of British Columbia. They are individuals. Both the individuals we serve and, also, whether through CLBC or the care providers…. We want to make sure everybody is treated fairly.

To the member opposite, I must say thank you very much. I was really, really thankful that when there was an issue in your constituency with one of your constituents, you allowed us to work with you and the people involved to try to find some resolution that was going to work for everybody. I think my staff tried really hard.

I know we work with CLBC to provide information in a timely manner. We don't always get every resolution that's going to be perfect for everybody in the end. We'll do our best to get some answers for you on this particular question. But please, by all means, members of both sides of the House, these are all sons and daughters of someone, and we want to make sure that they're treated with respect and dignity. We'll do our very best to get answers as quickly as possible. As well, there is a resolution process, as you well know, when answers are not forthcoming that people are accepting.

Again, I do want to thank the member opposite for your succinctness in dealing with this issue — coming to the ministry and letting us try to work with you and the individual to provide resolution. So thanks again.

J. Kwan: I know that we're fast running out of time, so I want to just put three things on the record here. One is in relation to a family's situation where their daughter has lived in a home for 19 years. With no warning, she was put into a palliative care facility, which of course, caused the family great distress. The palliative care facility, of course, is not really for a person with developmental disability needs, as she is not dying. To that end, I'd like to work with the minister on this case with respect to resolution here for the family. So if I can get a commitment from the minister on that, I would appreciate it.

Then I'm going to move on to another case, Christina Singh. I just got a letter today from the minister — in response to my many, many letters dating back to October and then the latest request, which was on March 19, regarding her case — advising that she will get some of the things that she has asked for, particularly that she would have her five additional hours for life skills supports when she returns home.

However, Ms. Singh is not going to get the support that she needs through the global-funded life skills supports that were offered to her. I'm not sure why that is — that when it was first offered to her…. It was going to be funded through a different agency, and she didn't want that. She wanted the same agency that she's dealing with to provide the continuous service. Because of that request, she had to turn down the other agency's provision and was hoping to get those hours funded through her agency that's providing her service now, and now she's being turned down.

I'm not quite sure what the rationale is. Her needs haven't changed. It's just that she has a different preference of the agency that she wants to get the service from. I wonder if the minister can also have his staff engage in a discussion with me about that.

Finally, the last thing is the GIA, the Giving in Action family fund, which we have had no opportunity to discuss the funding here. But this bridges into the general ministry's Social Development funding as well. There's a portion that falls into CLBC, but there's a portion that falls into Social Development as well. I'm just going to give the minister a heads-up that I'm actually going to ask this set of questions tomorrow, which I've worked out with the critic on that.
[ Page 3353 ]

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour.

Hon. D. McRae: I'll be very quick, if I may, Chair. We'll do our best to provide the information as we can.

[1855]

I know we're tight for time, but I just want to, first of all, recognize Doug Willard behind me. Doug began work with CLBC in 2005. He has served as acting CEO for the last 2½ years. Doug is not retiring. He will continue to stay with the organization.

At this time I just wanted to stand and recognize that Doug has done great work for CLBC. He has done what I think all employees wish to do when they work with an organization —leave it in a better place than when they started. Doug has been a great advocate. He's been a great person for me to work with, as a minister, and I will miss him not being here next time we get to do estimates. His energies are much appreciated.

On behalf of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and the government of British Columbia, I wanted to publicly say thank you to Doug.

Thanks, again.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 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