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)

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 7

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

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In Section B, the chamber, we will have committee stage continuing of Bill 21, the Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014; followed by committee of Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014; and, if time, Bill 23 committee stage, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

In Section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continuing estimates of the Ministry of Social Development.

[1335]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On the amendment to section 137 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to say thank-you to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for moving this amendment. It's not often you get a chance to, in one amendment, improve democracy for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, as this amendment would do.

This amendment, of course, would allow Vancouver, as it has unanimously requested for years upon years upon years, to finally ban corporate and union donations in the municipality for municipal elections and, also, to put campaign spending limits into municipal elections.

Of course, Vancouver is well known for multi-million-dollar campaigns by multiple parties, campaigns whose budgets often seem to exceed the amount of money spent in provincial elections by parties — or come close, anyways — in just one city, not the entire province of British Columbia.

That's a problem, and this amendment would fix it. It's a problem because the people of British Columbia should have the right to know that they have one member, one vote. The people of Vancouver should have the right to know that the parties and the individuals that they elect to represent themselves are beholden only to them, the voter, and not to somebody else — not to somebody who made $1 million, $25,000, $100,000, $500,000 donations but just to them. It is the councillor representing the citizen — not the councillor representing the corporation or the councillor representing the union but the councillor representing the citizen.

It has been unanimous. Parties that represent the vast majority of Vancouverites support this. In fact, the parties that have called for this probably received the votes, were voted for by 99 percent of the voters in the city of Vancouver. Effectively, the majority — the vast, vast majority — of Vancouverites have also endorsed this policy. It's not often in Vancouver where you have every elected municipal party unite and call on the provincial government in such a way — unite, put away their partisan differences and say: "This is the right thing."

Of course, we know that this has been an issue for years, and the government has been supposed to act on behalf of the will of the people for years and has declined to. They've refused to act on this, just as they've refused to act on our request to ban corporate and union donations provincially.

The B.C. Liberals, for some reason, think that it's okay to donate whatever you want in this upcoming election from wherever you want, from whomever wants to. I think that's wrong, because Vancouver should be for Vancouverites.

Vancouver should be about having a council that is representative of the citizens, that is elected by the citizens, whose campaigns are funded by the citizens, not by some outside forces — not by some people who have projects they want to see proceed who, through their corporations, can make massive donations; not by somebody who wants a better deal — but by the people. That's what democracy should be all about.

[1340]

I find it shameful that this government refuses to act upon the unanimous request of my city, my constituents and the constituents who represent all of Vancouver.

That the members for Vancouver-Quilchena, Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver–False Creek won't come up into this House and defend what will likely be their votes against this I think is wrong, and they have to answer to their constituents, because their constituents have made clear in their votes that they support this.

I hope they rise and defend their positions. I hope they rise and tell us why they think corporations and unions should be able to make unlimited donations to municipal parties and municipal candidates, because so far they have not. Especially, I would argue that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview should have her say, since she again and again spoke to the media, voted in support of these actions when she was a councillor in Vancouver and called on this government, when she was a councillor, to act. The fact that she won't, I think, speaks volumes.

It's unfortunate, because a better democracy could be
[ Page 3380 ]
had if this amendment was passed. A better democracy that all citizens of Vancouver could have more confidence in would result if this amendment passed.

We are about one person, one vote in this province. We are about one person, one vote because a democracy should be for the people, by the people, of the people — not by some special interest who decides they want a project and has a heck of a lot of money. No, we don't have one person, 1,000 votes. We don't have one person, 10,000 votes or one million votes. We have one person, one vote for a reason — because we believe in equality. We believe that every citizen should have an equal say. We know that money allows people to amplify their voices.

If every person said who they voted for and that's the way it worked, and they voted and that was the election, we could understand that. But in this case, the B.C. Liberal government has decided that one person, if they have $1 million, $25,000, what have you, through their corporation or their union, can have a much bigger voice.

In municipal elections the turnout is not always high. I wish it were higher, and I think, certainly, much more must be done to do that. But when you have a small pool of voters, money matters, because people go out and they spend a lot of money on advertising, on phone banks. They spend a lot of money on going out and having people knock on doors, herd people to get out to do the voting.

As we've all seen in our own campaigns, campaigns are expensive, but nobody should have an unfair advantage because they have one corporation or one union decide that their voice was worth more than another. The citizens should be who count here, not a special interest who has a desire. No, it should be the citizens, and that's why this amendment is so important.

We've had unanimous support for this, and I don't understand why the minister can't respect that. That's something that my city demands, needs, desires, wants, hopes for, dreams for. It's something we've asked for again and again. I don't know why the B.C. Liberals have decided Vancouver's voice doesn't matter. I don't know why the B.C. Liberals have rejected the citizens of Vancouver, who have demanded this and requested this so many times. I don't know why the B.C. Liberals have told the public, effectively, by refusing to do this that their voice is worth less unless they have a lot of money. That's the result of what will happen here.

We've seen it in Vancouver. We've seen it again and again. Multiple political parties led to a huge increase in cynicism. They want their votes to count. They want their voices to count. They want their individual contributions to count. So if you're living on a fixed income but you have a party that you want to support, they want that money to be worth just as much as if you are a wealthy person and want to make your donation. But they can't do that if a corporation can step in and donate $1 million. They can't do that if somebody can donate so much to effectively drown out their voices.

They can write a letter to the editor saying: "I support so-and-so." But you know what's next to that letter to the editor? It could be a full page, five pages, the front page of the newspaper demanding that people vote in a different direction, all sponsored by somebody with a heck of a lot more money than they do.

[1345]

That's wrong. That's not how democracy should function. We see the excesses of that in the United States. We see how, unfortunately, the United States has decided corporations are people and that they can spend however much they want to elect the corporation's favourite candidate.

Well, effectively, here the B.C. Liberals have declared that corporations are people too and that the corporation's voice can be just as loud, if not louder — and certainly we've seen louder — than the citizen's voice.

I talk to people in business, people in unions, people in community groups, neighbours, retired folks, young folks. They want their voice and vote to matter. They want it to really matter, because it's them who the government is supposed to represent — their voice, their desire — not who has the most money and not a corporation or a union that has its own desire. They want it to be about the people. That's what democracy should be all about.

If the members for Vancouver-Fraserview, Vancouver-Quilchena and Vancouver–False Creek would tell this House why they refuse to support this — as so far I've seen no indication that they'll vote in support of this — I think that would help us and help their constituents understand why they refuse to listen to their will, why they refuse to act upon their desire, why they believe that a corporate voice is more important or should be allowed to be louder than their own.

This amendment is important. I thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for moving it on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver, who have called for this action for over a decade. This will help our democracy. This will make municipal elections fairer. This will make sure that our council is completely representative of the people of the city. This will allay any concerns about special deals — "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" kinds of situations. This will make it about the people, who, after all, we should all be thinking of first.

I am proud to vote in support of this amendment. I hope that the B.C. Liberals will decide that democracy matters more than partisan self-interest and will support this amendment as well.

Hon. C. Oakes: I appreciate the comments that have been raised, and I appreciate the amendment that was put forward, but I don't support the amendment.

Expense limits will be introduced for the next local elections after 2017. Campaign finance rules are important and should apply across British Columbia. We re-
[ Page 3381 ]
spect all British Columbians, and we respect the voices of all communities — whether it's large or small, whether it's Vancouver, whether it's Prince George, whether it's Dawson Creek. We feel that when we move forward on expense limits, it should be consistent across the province.

Our approach to local election rules has been to maintain same rules in all communities, and in making the recommendations, the task force felt that the principle of consistency should continue. Having a different set of rules in different communities could lead to unfairness, confusion and potential compliance and enforcement challenges.

For example, in an area such as the Lower Mainland it can be confusing if a person was able to make a certain contribution in Vancouver but not in Burnaby. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey brought up the examples in Ontario. Well, they have a ward system.

British Columbia is unique. We have local governments, we have municipalities, we have regional districts, we have Islands Trust, and we have school districts. What was very clear as we talked to communities across British Columbia is that there needs to be consistency. That is what this legislation does. Phase 1 talks about transparency, so voters now know who will be making those contributions. In phase 2, which we'll be implementing in time for the next election, we'll be looking at election expenses.

But I have this to offer to my colleagues. We heard that the Vancouver–Point Grey member said every civic party agrees that we need to be looking at this. If every party in Vancouver agrees that we need to look at this, then what reasonableness would suggest is that they could figure out the expense limits for Vancouver. So we are prepared to work with them.

[1350]

Again, this government respects all British Columbians. We respect expense limits for looking at all communities — not treating Vancouver differently than Prince George, differently than Dawson Creek.

[1355]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

G. Heyman: I seek leave to make an introduction to the House.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Heyman: Up above me in the gallery are 30 grade 5 students from the Vancouver Talmud Torah school, along with one of their teachers, Lisa Romalis. A number of other adults and teachers are with them. The Talmud Torah school is in my riding, Vancouver-Fairview. It was founded in 1934, and it's the largest Jewish day school in western Canada, with over 500 students from preschool to grade 7.

The students learn both general and Judaic studies. The school promotes the Jewish tradition of tikkun olam — which, roughly translated, means "healing the world." I hope to see a number of the students in this House taking their seats in years to come. The school has a commitment to relationships, community and educational excellence.

Will the members please join me in welcoming the students of Vancouver Talmud Torah.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the member opposite for the introduction. I'd like to reintroduce a very good friend of mine's daughter, Ava Slykhuis, to the gallery.

Hi, Ava. I hope you're having a fun, fun time in the Legislature today — and your schoolmates. Thank you for coming.

[1400]

Debate Continued

Sections 137 to 213 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the committee rise and
[ Page 3382 ]
report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — LOCAL ELECTIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 21, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call for committee stage of Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Hon. Speaker, I call that we actually move to continued committee of Bill 23, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:05 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, in our previous session we passed section 1, so we are on section 2.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Heyman: A quick question. The bill says that the referenda held under this act, from the Referendum Act…. It exempts the act from section 5 of the Offence Act, which says: "A person who contravenes an enactment by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence against the enactment." I just wonder, from the minister, why this exemption was deemed necessary. I'm just missing something here.

Hon. T. Stone: It's good to be back, isn't it?

In terms of section 3, the purpose of this section, insofar as having section 5 of the Offence Act not apply to this act, is simply to remove the general applicability of section 5 of the Offence Act to this particular act in place of the types of offences that we may want to prescribe that are similar to those that are in the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Heyman: Section 4 specifies that this act will supersede any contravening or inconsistent municipal bylaw in the region. I just wondered if the minister had particular bylaws in mind or if it's simply a precautionary clause.

Hon. T. Stone: It is simply a precautionary clause, as the member suggested in his question.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

[1410]

G. Heyman: Section 5 defines the electorate as those residents defined as electors in the Vancouver Charter and Local Government Act, those prescribed to be electors of a treaty First Nation and any other prescribed class in another entity to be added to the referendum.

Can the minister indicate a prospective or prospective prescribed classes, or should I assume that these will be the same as apply in local elections?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, this section does establish that residents of the transportation service region are entitled to vote in the referendum, and it essentially provides for the ability to prescribe the electorate that we want to define for the purposes of the referendum and to do so, from a streamlining perspective, in conjunction with the local government elections.

G. Heyman: Just for clarity, would there be any prescribed class that might be other than what we would normally think of as residents in the region eligible to vote in a municipal election?

Hon. T. Stone: No, I can't think of any examples of any classes that would come into play here that wouldn't be already contemplated by the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter. It would be very much con-
[ Page 3383 ]
sistent with how classes are defined in those two pieces of legislation.

G. Heyman: I don't want to drag this out, and I won't. Just for certainty, can the minister or the staff provide an example from any other referendum of when a similar clause or a clause identical to this was used? Or is this just simply somewhat anticipatory? I'm thinking that there must be some occasion that has given rise to the development of language such as this, and I can't think of one, so I'm just trying to get some clarity for those people who will be affected by the bill, if and when it passes.

Hon. T. Stone: Really, this section, in particular the subsection the member refers to, subsection (d), is anticipatory. It's nothing more, nothing less. It's really there to ensure that we have maximum flexibility to prescribe whatever classes are necessary for that particular referendum.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Heyman: Section 6 refers to a commitment that was made by the minister in a letter to the mayors on February 6. If they held a referendum by 2015 — and it appears from recent reports that they at least are on track to have a question prepared and to meet the requirements set out by the minister — it allows the government to cover the cost of a referendum or related costs as prescribed.

[1415]

My questions to the minister, and I may as well ask them all at once: how broadly will costs be covered? Will statutory advertising be covered? How will the parameters of the spending on the referendum be decided? And finally…. Well, I'll save the last question for last.

Hon. T. Stone: Very broadly speaking here, section 6 does clarify government's commitment to reimburse local and First Nation governments for the costs of administering the referendum. The details of this will be defined in regulation. I do want to say that our intent here is to work very closely with the Mayors Council to define those costs.

Again, the intent is to keep local governments whole. So in terms of the holding of the referendum in and of itself — as per 6(1)(a), anything to do with "the conduct of a referendum," as well as 6(1)(b), "a prescribed matter related to the conduct of a referendum" — it is our intent to cover the incremental costs related to the referendum so that local governments are kept whole.

G. Heyman: The language in the February 6 letter said that the government would pay the costs of the referendum, as long as the referendum was held by June 2015. But the language in the act is permissive. It's not directive. It says: "The government may pay, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, the amount set by regulation under section 7 (4) (d), to a municipality in the transportation service region…" etc.

So my question to the minister is twofold, or it may be that he just chooses to answer the second question. Why, given the commitment in the letter of February 6, is the language in the act permissive rather than compulsory? Or is the minister prepared to commit today that the regulation will, in fact, specify that the costs will be paid, as long as the referendum is held by a certain date — in other words, reflecting directly the commitment made in the letter of February 6?

[1420]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, the regulations will clarify the details on this, and certainly, I will ensure that the regulations fulfil government's intent here to cover the incremental costs of holding the referendum for each of the local governments and the First Nations involved.

Again, I'll go back to the commitments that were made so that they're on the record one further time.

If the Mayors Council determines, from a timing perspective, to hold the referendum concurrent with their municipal elections — beginning with the upcoming municipal elections in November 2014 and then every four years thereafter through to 2022 — or, as a special opportunity, an exceptional opportunity, to hold the referendum outside of the municipal election cycle but no later than June 30, 2015, it is the government's intent to cover the incremental costs for the local governments and the First Nations involved to hold the referendum within their communities.

G. Heyman: I thank the minister for that clarification. I'm sure the mayors and First Nations will be pleased to hear the commitment reiterated. Just a little clarification question. Subsection (1)(b) says that costs of "a prescribed matter related to the conduct of a referendum" may also be covered.

Can the minister offer an example or two of what might be considered a prescribed matter, as opposed to something related to the conduct of the referendum?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the intent of this particular section is to ensure that we do everything that we can to ensure that local governments are whole in terms of the costs related to the conduct of holding a referendum.

Section 6(1)(b), in terms of what a prescribed matter might be…. And I think that's what the member was really getting at: what's the difference between a matter that involves the conduct of the election versus a prescribed matter? Again, we want to provide maximum flexibility here so that the true intent of the commitment
[ Page 3384 ]
that has been made to keep local governments whole is actually met.

An example of a prescribed matter that doesn't necessarily relate to the actual conduct of the referendum could be, for example, a requirement to retain ballots for a certain period of time after the election is held. There may be costs incurred by local governments to retain those ballots. It doesn't technically relate to the actual holding of the referendum, the conduct of the referendum. But those costs would certainly be costs that we would feel would fall within the intent of our commitment, which is to keep local governments whole on all of the costs related to holding the referendum.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

G. Heyman: Section 7 contains a long list of examples where things related to the referendum are left to regulation.

These include, but aren't limited to: spending caps and registration for proponents or campaigners; financial disclosure rules; a campaign period; the role of TransLink in a referendum; thresholds, either in percentage or in improving municipalities required for passage; adding terms and conditions to those powers; authorizing a municipality or entity to conduct the referendum for a treaty First Nation; establishing formula for reimbursement of costs under section 6 of the act; allowing for differences in regulation between municipalities and referenda; and allowing the matter to be delegated.

There are, throughout, a list of sections where the cabinet may make regulation.

[1425]

In some cases, they appear to be somewhat intrusive on existing powers of municipalities — at least potentially they are. I'm wondering if the minister could just give some examples — for instance, in (2)(a) — of what the act is contemplating with respect to "specified provisions of the Community Charter, the Election Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act or the Vancouver Charter."

Is there anything particular being contemplated that the minister could speak to today?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, the intent of this entire section…. Section 7, which deals with regulatory powers of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I think at the highest level is here to provide government with the maximum flexibility to effectively streamline this process of holding the referendum as much as possible.

Meaning that the provisions that are already contained within the Community Charter, within the Election Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act and the Vancouver Charter…. Many of those provisions are provisions that make a tremendous amount of sense and that we want to borrow, for the purposes of holding the referendum.

A good example would be through order-in-council, we would pass a regulation that would essentially provide for the adoption or the use of the provisions in, say, the Vancouver Charter or the Local Government Act relating to the chief election officer. Instead of recreating that wheel and going to all of the work of prescribing those details in detail here within the act, we're saying through regulation and in an effort to streamline this process, we will borrow those provisions from these other acts, which are all used to conduct local government elections.

G. Heyman: Just to be clear, then, is it fair to assume that with the possible exception of something contemplated in (2), sections (3) and (4) really contemplate…. Where it contemplates any limitation on powers of municipalities or First Nations, that would be a limitation on specific authorities that were granted already pursuant to this act, rather than any existing ones?

[1430]

Hon. T. Stone: There is really nothing specific contemplated here other than to say that, from a general perspective, we really, truly want to create the maximum space that we can through this legislation for us to borrow, through regulation, whichever provisions are deemed to be necessary to hold this referendum and borrow whichever provisions we deem to be necessary from any of these other acts that are already in place and are used to hold the myriad of local government elections, whether it's school districts or local governments.

There's nothing specific contemplated. We just want to borrow as many provisions from these various acts as we possibly can in an effort to streamline this process, and we will do so through regulations.

G. Heyman: Just for greater clarity, section 2(b), that says "adapting any provisions of those Acts or regulations with changes that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable" is actually not contemplated for any purpose other than this referendum bill.

Hon. T. Stone: Yeah, the member is correct in his statement.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

G. Heyman: On section 8, a simple question. Sub (5) says: "A regulation under subsection (1) or (2) ceases to have effect 2 years after the regulation comes into force." And (1) or (2) refers to the creation of regulations. I'm just wondering: why the sunset clause?
[ Page 3385 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Assuming that I understand the member's question, the intent — as the member referred to it, the "sunset" element — of this is as follows. The regulations that will be created for the purposes of conducting the referendum will only have life for as long as necessary to actually conduct the referendum. Once the referendum has been held and is behind us, then the regulations in question will no longer be valid.

G. Heyman: The reason I asked the question is because section 9 refers to the possibility of additional referenda that, presumably, would be subsequent to two years from now. Again, I'm not clear what the relationship of section 8 is, then, to section 9.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, the simple answer is this. Once the referendum is finished, the regulations that were created to assist in the conducting of that referendum will expire within a two-year time frame. Should there then be a subsequent referendum held, let's say, to concur with the next municipal election cycle — which, as the member rightfully put it, would be, presumably at that point, two years later — the act would continue to apply in that second referendum as it did in the first, meaning the necessary regulations would be recreated and adapted as necessary, pursuant to the act, to provide for the conduct of that subsequent referendum.

[1435]

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

G. Heyman: My friends opposite are eager to dispense with this bill, but I'm not quite done.

Section 9. When we were in committee stage on this bill three weeks ago, I spoke at some length about our concerns about the referendum process in general, the opposition to the referendum, the negative impacts that I and some of my colleagues thought would flow from the referendum.

We used quite a bit of time to make those points. They're recorded in Hansard. I don't feel the need to make them yet again, in this chamber at least. But one of the things that caused great concern — and in a sense, it's reflected in another bill that we will be looking at in third reading, when we are finished with this one — is that section 9 apparently makes a requirement that any additional funding that isn't attained through the first referendum must be sought through a subsequent referendum and a subsequent referendum and a subsequent referendum and, yet again, another subsequent referendum.

In other words, we've got perpetual referenda on TransLink funding. From our perspective, it was bad enough, the delays that were contemplated by one referendum, which is a test and a requirement not being applied, as the minister himself noted in estimates, to any other transportation project within British Columbia — certainly not highway construction and not even other modes of transit. So we thought: "Okay, election promise one-off." But apparently, we're going to keep going.

Any time the mayors require additional funding to fund infrastructure or investments that are needed…. And that may well happen. Trying to contemplate the financial needs for a couple or three decades going forward is going to be a pretty big pill for the public to swallow, and after the first referendum they may not even want any more.

So I have a couple questions about section 9. Basically, section 9 says, if I read it correctly, that any additional funding — "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue," a "modification of assessment mechanisms" or "an amendment to an enactment to enforce a source of revenue" — must go to referendum, unless the minister means that the Mayors Council may present in some other way to the minister, pursuant to sub (2), a demonstration of "the need of the authority for additional funding sources" and, under sub (3), "that a majority of the electors in the transportation service region supports the proposal…."

The first question, I guess, is: is there any mechanism, other than a referendum, that would meet the requirement of sub (3)? Let's start with that question.

Hon. T. Stone: The intent of this section is, again, to provide maximum clarity, which I think is owed to the mayors. I think it's a legitimate question to ask: when the province says, "Should a new funding source be requested," what exactly does that entail? We've tried, through this section, to provide the clarity around what a new funding source would look like, and what would, therefore, trigger the requirement for a referendum.

[1440]

Without going into the extensive discussion back and forth we had three weeks ago on this bill, particularly in second reading, we've said that if the mayors want to expand transit and transportation, they can do so. If they choose to do so with existing funding levers — namely, property tax, the farebox — there is no requirement for a referendum. If, however, the mayors determine that they wish to request of the province that new funding sources as defined in this section should be part of the funding package to fund the expansion of transit and transportation, then that is what triggers the referendum.

Again, we're trying, through this section…. The intent of this section is to provide maximum clarity to the mayors as to what exactly, from a new funding source perspective, triggers a referendum.

I would end on this note. In the beginning of section 34.1(1) where it says "In this section," it's the words "additional funding sources…." And "sources" is the key word that I think, really, one must focus on here.
[ Page 3386 ]

The mayors will not have to ask for a referendum to be held, generally, for funding for TransLink. It's should they desire a new funding source that is not currently provided for and approved by the electors within the region. It's that new funding source which will trigger the referendum.

That's all I have to say about that.

G. Heyman: With respect to the minister, a normal reading of "additional funding sources" might mean something new. But the definition….

Well, it's not a definition in the sense of a definitions section, but in section (1), "additional funding sources" means: "(a) a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority, other than a source of revenue or funding that is available to the authority under this Act, (b) an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue…(c) the modification of assessment mechanisms…or (d) amendment to an enactment to enforce a source of revenue…."

So additional funding sources really means that if you want another dime, you have to go to referendum. I assume my reading of that is correct.

I'll ask the minister that question, if my reading of subsection (1) correct, and in addition to that, if subsection (3) means a referendum is the only means to demonstrate to the minister that a majority of electors in the transportation service region support a proposal for additional funding sources. Or is there another mechanism that might be acceptable to the minister other than a referendum for the purposes of subsection (3)?

Hon. T. Stone: In the first part of the member's question, dare I say the member is incorrect. When the member says, "If they want to raise a single dime of new revenue, it must go to a referendum," that's simply not correct. I've said quite consistently that the Mayors Council has available to them a number of other levers, including property tax, the farebox.

They could raise property taxes tomorrow. I come from Kamloops. We pay a hospital tax in Kamloops. There's no hospital tax paid in the Lower Mainland. The trade-off was very clear when that deal was struck that local governments are to make up that difference, and make up that difference with property tax. There has been quite a bit of analysis done over the years that I think calls into question whether or not the mayors have actually used all of that tax. But I digress. Nevertheless, it's their choice.

[1445]

Any new funding sources, beyond those that are available today, that require the provincial government, the province of British Columbia, to actually do something through legislation, whether it be through an act of the Legislature or regulation…. It is those new funding sources requiring the province to enable them that triggers the referendum.

On the second part of the member's question, I think the member was asking if I could contemplate anything other than a referendum that would be acceptable, that would meet the test "to the minister's satisfaction," as detailed in subsection (3).

I'm not going to speculate about what might be acceptable to a future minister. What I will say is that as the Minister of Transportation, as the current minister who is responsible for this legislation and who is responsible for fulfilling the commitment that we've made to the people of the Lower Mainland, I will be satisfied by the results of a referendum. That's where I am today; that's where the government is today.

G. Heyman: Well, I appreciate the minister correcting my trying to speed up proceedings by simply not repeating every word in 1(a). Obviously, I meant ones that weren't sources of revenue or funding that's available to the authority under this act.

I think the minister has, in fact, confirmed that other than that, if the Mayors Council wishes to raise an additional dime — although I'm sure they would want to raise more than that — for a particular purpose, for service or infrastructure, they would need to do a number of things to satisfy the minister. Presumably, they would have to, according to what this minister has said, do it under a referendum.

He has clarified, I think — he will correct me if I'm wrong; if I'm correct, there's no need to — that if his government changes its mind at some point or if a future minister changes that minister's mind, a demonstration of a majority of electoral support other than a referendum could be, under this act, acceptable.

Finally, I simply point out to the minister that in terms of whatever legislative changes the government would have to make to allow new funding mechanisms, the fact that they will be restricted to a particular rate or form of assessment or limit is purely a device of the government's own choosing. They're clearly stating in this bill that that will be a feature of additional funding sources. In fact, that is what's going to force the mayors to go to a referendum for additional funding.

I've spoken at length about why I think that's problematic. It's deeply disappointing that this minister has chosen to, in fact, in my view, go beyond what an election commitment was — an ill-thought-out election commitment, in my opinion, but beyond it nonetheless — to create, in effect, what I would consider perpetual referendum — with the exception of subsection (4), which I might refer to as the faint-hope clause.

It says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may repeal this section by regulation." Is it the minister's intention to use regulation to repeal the section following the first referendum referred to in section 2 of this bill, which will either happen in 2015 or sometime before 2022? If it isn't already the minister's intention to repeal this section of the bill, the perpetual referendum section, what
[ Page 3387 ]
particular conditions might lead the minister to consider repealing this section by regulation?

[1450]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, section 34.1 is all about providing maximum clarity for the Mayors Council today on what is deemed to define additional funding As we have discussed, it also provides for what's required, what must happen to demonstrate to the minister's satisfaction that a majority of the electors have actually approved the referendum.

Subsection (4) is here to provide, again, maximum flexibility for the future. As per my last response, I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not happen in the future with subsequent ministers or subsequent governments. We are very much committed to delivering on the commitment today, here and now, that we made to the people of the Lower Mainland that a referendum will be held if the Mayors Council requests new funding sources as defined in this section today to fund any expansion of transit and transportation.

G. Heyman: I hate to get too hypothetical, but if we have a referendum and for some reason the referendum fails — we know that some of them pass and some of them fail — the end result will undoubtedly be continued congestion and gridlock, which has not just lifestyle implications but economic implications, and not just for the region but also for the province.

In that instance, would the minister contemplate even the vaguest possibility that he might or some future minister might at some point say: "You know what? We need to do something about this. We can't risk having a referendum fail again. I'm repealing this section, and we're going to approach it some other way"?

Hon. T. Stone: My simple answer to the member's question is no. I'm not going to speculate or contemplate what might happen in the future. I am very much focused on delivering on our commitments of the people of the Lower Mainland region here and now today — and very proud to do so.

K. Corrigan: I'm sorry if there's any ground that has been covered — I won't cover a lot — but I wanted to clarify a couple of things for my own satisfaction with regard to section 9 and the changes to the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority Act that are contained in this section.

Just to be absolutely clear, 34.1(1)(b), which defines "additional funding sources" as including "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority under this Act." That applies to property taxes if there's a desire to have property tax rates increase. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no. This does not apply to property tax.

K. Corrigan: Are property taxes not "a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority under this Act"?

Hon. T. Stone: No. This section does not in any way, shape or form deal with property taxes. It deals with additional funding sources. As I have stated on the record a couple of times now, the purpose of this section, the intent of this section, is to provide maximum clarity for the Mayors Council.

In the fulfilment of our commitment, where we said there will be a referendum if the Mayors Council desires additional funding sources to fund that expansion, we wanted to be really clear as to what "additional funding sources" means, and that's why we have provided for this section.

[1455]

K. Corrigan: The definition may be of "additional funding sources," but you have to look to what the act says is included, and frankly, I don't think it does provide maximum clarity. My question that I just asked and that was not answered….

That may not be what the minister intended. That may not be what the framers of this piece of legislation intended. But, very specifically, are not property taxes a source of revenue under this act? Because if it is, it looks to me that any increase in property taxes would then be qualified as part of the additional funding sources, and it would have to be demonstrated that a majority of the electors wanted it.

Hon. T. Stone: I'm glad the member is cross-referencing with the act. That's the way to do this.

We do believe that this provides maximum clarity. I think, as the member should know well in looking at the act, that this new section will apply to…. While the act does provide for property taxes, it does not set any caps. It doesn't prescribe any rates. It doesn't set any limits on property tax. So the mayors have complete authority today within that act to establish new levels of property tax, new rates of property tax, without requiring them coming to the province. There's no involvement whatsoever of the province of British Columbia in that.

Now, I'll give the member a couple of examples of other levies or taxes which would fall under this provision, 34.1. That would be specifically the fuel tax and the hydro levy. Again, like property tax, the fuel tax and the hydro levy are provided for in the act that the member points to, but they're also provided for with very clear limits. So if the Mayors Council wants to go beyond those prescribed limits as detailed in the act, then that would certainly trigger the provisions, as detailed in this new section, 34.1.
[ Page 3388 ]

K. Corrigan: Just for clarity, is the minister saying that because subsection (b) says "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue" — because it references limits and rates and because there is no limit to property taxes now — that's the reason it doesn't apply to property taxes?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

K. Corrigan: I understand that if you're talking about the fact that there are no limits, but I don't understand, if the "rates of a source of revenue," which is the second part of that phrase…. If they want to increase the rates, would that not apply to property taxes?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the answer is no. This particular section relates to "an increase in the limits on or the rates of a source of revenue" that is detailed under the act or in the act. There is no prescribed limit to property tax detailed in the act, so that doesn't require the provincial government to do anything. We're not involved in that. The mayors can increase property tax without requiring any action on the part of the province. Therefore, the provisions of section 34.1 would not be applicable in that situation.

[1500]

K. Corrigan: So if you take out "increase of the limits on…." They are two separate pieces. "Additional funding sources" means an increase of the rates of a source of revenue, which could include property taxes. Would that not…?

The minister is referring to the act. But the natural reading of it — could it not be…? If a local municipality or a regional district — Metro Vancouver — decided that they wanted to increase the amount that goes onto property taxes, would that not be the rates that are paid for those property taxes?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'm going to be very, very general about this. The intent of this section is to define, as clearly as possible, what "additional funding source" means in the context of what would actually trigger the requirement for a referendum.

What section 34.1 provides for here is: should the Mayors Council determine that they want to propose a new funding source that requires the province of British Columbia, through regulation or otherwise, to enable that new funding source, a funding source which is currently not provided for within the act, then 34.1 would apply.

As well, should the Mayors Council want to increase the rates on existing funding sources, which are provided for in the act, that have set limits on those rates — like the hydro levy, like the fuel tax — then that also would trigger the requirement to hold a referendum. That's clearly detailed within this section.

[1505]

If, however, the Mayors Council wants to increase the rates of revenue sources that don't have set limits in the act or aren't dealt with in the act and are entirely within the purview of local government — do not require the provincial government to do anything — then that would not trigger the requirement for a referendum. Property tax is one good example of a source of revenue that the mayors have completely within their grasp today to raise or lower as they see fit, requiring no action on the part of the province of British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could clarify, then, whether property taxes are a source of revenue under the act. I'm not talking about rates or limits. I'm talking about whether property taxes are cited as a source of revenue under the act presently.

Hon. T. Stone: The simple answer to the member's question is yes. Property tax is cited in the act, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. Property tax is specifically cited within part 3 of said act.

K. Corrigan: Just one more question. It is a source of revenue under the act. So I don't understand why, if the greater Vancouver regional district were to increase the rates of a source of revenue under the act that the minister has just said is a source of revenue under the act, it would not fall under additional funding sources. It may not be the intention, but so far the minister has not convinced me that that would not be included and, therefore, that there would have to be a referendum in order to allow that.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll try one more time. Section 34.1(1)(a), in defining "additional funding source," says: "a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority, other than a source of revenue or funding that is available to the authority under this Act." Property tax is already available to the authority under the act. So this section would not be applicable to property tax in that context.

Likewise, subsection (b) indicates "an increase of the limits on or rates of a source of revenue for, or funding of, the authority under this Act." Well, there are no specified limits on property tax in the act, so this section does not apply to property tax in that instance either.

G. Heyman: I'm almost prepared to move on from this act. We are moving on to clause-by-clause on Bill 22 shortly, but I would ask the minister and his staff to look closely at section 24 of Bill 22, specifically 196(1)(b)(i) and (ii), and then, having read that, repeat to us whether or not he believes the mayors have the ability
[ Page 3389 ]
to raise money through an increase in the property tax — without limit.

The Chair: We're currently dealing with Bill 23, and we haven't passed Bill 22 at this point. Unfortunately, with the way that the legislation is currently going through this committee, Member, it's difficult for that question in the way it's currently been phrased. If you could phrase it a different way, that would help the Chair.

[1510]

G. Heyman: I appreciate your guidance, Chair and I'm trying to think of a way.

My understanding of what the minister has said is that there is no constraint on the mayors from raising additional revenue through the property tax. I have perhaps somewhat inappropriately referenced a section of the act, but nonetheless, I would ask the minister to just determine with his staff once again if that answer is absolutely accurate or if there's some reconsideration necessary for the answer.

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly stand by my previous response. We believe that my previous response is an accurate reflection of the treatment of property tax in the context of section 34.1.

H. Bains: I think the confusion, maybe, is this. In the current act, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, section 196 talks about property tax and the limitations — how much property tax can be raised in the investment year. It says exactly, when the investment plan is being prepared that particular year, how much revenue through property can be raised. It's based on the established rate. Then, subsequent years, it's no greater than 103 percent or $18 million. Is that not correct? So there is no….

The mayors do not have authority to raise it as much as they wish, lower or raise. There are limitations under 196. Is that not correct?

[1515]

Hon. T. Stone: I think, even though we're maybe crossing over a bit into the next bill that we're going to be dealing with, that really changes the goalposts here relating to the replacement of base and supplemental plans with a new investment plan and so forth.

I will say to the member for Surrey-Newton that he is incorrect in his interpretation of the current section 196. Section 196 of the act provides for the indexing of property tax, as he pointed out, the ability for TransLink to effectively rely upon a 3 percent increase in property tax per year without requiring any additional action on the part of, or approval of, the Mayors Council.

However, this act also provides for the ability, through the supplemental planning process — which, again, is being replaced in the next bill we're going to be talking about or discussing — for the Mayors Council to determine that property taxes will be increased beyond the 3 percent that's indexed in section 196.

In any event, none of this requires the province to do anything. This does not require provincial action, provincial enablement of anything. So it is our belief that, as written, any changes in property tax would not fall within, or be applicable to, the new provision of 34.1.

G. Heyman: Well, I think the meaning of the existing act is plain, on the face of it. I'm prepared to move on, but I think it's important to state that on this side we're just not getting the minister's answer. We don't think it's correct. There'll be an opportunity to revisit this in Bill 22.

Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FUNDING REFERENDA ACT

Bill 23, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

[1520]

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate on Bill 22, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 3:21 p.m.
[ Page 3390 ]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Heyman: Well, section 2 is essentially a consequential amendment. It fundamentally deals with the issue of budgeting.

We spoke during second reading about the Acuere report and comments on governance in general — some of the concerns that the mayors had about what real meaning existed with approval of long-term strategic plans or long-term investment plans if they didn't have approval of the annual operating budget which actually implements the features of that plan.

To some extent the minister recognized that in his February 6 letter when he said: "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council approved strategies and plans." Yet there is no place in Bill 22 where actual control over the annual operating budget is given to the mayors, and certainly no input.

If I look at the subsequent addendum to the Acuere report that was commissioned by the mayors following the tabling of Bill 22, the purpose of their subsequent report was to see how much further Bill 22 came toward meeting the various tests of good governance that they had laid out — the division of various governance functions at the policy level, management level and implementation level that was found in what they referred to as leader regions, specifically Stockholm and London.

If we look quickly at the subsequent report, they note:

"With specific regard to the preparation of annual plans and the review of annual budgets, it is noted that in the capital region the Victoria Regional Transit Commission has a significant role defined in the B.C. Transit Act. The Mayors Council should propose that it be given the ability to prepare plans and review budgets at least in a manner similar to the role of the VRTC."

They in fact have done that and more.

There's nothing in here about budgeting. If you go on further in the report it notes:

"The absence of the Mayors Council from a role in the preparation of annual service and other plans, which is where many of the more important local changes in bus services, service levels, etc., are made, combined with the comparatively remote nature of the TransLink board, is unlikely to enhance responsiveness."

[1525]

At another spot it notes that the bill does not explicitly give the Mayors Council real policy-making authority, certainly no budget-making authority or approval.

My question to the minister is: given his comment in the letter of February 6, does he not see some potential problems inherent in giving the mayors the appearance of final approval over long-term policy and strategy — and I'll say more about that in the appropriate sections — without giving them any role whatsoever, and certainly not the role in creating or approving the annual service plans and operating budget?

Hon. T. Stone: I want to start off by saying that I am thrilled that we are now dealing with this bill. This bill fulfils another commitment that we made to the people of the Lower Mainland. The Mayors Council has been asking for a number of years now for more authority. They've been asking for more authority and the accountability that comes with that authority over the decisions relating to regional transportation in Metro Vancouver. I am very proud that I'm the minister delivering on that commitment.

This is very significant. The provisions in this bill represent a significant transfer of responsibility and authority from the TransLink board to the Mayors Council. The Mayors Council will have complete authority over the long-range plan, the 30-year plan. They will have complete authority over the ten-year investment plan. Assuming they assume the two seats that are available to them on the TransLink board, through their chair and their vice-chair they will have a direct say and a vote on the annual budgets and the annual operations as well.

The specific amendment here provided for in section 2 of this bill is simply to strike the word "commissioner" out. The purpose for that, I think, as the member knows well…. Part of this very significant transfer of authority from the TransLink board and from the commissioner's office to the Mayors Council — this enhancement of accountability and authority that the Mayors Council will now have — is in rolling in the functions of the commissioner's office relating to customer satisfaction and customer complaint processes, the establishment of fares and any adjustments to fares, as well as the disposal of assets.

That's all that's really dealt with in this particular section, and that's why the word "commissioner" is effectively struck from the act as a result of section 2.

G. Heyman: I think, as the minister would agree, that he as minister might want to bring in some changes in transportation policy, or any of his colleagues in cabinet might want to bring in some new government policy. And if by chance they were not able to have input into the budget necessary to implement that policy, it would be meaningless. If they didn't have a majority in the voting that would ultimately happen on that budget, it would be meaningless, and the policy initiative would be stymied even if, in fact, on paper that was the policy.

[1530]

It should be no surprise to the minister that the mayors themselves have been extremely concerned about their absence from control over the annual operating budget in order to give life to their policy and strategic plans — which they have yet to be able to make, but they hope to have approval over, at least — although whether they have meaningful input into it remains to be seen and will be debated in future sections.

I would like to propose the following amendment to
[ Page 3391 ]
Bill 22, and that would be:

[To amend section 2 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struckthrough and adding the text shown as underlined:

2 Section 7 (3) (c) is amended by striking out "the commissioner and".

2 Section 7 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) (c) by striking out "the commissioner and".

(b) in subsection (7) (b) by striking out "and"

(c) in subsection (7) (c) by adding ", and"

(d) in subsection (7) by adding the following paragraph:

(d) be approved by resolution of the mayors' council on regional transportation.]

The Chair: Proceed. Do you have further comments on the amendment?

On the amendment.

G. Heyman: The amendment is fairly straightforward, I think. Approval over a long-term investment plan, approval over strategic planning has been given to the Mayors Council, although the board certainly retains the role, along with TransLink senior staff, of preparing that plan. That is an issue that I will address subsequently.

I have many years experience in governance. I think the minister has experience in local governance. The minister believes that the direction to TransLink board is "to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with the Mayors Council–approved strategies and plans," but frankly, there are no words to that effect within the act. Even those words were not enough to satisfy the mayors.

They have been quite clear. They would like…. In fact, they think that to give their role real meaning, they need to be able to develop and approve the annual operating budget in order to implement a strategic plan on a day-to-day basis.

In fact, there are a number of powers of the commissioner that are given to them. They are responsible for fare increases. They are responsible for receiving and responding to complaints. They are responsible for all kinds of things that may in fact be occasioned by the annual operating budget — the need for a fare increase, if the budget doesn't fund the priorities they have in a strategic plan; complaints that are driven by service decisions or allocations of funding within the annual operating budget that don't line up with the vision of the mayors.

It seems pretty clear and simple. If you're going to make the mayors accountable for any host of things, including a strategic plan and a long-term investment plan, then they should have the rest of the package, which is the ability to engage in the preparation of the budget on an annual basis; the annual priorities, because the budget does reflect the annual priorities; and the ability to prove that. That is found nowhere in this act.

That is why I am proposing this amendment — to give the mayors the responsibility to approve the annual operating budget, which gives life to the strategic plan and ensures that the budget and the annual priorities are entirely consistent with the direction of the strategic plan and the long term priorities of the mayors that in theory, at least, will be the long-term priorities of TransLink.

[1535]

Hon. T. Stone: I rise to say very clearly that we certainly will not be supporting this amendment — and very, very simply for this reason. We believe that good governance comes about when you have a group of locally elected officials — in this case, the mayors — who are responsible for the strategic level of the operation. Through the amendments that are contained within this bill, we are transferring significant responsibility to the mayors with respect to the 30-year transportation plan.

They will be responsible for a ten-year investment plan, which replaces the fairly cumbersome current base and supplemental planning process. They will be responsible for fare adjustments. They will be responsible for the disposal and sale of assets. They will be responsible for customer service and complaints processes. They will also approve the compensation of not just the TransLink board but also the president and CEO and the executive at TransLink. Again, very significant authority that's being transferred to the Mayors Council through this piece of legislation.

We are retaining a professional TransLink board to oversee the annual budget and the day-to-day operations of the operation. We believe that the amendments that this bill provides for will ensure that the annual budget, the annual plan, that the TransLink board will be responsible for must be in alignment, must be congruent with the ten-year investment plan and the 30-year strategic plan, which are the purview of the Mayors Council.

Furthermore, I would like to say very clearly on the record again that there have been for quite some time now and there will continue to be, even after these amendments, two seats on the TransLink board that have been very cold for the last number of years because no butts have been sitting in those seats. Those two seats are reserved for the Mayors Council chair and vice-chair to fully participate in the deliberations of the TransLink board and vote on all of the proceedings of the TransLink board. So there is a tremendous linkage there as well.

Again, in summary, we'll be opposing this amendment. We believe that the legislation as written provides for a very significant transfer of authority to the Mayors Council, and this again represents the fulfilment of a key commitment that we made, not just to the mayors but to the people of the Lower Mainland.

H. Bains: It just fails me to understand why this government constantly likes to pick a fight with the mayors. Here we are talking about, in the Lower Mainland, one of the most important projects and a policy debate that
[ Page 3392 ]
we have, which is public transportation.

The mayors have fingers. They have the feeling. They are the ones who make land use decisions. It only makes sense to give them the authority not only for strategic planning and long-term investment but also to control the budget as well. It just makes sense. They all go hand in hand.

For this government and the minister to stand up and say, "Well, they gave them two seats on the board back sometime…." The minister probably needs to go back in the debate that we had, in this House and outside, between the mayors and the then minister at that time. They rejected that notion right from the beginning. They didn't want those two seats given to them. They want an overhaul of the governance model that existed there.

And the overall governance model — you didn't go far enough again this time. You had an opportunity to work with the mayors and allow them to take the responsibility, because they do want to take the responsibility. They are the people who actually make those decisions, and they are the right people to make those decisions when it comes to land use decisions and transportation.

[1540]

Every expert in the world agrees that those two decisions go hand in hand. We all know that. The minister will stand up and agree with that as well.

Why just pick and choose and decide what kinds of powers, what kind of responsibility you want to give to the mayors, when the mayors are saying they will make it work if you give them the responsibility that they are asking for? But the government….

First, they gave them two seats, and they rejected that. Now they are saying: "Look, give us the responsibility to approve the operating budget as well." You're not giving it to them. I don't get it. The mayors don't get it. And the public out there doesn't get the debate that is going on and the fight that the government has always tried to pick with the local mayors. I just don't understand that.

They are the ones. If they are going to be responsible for strategic planning and long-term investment and if they are to find money, then give them that responsibility so that they will find money and they will be responsible for the operating budget as well. I mean, it just makes sense.

I don't know…. What is it with this government that they cannot understand? It is something that is mind-boggling, the result being that the buses that we need, the extension to SkyTrain that we need, the new Broadway corridor, the extension into Surrey are being held back. That's the result of the government's inaction and constantly trying to pick a fight with the mayors.

I support this amendment. I think it is a commonsense amendment. It is a commonsense approach to dealing with the issues, and I think this is something that will get you out of a jam, Minister. It'll make you work with the mayors, and mayors are committing, in return, to work with you so that we can have the public transportation project back on the rails, back on track. People in Surrey, especially, are looking forward to the expansion of SkyTrain and public transportation, and it's not being served, as the minister is continuing to pick a fight with the mayors.

I think the public is suffering. Many of them want to leave their cars behind to go to work or to do their business or to go shopping, but they can't because there is no public transportation for them in their neighbourhood.

I think on one hand, we are talking about climate change and how responsible we should be to our future children. On the other hand, we're not helping the citizens who want to help us as far as clean air and leaving less of a carbon footprint. I think it just makes sense that we agree to this amendment, and I strongly urge the minister and everyone on that side to vote in favour of this amendment so that we could get on with business.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the amendment that has been put forward by our critic, and I'm standing to support it. I think it makes a lot of sense. What has happened with the provisions in this bill is that the government, the minister, through bringing this bill forward, has essentially said, "Here, you can have all the crappy stuff. You get to decide remuneration of the senior folks. You get to increase the fares. You get to have two seats," which none of the mayors wanted. They have not sat there, because they realize they have no real power over transportation in the Lower Mainland.

The minister is shaking his head. To the minister: why is it? Is it because they just don't want to do the work? It's because they know there is no power on that board, and they are not going to agree to a system where they have no power.

How about if the provincial government decided they were going to get a private board to set the budget and run the budget of the province of British Columbia? That is exactly what this government is doing under this bill and is continuing to do. They're saying, "You can have all the bad jobs, the lousy jobs, and we're not going to give you any real power," and the mayors are realizing that now.

Since 2007 we've had nothing but a mess of transit, and the people of the Lower Mainland are hurting because of it — a mess — because we have continual decisions written on the backs of napkins. We are going to blow up TransLink, a democratically elected board that manages to come to unanimous decisions about transportation and strategic planning for the Lower Mainland. We're going to blow up transit because a former Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon, was in a fit of pique. That's how decisions are made by this government, and it's outrageous.

[1545]

We have another decision, that we're going to have a referendum system, which is going to be a mess. We just
[ Page 3393 ]
had to pass a bill on that because the Premier, out stumping in the election, on the back of a napkin once again said: "Oh, we're going to have a referendum." What a horrendous way to plan for transportation in the province of British Columbia.

There is no real power unless the mayors, the locally elected representatives, have control of the budget. That's what they used to have. They planned an award-winning system. Things were going well. We were moving forward. This government, because they decide that they want to control the decisions on transit, brings a piece of legislation which provides no power whatsoever, no real power to the local mayors. We'll see how it plays out over the next while. The referendum, I think, is going to be a mess, and I also believe that this is going to do absolutely nothing.

The minister was talking about the fact that there is going to be participation in the long-term strategic plan, the ten-year plan, but the local mayors are constricted in that as well, and perhaps they have less power instead of more in that regard, because they have to consider the provincial transportation plan and consider the province's objectives, including their financial objectives.

They don't get to control the taxes, they don't get to control the revenue sources, they don't get to control the spending, and they don't get to control the objectives. So really, there's absolutely nothing here for the mayors — a little bit of window dressing, but it is nothing if you don't have control of the budget.

It's very unfortunate because I think that if the mayors, the local municipality, locally elected representation, had had the ability to shape the transit plan over the last several years, we would have been decades ahead, years ahead of where we are now. We've gone backwards instead of forwards.

I stand in favour of the amendment. I think it's a good one. I think it's very unfortunate that we've had this incompetent government running Lower Mainland transit for the last several years. They've put us in the mess — the funding mess, the expenditure mess and the planning mess — that we are in now. So I heartily support this amendment.

Hon. T. Stone: Seeing no other members on the other side that want to speak to this amendment, I just wanted to again…. This is why we're all here. This is democracy in action. I do respect everyone's perspectives on this.

I will reiterate again that we are not going to support this amendment. I'm not going to go back and rebut every item that was mentioned by certainly the critic but by the member from Burnaby as well.

I will say this. We said to the people of Metro Vancouver in the last election that we were going to transfer significant authority. We were going to rework the governance of TransLink such that the Mayors Council would have a significant enhancement of their authority. That's what this bill does. But I think any reasonable person would also expect that along with authority comes accountability. You don't get one without the other.

We think that we've struck a very good and sound balance through this legislation, and it's why I do not believe that this amendment is necessary — a really good balance between what is always recognized as the three key levels of good governance.

As I've said all along, we looked at models all around the world. We looked at the models and the recommendations that were detailed in the Ken Cameron report, which the Mayors Council commissioned a year ago, where it was very well laid out that the three key levels of good governance structure are policy, which invariably should be elected officials…. Well, that's what the Mayors Council will have as a result of these amendments. They will have complete authority over a 30-year plan and a ten-year investment plan.

The second level of good governance is management on the operational level. That's where we believe, as in Ken Cameron's own words in the report commissioned by the Mayors Council, that this should be a board with operational experience. That is the TransLink board. That is why the TransLink board will continue to have authority over the annual budget.

[1550]

Last but not least, there's the implementation level of good governance, and that's where TransLink, its management and the staff and contractors and the people who work for TransLink come into play.

Back to the management operational level, again, I'll reiterate that there are two seats on the TransLink board which have been available for the Mayors Council to assume for a number of years now. I would suggest that over the years some of the mayors perhaps haven't figured out how to take yes for an answer here.

They've been invited to participate fully in the operations of TransLink over the last couple of years on the TransLink board. They have opted, for their own reasons, not to assume those two seats. Those seats are still available, and we encourage the mayors to assume their rightful place at the board table of TransLink.

Again, we will be opposing this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

G. Heyman: I would like to propose an amendment to section 2.

[To amend section 2 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struckthrough and adding the text shown as underlined:

2 Section 7 (3) (c) is amended by striking out "the commissioner and".

2 Section 7 is amended

(a) in subsection (3) (c) striking out "the commissioner and".

(b) in subsection (7) (b) by striking out "and"

(c) in subsection (7) (c) by adding ", and"

(d) in subsection (7) by adding the following paragraph:
[ Page 3394 ]

(d) be consistent with and implement the long-term strategies and investment plans approved by the mayors' council on regional transportation.]

The Chair: The amendment appears to be in order. Does the member wish to speak further on it?

As the amendment seems to be substantially similar to the last amendment, with the exception of the revised section (d) at the end, perhaps we could focus our remarks on that section.

On the amendment.

G. Heyman: Hon. Chair, that's exactly my intent.

I pointed out in my earlier remarks that the minister made a commitment to the mayors in a letter of February 6 with respect to TransLink governance. He promised a number of things, amongst which was the following sentence. "TransLink's board will be expected to prepare budgets, oversee operations and implement plans consistent with Mayors Council approved strategies and plans."

Now, in earlier comments by the minister he referenced, in effect, the intent and content of that commitment. He said that the budgets must be congruent. Those were his words mere moments ago — in effect, reiterating his commitment to the mayors.

I've already spoken, and I won't repeat myself. So have my colleagues spoken about the important connection between setting long-term strategic goals and priorities and then implementing them on an annual basis by being able to create priorities through budgeting. I think we all know that. I think virtually every member of this House has had some experience with budgeting and strategic planning. A number of us have had significant experience managing operations, as well as sitting on the boards of a variety of sizes of private and public enterprises and non-profits.

I don't think anybody who has had that experience would believe that the inability to approve a budget is consistent with approving a strategic plan or being responsible for a strategic plan. That is why we moved the first amendment. It failed. I accept that.

[1555]

But I invite the minister to give meaning to his promise in the February 6 letter and meaning to the words that he said in the chamber mere moments ago and place in the act, rather than expect an appointed board that meets in secret, that is not accountable to the public and is not elected to operate in good faith….

I am simply, through this amendment, asking the minister to put his own exact words in the bill to make real and give life to the commitment he gave to the Mayors Council on February 6 that the budget must be consistent with Mayors Council approved strategies and plans — that he give it life, that he give it meaning.

It's not the same as creating and approving the budget, but it is codifying a promise that he made on February 6 and repeated in this House.

Hon. T. Stone: I'm not going to drag on my comments on this particular section. I do thank the member opposite for his efforts. I'm not going to recommend that this amendment be supported, and it's for this simple reason. Section 207 already provides the intent of what the member is, I think, trying to accomplish through his amendment here today.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Heyman: Section 4 requires TransLink to publish information from the Mayors Council on the TransLink website. The language speaks to publishing by requirement of the act.

I'm curious as to whether the Mayors Council will have the option to publish other material beyond that which is required by the act but which they may think, for one reason or another, it is wise to publish.

Hon. T. Stone: I appreciate the question. Whether or not TransLink would post information that's not specifically prescribed by this amendment I think would be a matter between TransLink and the Mayors Council. But I would certainly encourage collaboration between both parties on that.

G. Heyman: To clarify, this isn't meant to be read as a prescription on anything that isn't required by the act. I don't mean to flog this, Chair. I just want clarity.

Hon. T. Stone: No, this section is not intended to be prescriptive or limiting in any way.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

G. Heyman: Section 11 deals with a new category of minister-appointed directors who can be reappointed for up to six years. My question to the minister is: does the minister have a sense of who, or what qualities the directors that the minister may appoint would have?

[1600]

Is there a sense of a range of skills or a particular makeup or representative sectors that the minister may tap for these directors? Can the minister say what relationship the directors will have with the provincial government?
[ Page 3395 ]

Hon. T. Stone: As is the case with the member, I've had the good fortune of serving on a number of boards over the years, whether it be the United Way or Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. I think, as the member knows quite well from his experience, the best functioning boards are those that have a range of capabilities.

Well-functioning boards have a pretty well-established matrix of capabilities. There's always a fair bit of ongoing work that's required — sometimes heavy lifting — to make sure that the overall complement of individuals on a board are people that are complementary in terms of the skills and the strengths that they bring to that particular board.

In answer to the member's question, I certainly will place a high degree of confidence in individuals that will be a good complement to the existing board members that may be on the board at that particular time. Certainly, we'll want to make those appointments in consultation with the chair of the TransLink board.

But first and foremost, I'll be looking for people — the government will be looking for people — that we believe will be able to strongly articulate the province's transportation vision and, generally, our transportation agenda to ensure that those provincial priorities are accurately and well represented at that TransLink table.

G. Heyman: Could the minister just elaborate a little bit on the relationship that these appointees may have with the provincial government? I ask specifically because later on in the bill there is a reference to…. I understand I'm not on the section, but this does seem like the appropriate place to ask the question. There's a provision that, if I recall correctly, says that the provincial appointees aren't prohibited from presenting the views of governments. I'm wondering how the minister envisions the relationship between provincial appointees and his office.

Hon. T. Stone: Generally speaking, as the member knows well, there are literally hundreds of appointments that government makes to a wide variety of commissions, agencies, Crown corporations. The appointment of these two board appointees to the TransLink board by the Minister of Transportation on behalf of the government of British Columbia really will be no different. The criteria that will be employed to find the best people possible for these positions will be no different than the criteria employed for any of the other government agencies, boards and commissions.

What will really be important, however, is, through these two individuals, to provide the TransLink board with every opportunity to be in sync with and in touch with provincial priorities, provincial strategies relating to transportation. It is so critical over the coming years, with the growth that we know is going to take place in the Lower Mainland, that there be as much collaboration and synchronization — if I may use that word as well — of TransLink and Mayors Council regional transportation priorities and provincial priorities….

[1605]

There is way more to gain when there's collaboration. So we see the appointment of two provincially appointed representatives on the TransLink board as just one tool in the toolbox, so to speak, to foster a much tighter relationship between provincial priorities — provincial economic and social priorities — with those of TransLink.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

G. Heyman: Section 12 both reduces the number of appointed directors from nine to seven and provides for maintaining the overall size of the board with respect to the two minister-appointed directors. I just wonder if there are some transitional provisions contemplated for existing directors that may be brought in by regulation. How exactly will the transition be handled?

Hon. T. Stone: This section is here to fulfil our intention by regulation — with effect from January 1, 2015 — to temporarily keeping the number of directors at nine. This would allow appointed directors to continue — those directors that are currently on the board. It would enable those directors to continue the fulfilment of their board responsibilities for the duration of their terms without rescinding any of those appointments.

I should point out that the terms of three current TransLink board directors expire at the end of 2014. So the board would be reduced to seven appointed directors, with the effect from January 1, 2015, by appointing or reappointing only one director. So two, effectively, come off as a result of attrition.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

G. Heyman: Section 14 deals with the requirement for the screening panel to consider board remuneration relative to similar organizations across Canada. Can the minister indicate where TransLink falls on remuneration generally, relative to comparable organizations across Canada? Are there particular organizations that the minister has in mind?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the question of what other similar organizations in Canada could potentially be considered, that is ultimately up to the screening panel.

That being said, examples of similar organizations could be other large transit organizations in other parts of Canada — in Toronto the TTC or in Montreal the STM. Certainly, here in British Columbia there would be
[ Page 3396 ]
a lot of useful comparables or comparable organizations. The health authorities, Crown corporations and other like organizations would likely fall into the category of organizations that would be comparable to that of TransLink for the purposes of this section.

[1610]

G. Heyman: My assumption is that the minister or the minister's staff have done some research into remuneration in comparable organizations across Canada. Presumably, that's what led to this clause. I'm wondering if the minister foresees an increase or a decrease in remuneration levels generally, following the enactment of this clause, or if he thinks we're in the ballpark already.

Hon. T. Stone: The executive compensation at TransLink will be determined in large part by the efforts of the screening panel as part of their recruitment process but at the end of the day ultimately — and particularly as a result of the amendments contained in this bill — will be approved by the Mayors Council. It will ultimately be up to the Mayors Council to say yes or no and provide final approval on the compensation levels.

That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't add that it certainly is our expectation in government that organizations like TransLink — it's certainly throughout the public service, throughout Crown corporations; we would also extend this to TransLink — are going to manage the taxpayers' dollars very carefully and be fiscally prudent. Part of that is doing everything they can to contain executive compensation.

The Chair: Shall section 14 pass?

G. Heyman: That was 14?

The Chair: That was 14.

G. Heyman: My apologies. I was looking at the wrong number.

On section 15, I think I know the answer to this, but it's probably worth clarifying. Section 15 talks about the screening panel. It prohibits the screening panel from varying remuneration above comparable public sector organizations in B.C. The previous section talked about the screening panel considering board remuneration relative to similar organizations across Canada.

Actually, I'm not sure I understand the reason for this. There appears to be a difference here. In one section they're looking at Canada; in another one they're looking at B.C. The first one asks them to consider; the second one prohibits. I'm wondering if the minister sees any potentially irreconcilable difference between the reference points in these two clauses or if there is a specific reason or intent in how they be read together.

[1615]

Hon. T. Stone: The previous section, as the member knows, dealt with the screening panel determining what it believes to be the appropriate compensation levels. In this section the intent is to ensure that those determined compensation levels — those levels as determined by the screening panel — are consistent with compensation levels in comparable organizations in British Columbia.

G. Heyman: How would that work in practice? If section 15 prohibits the screening panel from varying remuneration above comparable public sector organizations, what is the purpose of 14? Is it simply that if B.C. levels are too high compared to the rest of Canada, the encouragement here is to lower them? It doesn't appear that they can go up.

The Chair: As the minister confers, it has been brought to my attention that there is some question as to whether or not 14 has been passed yet. We have yet to pass 14.

G. Heyman: So you're saying that I should restrict my questions solely to 15?

The Chair: I'm saying that if the committee would like to pass 14, we can move to 15. But we have yet to actually pass 14.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

G. Heyman: I'm a by-product of a long week, as we all are. Do I need to repeat my question?

The Chair: I think the minister is fine.

G. Heyman: The question was, if 15 is prescriptive and prohibitive, notwithstanding 14, therefore, is there any possibility under 15 to go anywhere other than down?

Hon. T. Stone: While section 14 dealt with the screening panel coming up with desired compensation levels based on similar organizations in Canada, section 15 provides for ensuring that those compensation levels that the screening panel has come up with are not higher than those for comparable organizations within British Columbia.

At the end of the day, I think the practical result of the one-two punch here, between sections 14 and 15, will be that the lesser compensation level of the two will be the compensation level that would be proceeded with.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.
[ Page 3397 ]

G. Heyman: Section 19 sets out requirements for an executive compensation plan to be developed by the board and approved by resolution of the Mayors Council. I'd just note that it says that the compensation plan must be initially submitted to mayors within four months of the bill's enactment.

The plan must outline the compensation or ranges and be in accordance with similar compensation levels in B.C. and across the country. The compared organizations must be listed until a new compensation plan is approved. The compensation in place at the first reading of this bill remains in place.

[1620]

But there appears to be a trend, and I just want to flag this. Throughout a variety of sections of this act, it refers decision-making authority to the Mayors Council but doesn't speak to the seeking of guidelines from the Mayors Council, the seeking of a mandate from the Mayors Council, discussion with the Mayors Council around parameters, in this case with respect to executive compensation, or even asking the opinion of the Mayors Council. That shows up throughout this bill.

My question to the minister is: how does the minister see this playing out? Is there an intent to enact regulation at some point if adequate policies aren't put in place? Does the minister believe the requirements of the act are sufficient on their face that approval without any discussion is adequate? What exactly might take place if there's some form of dysfunction because there are gaps in the act in terms of communicating between the various levels of preparation and decision-making authority?

Hon. T. Stone: A very good question from the member from Fairview. The significance of this section is that, first and foremost, it establishes a methodology to determine executive compensation that, at the end of the day, will ultimately be approved by the Mayors Council.

It also ensures, similar to sections 14 and 15, which we've just discussed, that such executive compensation will be determined such that it's roughly comparable to executive compensation at similar organizations across Canada and certainly no higher than comparable B.C. organizations.

At the end of the day, TransLink and the Mayors Council are going to have to establish between them a methodology and a process that they both have confidence in. TransLink will do most of the work at actually pulling all of the comparables together and making the recommendation around executive compensation, but the Mayors Council will have the final say, and they will say yes or no.

This is just one of a number of, I believe, transitional matters that are going to require some heavy lifting between TransLink and the Mayors Council in the short term to establish a process that they both have confidence in moving forward.

G. Heyman: I'm not going to presume that setting compensation for positions at this level is a matter of collective bargaining, although there's always some aspect of negotiations with people you wish to hire. I learned over many years of negotiations experience that there is an inherent danger of not seeking some sort of mandate before the fact from the people whom one is representing or for whom one is developing proposals or policies, even though they may have final ratification over that.

[1625]

There's a certain dynamic that takes place when the input that people have is simply left to yea or nay. So I would expect in a functional world that some sort of policy and mechanism for seeking input, ideas, mandate, relevant perspectives from the Mayors Council would in fact be a function of both the board and senior management of TransLink.

My question was: what happens if that's not the case? There's an absence of reference for any role, other than approval, in both this section and many other sections in the act. Is there any contemplation of regulation that directs the development of policies, protocols, working relationships, anything perhaps more prescriptive to the board or management of TransLink that would actually direct them to hold discussions with the Mayors Council on a number of issues prior to the development of the particular policies — in this case, a compensation plan — prior to actually presenting it for a final vote?

Hon. T. Stone: There is nothing prescriptive being contemplated here, through regulation or otherwise. The authority to establish executive compensation will remain a matter between the TransLink board as well as the Mayors Council, with final approval on those compensation levels resting with the Mayors Council as a result of the amendments provided for in this legislation.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

G. Heyman: We've referenced this already, in part, and I appreciate the clarification that the minister gave. Section 20 says that despite the requirements of subsection (1) of clause 191, the directors act "with a view to the best interests of the authority," which is certainly not a typical language or concept for good board governance — that provincially appointed directors are not prevented from providing the view of government. The minister spoke, I thought, quite well with respect to the benefits of having the view of government presented, and in fact, that is why one would have provincial government appointments.

My question to the minister is: can the minister contemplate a situation where there is some conflict between the requirement of those directors to act with a view to
[ Page 3398 ]
the best interest of the authority and the clear knowledge that the view of the government that appointed them is something quite different?

Will the directors be allowed the flexibility, following the debate at a board meeting, to in fact meet the requirement of subsection (1) of clause 191, or can the minister foresee situations in which the provincial appointees are essentially told either that something must happen — they must vote a certain way — or they must oppose something and vote a different way on that?

[1630]

Hon. T. Stone: To answer the member's question, I'll say this. Certainly the intent here, what we're contemplating with the appointment of two provincially appointed directors, is really to mirror with this new subsection (1.2) what is provided for in the act today in section 191(1.1) pertaining to the two directors that are there to represent the interests of the Mayors Council.

That section, the existing subsection (1.1), provides for the chair and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council, as statutory directors, to present the views of the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation to the board. So we're simply mirroring for the two provincially appointed directors what we believe is already there for the two Mayors Council representatives.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That all being said and at a higher level, certainly the provincially appointed directors will adhere to the same provisions that all other directors will, including those detailed in section 191(1) that deal with the directors adhering to the principles of integrity and honesty and not acting from a position of bias, and so forth.

I certainly hope that answers the member's question.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

On section 22.

G. Heyman: Section 22 mandates that the board must take provincial transportation and economic objectives into account when developing long-term strategy and have that strategy approved by the Mayors Council. This is significant. If you'll bear with me a moment, I just want to quote something from the report commissioned by the Mayors Council, the subsequent report on Bill 22.

Near the end of the report they talk about a "single-transportation system approach" and that "the proposed revisions to the act are silent on the identified need for there to be one plan for surface transportation in the region" and that "without such a coordinated approach, there's a risk of massive investment in both road and transit infrastructure projects which might be at cross-purposes with each other." That's the context in which I ask this question.

First of all, what does taking "into account" mean to the minister? In defining that, perhaps the minister could talk a little bit about the scope and limits of taking it into account. Does it mean that they must be consistent with, that they override regional transportation objectives which are often linked quite inextricably to the spatial objectives of regional planning?

I obviously appreciate the interest of the provincial government in having the province's objectives taken into account, particularly the transportation ones and to some extent the economic ones, but it's unclear how this actually works, especially because the act itself is silent on what forms of consultation will take place.

[1635]

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows, section 22 first repeals a subsection related to the submission of long-term strategies that are actually subsequently integrated into section 202.1 further in the act. As importantly, section 22 also requires the consideration of provincial transportation and economic objectives when TransLink and the Mayors Council are developing a long-term strategy.

What we are trying to do here…. Again, we view this as another tool in the toolkit — similar to the two provincially appointed directors, frankly — to foster a tighter collaboration and the sharing of information, the sharing of planning between the province and TransLink.

We are working, for example, on a refreshed ten-year transportation plan of which TransLink and the Mayors Council's regional transportation plan will be an integral piece. We are also committed to refreshing the provincial transit plan. Obviously, TransLink and the Mayors Council — their thoughts and plans related to expanded transit and transportation on the Lower Mainland will be an important part of the refreshed provincial transportation plan.

We believe that this amendment is important because it's another way to encourage better collaboration and the sharing of information between the work that TransLink does and the provincial economic and social priorities.

G. Heyman: Well, it does make sense. It obviously makes sense that there be communication. If I can ask the minister to place his mind back on the comments from the consultant's report about there appearing to be a disconnect or at least no obvious coordination between provincial planning and investment in road infrastructure and transit infrastructure, the minister has explained this as a form of collaboration as the TransLink board and the Mayors Council develop the plans and strategies.

Does the minister see this as a two-way street in terms of discussion with not just TransLink but other regional organizations responsible for transit planning as the province develops its road infrastructure plan?
[ Page 3399 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, as the member knows well, there is a tremendous array of public and private organizations that form the highly integrated transportation system that we have in British Columbia, whether it's YVR and CN and CP in the private sector, or our ports, or whether it's B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, TransLink and others.

[1640]

There are a myriad of different efforts on an ongoing basis between all of these public and private transportation agencies to integrate and better coordinate the strategic investments in transportation and infrastructure. I think a great example of that is the Pacific Gateway Alliance, which represents the coming together of a whole bunch of different public-private partners — $22 billion in phase 1 and $25 billion of commitments in phase 2, most of which represents private dollars. But the public sector is very much there at the table as well.

The end result of those investments is a world-class transportation network that's all about the moving of people and goods across British Columbia.

We're always looking for ways to improve the interaction and the collaboration that we have with our many other stakeholder partners in the transportation systems across British Columbia.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

G. Heyman: Section 23 introduces amendments to replace "base plan" with "investment plan." It also adds the term "key initiatives" alongside that of "major capital projects" that must be listed in the plan.

It goes on to allow for limits to be placed on borrowing in the investment plan, in addition to existing borrowing limits. Can the minister explain the addition of the term "key initiatives" — what it means — and provide some examples that might be different than major capital projects?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the phrase "key initiatives," really this is intended to represent non-capital items. A good example of that for the member would be the U-Pass program.

G. Heyman: Sorry, I missed that example.

Hon. T. Stone: The example I cited was the U-Pass program.

G. Heyman: Clearly, these would be programs and not capital.

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: For the most part, programs would not be represented as capital items. They would not represent capital items. There could be some very minor capital items that could be considered programs. But again, for the most part, programs would be non-capital items.

G. Heyman: Just a quick question. Does the minister have any sort of demarcation line in mind between major and minor?

[1650]

Hon. T. Stone: I'll say this in response to the member's question. The initiatives are intended to represent program improvements where there may be a small capital component.

The major capital projects are defined in the act. In section 192 they are defined as "'major capital project' means a capital project that is estimated to require at least $50 million towards the capital cost of the project."

But again, that doesn't necessarily map entirely over to the concept of an initiative, which is more about a program improvement which, for the most part, may not involve much capital.

Section 23 approved.

G. Heyman: Chair, I'm wondering if the minister would care to agree with me that a short five-minute recess might be in order.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:53 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On section 24.

G. Heyman: Beyond the substitution of "investment plan" for "base plan," can the minister explain the impact of the other changes in this section?

Hon. T. Stone: Section 24 repeals sections 195 to 197, as the member knows, and it substitutes new sections. The significance of these new sections is that they provide for new processes which incorporate elements of the base and supplemental plans that were provided for previously by allowing TransLink to include proposed higher taxes that would come into effect only if the Mayors Council approves the investment plan.

This amendment continues the current provision of the 2 percent escalation of transit fares and through the 3 percent annual escalation of property taxes.

As well, this section would continue the current provision of requiring approval of short-term fare increases of more than 2 percent per year, but this approval will now be in the hands of the Mayors Council, which was previ-
[ Page 3400 ]
ously in the hands of the commissioner.

G. Heyman: Section 196 was a section that we talked about at length because it seemed to pertain to an answer the minister gave in a previous discussion. The minister claimed that the Mayors Council had the authority to raise property taxes without limit. I claimed and my colleagues claimed that it didn't appear that was true.

I think now what the minister was referring to — and I'm going to ask him if he can confirm this — is that it's actually subsection (2) that waives the limit that appears to be referenced in 1(b). Or if I'm not quite getting the interaction of the two subsections there…. But if I'm right, I'm a little perplexed as to what the purpose of 1(b) is.

[1705]

Hon. T. Stone: In answer to the member's question, no, in the previous discussion we were having, I wasn't specifically referring to section 196(2). However, I was and am referring to section 196 as a whole. Section 196(b), for example, is the subsection that provides for a carryover of the indexed 3 percent increase in property tax that is currently contained in the act.

Subsection (2) provides for the right of the authority to go beyond that 3 percent indexed amount of property tax and does require it to be included in the investment plan. But again, the investment plan must be approved by the Mayors Council at the end of the day.

Really, all we have provided for here in this new section 196 is to ensure that the provisions that were previously delivered through the old process which we're eliminating, the process of a base plan being developed, containing the 3 percent escalation in property tax each year that could only be changed through a supplemental plan, that might have included an additional property tax increase above the 3 percent, that the supplemental plan had to be approved by the Mayors Council.

We've replaced that base and supplemental planning process with this new investment plan, and it's here in this section 196(1)(b) and 196(2) — that provide for the ability to include property tax above that 3 percent and include that in the investment plan. But subsequent provisions also ensure that that must still be approved by the Mayors Council.

G. Heyman: I'm a little perplexed, given subsection (2), why subsection 1(b) exists. On the one hand, why do you have a subsection that places a limit on the amount the property tax can be raised and then provide in the subsequent subsection the ability to ignore it?

[1710]

Hon. T. Stone: Section 196(b) is really just the establishment of a floor on property tax. It's, essentially, how we're taking the old provisions of the old base-planning process and rolling that forward, so there's a floor established, from a property tax perspective. Section 196(2) enables the authority — again, with the subsequent approval of the Mayors Council — to include within the investment plan a provision for property tax above and beyond that floor. I hope that makes sense.

G. Heyman: I understand what it does; I don't understand the purpose. I don't understand why the act simply wouldn't say that the Mayors Council would set the rate of the property tax in the investment plan — period, full stop.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll try to be as clear as I can on this. Section 196(1) — and in particular, subsection (b) — is really about establishing some certainty around what that base level of funding is. This was dealt with previously through the base-planning component of how the plans work at TransLink. Section 196(2) is the subsection which provides the authority — and ultimately, the Mayors Council — with the flexibility to increase the property taxes beyond the base level, beyond that floor which is provided for through the annual 3 percent increase.

G. Heyman: I'm almost certain the answer to this is yes. But if I remember the minister's comments from a previous discussion, any additional rate of increase that was approved pursuant to subsection (2) would not be considered an additional source of funding and therefore subject to a referendum.

Hon. T. Stone: The answer to that question is yes.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

G. Heyman: This section repeals a previous section that required TransLink to present the Mayors Council and the commissioner with copies of the base plan, supplement and outlook. The new section requires approval from the Mayors Council for an investment plan and long-term strategy, and the long-term strategy requires approval every five years. The investment plan requires approval every three years. The long-term strategy is required on or before August 1 of every fifth year after 2013. So TransLink might wait as long as 2018 for the first approval.

For me, this and the next section are kind of key, and they go to the heart of governance and some of the points that I was making previously. I think the minister has claimed, both in his February 6 letter and in comments with respect to this bill, that this bill gives the Mayors Council much of the authority that they sought and a significant role in policy.
[ Page 3401 ]

[1715]

I want to return to some comments that were made in the report that was commissioned by the Mayors Council. I will say up front that the report does say that Bill 22 goes some distance toward meeting the tests of good governance and good division of powers between policy-making boards, operational boards and staff. But it also says it doesn't get all the way there.

Among the things that it says is that Bill 22 "does not, however, explicitly redefine the role of the Mayors Council as the policy body or place the TransLink board in a position to explicitly take policy direction from the Mayors Council."

It said that "assuming that…the Mayors Council and the TransLink board are supportive of making the proposed new arrangements work well, a number of issues would have to be resolved and preferably documented in a series of protocols," an agreement on planned processes to ensure that the Mayors Council is involved prior to approval.

I've spoken, to some extent, about this, this feature of governance and involvement of boards in policy-making, at different stages of this debate. My own experience is that boards that present fully developed plans for approval….

Or, sorry, staff. Oh, in this case it's the board presenting to the Mayors Council, which is, in effect, another level of board with approval-making authority but not any legislated or regulated right to be involved in the development of that policy. My own experience, having chaired a number of boards, is that it is very difficult to get it right when the finished product is presented without involvement in the preparation or consultation around key issues.

The reason for that is that people believe, often wrongly, that even though they have the vote, they can't really change the direction, because they haven't been involved or consulted.

Now, I've spoken to the new chair of the board. I've spoken to mayors. I know that the mayors have some concern. I know that the chair of the board understands — and I assume the minister understands this as well — that you can't have a functional policy-making structure where TransLink and the board of directors would operate in a vacuum, close themselves in a room, accept no input or discussion with the Mayors Council and present them with a fait accompli in terms of policy, in terms of the investment plan or in terms of the long-term strategy.

That's why it's a mystery to me that there is no provision whatsoever in this bill or even a reference to "procedures or policies will be set by regulation" or "the board and the Mayors Council will develop protocols between them to ensure full involvement or consultation on the development of the investment plan or the long-term strategy." It's just silent.

Now, I would hope that nobody with the skills necessary to serve well on a board would think that they could get away for very long with this division. It's concerning, given the significant level of alienation experienced by the mayors over a protracted period of time from what should have been their role as an elected policy-making board.

The report is very clear. The role of policy-making should fall with elected officials, whether they're elected boards or elected regional officials who are appointed to boards as a result of being elected by people to represent them.

That is a sound governance structure. It's one that's in place in London and in Stockholm, which have been referred to as leader regions, but it's not in place in British Columbia, in Metro Vancouver, and hasn't been for a number of years. As a result of that, we've got, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun, a form of gridlock.

I know that the minister has worked hard to try to address this. I believe he's done that in good faith. And I thought, in fact, in the first reading of both the bill and the minister's letter that there was more here than there appears to be.

I know that the media certainly believes that. Upon the introduction of Bill 22, the headlines said: "The Mayors Got What They Asked For," "You Should Beware of Asking for Things," "Sometimes You Get What You Ask For," "The Mayors Have Full Authority."

[1720]

Well, in my view…. And I learned this the hard way. I used to come to boards with my brilliantly, fully fleshed-out plans that I developed with staff and say: "Here it is. You have every right to vote no." I wondered sometimes why I was met with stony silence and why there was an increasing level of alienation of board members from the decision-making process.

I learned the hard way that it was important to bring people in and have broad discussions with them prior to developing policy recommendations or even details about implementation. It's a lesson that I've carried with me, and I'm sure the minister understands that.

I need to ask the minister why — given the points made in the governance report; given the history; given the alienation of the mayors for a number of years; given the intent, I think, of the minister's letter that the mayors fully believe they will now be engaged in the development of the investment plan and the long-term strategic
[ Page 3402 ]
plan — there isn't something in the legislation that directs the board.

I mean, the minister may say, "Common sense directs this," and I agree, but common sense often gets us nowhere in the real world. We both know that. We've both seen that on far too many occasions. There's nothing in here that kind of says to the board and TransLink: "This is the expectation — that you will collaborate, consult."

Even though the board and staff at TransLink will develop the investment plan and the long-term strategic plan, and the Mayors Council will approve it, this is not a separate, siloed process. This is a collaborative process. It needs to be, in order to work for the best interests of the transit system, the residents of Metro Vancouver and the economy of not only Metro Vancouver but the province.

I was a bit long-winded, as I am occasionally prone to be, but my question to the minister is: why is this silent? Your letter didn't read to me as if it were silent. I thought there were expectations in there. There's nothing in the act. I'm not sure that there's an intent to specify anything through regulation. I think there needs to be some clear signal of expectation or, at the very least, that the minister says: "If this doesn't work because the province still has significant control over the makeup of the board, I'll take steps to make my intent clear that this is a collaborative and iterative process and not simply: 'We develop it here; you vote over here.'"

My question to the minister is: can the minister elaborate on his intent on how the process should work in terms of the development of the investment plan and the long-term strategic plan? What steps, if any, does the minister intend to take, or has the minister discussed with the chair of the board of TransLink, to ensure that this, in fact, is the case and we don't get a worst-case scenario where, as the mayors fear, following the last almost a decade of being shut out of this process, they may not be able to have the input that they really desire into the investment plan and the strategic plan?

Hon. T. Stone: I certainly appreciate the observations and the comments of the member opposite, and I couldn't agree more, in the sense that a high degree of consultation and engagement is going to be required for success at TransLink — a high degree of consultation and collaboration between the TransLink board and the Mayors Council.

I would point out for the member that section 15(3.1) does provide a requirement for TransLink, for the authority, to actually ensure that consultation with the Mayors Council takes place. Specifically, this section says this:

"When the authority is required under this section to consult before taking any proposed action, the authority must (a) adopt a consultation plan that the authority considers will provide opportunities for (i) consultation, in the manner required in this section, with the public, mayors' council on regional transportation, municipalities, organizations, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the government and trade unions…."

And so forth.

[1725]

It goes on to say, before an investment plan is provided to the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation, under section 202.1: "The authority" — TransLink — "must consult, on matters that the authority proposes to include in that plan, with (a) the public in the transportation service region, (b) the mayors' council on regional transportation, (c) the GVRD and, (d) any municipality and other organization that the authority considers will be affected."

There actually is a legislated requirement in the act today, which we are amending through this bill, that requires that consultation to take place.

My only other comment on this to the member opposite would be this. I'm very proud of the hard work that the mayors have been putting into their plan. They've been working over the last couple of months, almost in conclave, with minimal headlines out there, working hard on a plan for expansion of transit and transportation. They've been doing that in conjunction with, and with the support of, the TransLink board.

I will report to the member that I met again this morning with the chair of the TransLink board, Marcella Szel, who was very pleased to report to me that, certainly in her time on the TransLink board, she has not seen the degree and the quality of coordination and collaboration between the Mayors Council and TransLink as she has seen in these last couple of months.

She has been invited on several occasions to sit down with the Mayors Council as part of their regular meetings. She has sat in on many of their workshops. She reported to me that she and the chair of the Mayors Council, Richard Walton, have had numerous face-to-face meetings, numerous phone calls. These two groups are actively engaged, and that's how it should be.

I would end by saying this. The chair of the Mayors Council, Richard Walton, and the chair of TransLink, Marcella Szel, are also working very diligently to define through policy how to ensure that these two very important organizations work really well together to the betterment of transit and transportation in the Metro Vancouver region.

G. Heyman: I appreciate that this is a complicated act, and I appreciate the minister pointing out to me the requirement for consultation. There are varying levels of consultation, as we all know.

I'll return once again to the observation of the consultant's report that this bill moves us closer toward an appropriate policy-making board, as opposed to an operational board, which is what we currently have with the board of directors. The Mayors Council, in effect, is the policy board without the full powers one normally associates with a policy board.

The report says, for instance: "The absence of the Mayors Council from a role in the preparation of annual service and other plans — which is where many of the more important local changes in bus service levels, etc., are made — combined with the comparatively remote nature of the TransLink board, is unlikely to enhance responsiveness."

It also says, with respect to the long-term strategy: "It may be possible to develop a protocol where the Mayors Council takes a more significant or lead role." It also says,
[ Page 3403 ]
with respect to the ten-year plan: "It may be possible to develop a protocol where the Mayors Council will take a more significant or lead role."

I appreciate the comments of the chair of the TransLink board. I appreciate the good faith that has been shown by both the chair of the Mayors Council and the mayor of Port Coquitlam, who has been working hard to meet some of the requirements put forward by the minister that are prerequisite to the referendum, but I'll simply repeat that there are some gaps in this legislation in terms of fully involving and giving real life to the concept that the Mayors Council is, in effect, becoming the policy-making board that the current board is and which the media have claimed they are.

[1730]

I don't believe we're there. They do have approval. I'm hoping the consultation is robust, and I'm hoping that the minister will keep a close eye on that and will entertain amendments if it appears not be working.

Notwithstanding the good faith of the mayors, I think the minister knows as well as I do that the mayors are nervous. They're skittish, and they don't believe this bill gave them what they were really seeking.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

G. Heyman: Nice try. I think the minister, by his delay, was simply trying to get me a bit more bouncing up and down exercise. I'm not sure what the Minister of Natural Gas was trying to do, though.

In section 30 this gives the Mayors Council the authority to approve or reject any long-term strategy or investment plan. I'm not going to continue to repeat my comments about involvement, consultation, full collaboration. But the section does say that it provides the Mayors Council with the authority to reject or approve the material received under the previous section — long-term strategy and investment plan — within 90 days of receipt.

Until approval is given, the previous long-term strategy will remain in force. If approval is not given within 90 days, the plan or strategy will be deemed rejected.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

In effect, if the mayors reject a plan, what actually happens? Would it be correct to assume that in the absence of a plan that the mayors accept, the previous plan continues and just simply continues?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, whereas in the previous section, 29, which as the member knows really was all about the requirement of the authority to create these plans…. He's quite right in his description of the intent of section 30, which is that this is the section that represents a good degree of the transfer of authority to the Mayors Council. This is the section where the Mayors Council is responsible for receiving, reviewing and approving both the 30-year strategic plan as well as the ten-year investment plan.

Now to the member's specific question: what happens if the Mayors Council doesn't approve one of the long-term or investment plans as presented to them by the authority? The simple answer is the plans are sent back to the authority and back to the drawing board, in which case the last plan that was deposited — i.e., approved by the Mayors Council — would continue to remain in effect, whether that be the strategic plan or the investment plan.

G. Heyman: This seems to me to illustrate exactly the problem with having a disconnect between the vote to approve and something in the legislation that actually makes the Mayors Council full partners in the development of the plan.

What happens if the mayors keep being presented with a plan that they're not going to approve? Presumably, they would say why they're not approving it. What happens if the board and TransLink won't bring them a plan they can approve?

[1735]

Hon. T. Stone: The first part of the member's question, I think, relating to what happens if the authority doesn't bring the plans forward…. There are very specific timelines, as he knows, which we just dealt with in section 29 which provides for a new section, 202.1. So there are very specific timelines that must be adhered to by the authority in terms of presenting a long-term strategic plan at least every five years and an investment plan at least every three years.

Now, to the member's question: what if the Mayors Council disapproves of either of those plans and that disapproval happens on successive plans? I think this is really where the consultation which is prescribed in the act is important — the requirement for TransLink, the authority, to be doing everything they can in reaching out and including the Mayors Council dynamically in the development of plans.

Remember, the way this used to work…. The status quo is a fairly cumbersome, base, supplemental planning process whereby the mayors really only have a say over, you know, yes or no on additional funding, which is provided through a supplemental plan. The amendments that we're providing for here in this bill provide the mayors with not just the right to receive a report, not just the right to review a plan, but the right to approve it or not. That's the ultimate authority in an organization, as we see it.

At the end of the day, this is also where the protocols that are being established through policy and the hard
[ Page 3404 ]
work that's going on right now between the chair of the Mayors Council and the chair of the TransLink board are so critical. There is a lot of work to do to establish processes which are going to work and work well for both of these groups so that they can foster the maximum amount of collaboration moving forward in the best interests of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

G. Heyman: Well, I appreciate the hopes of the minister, and I share those hopes. Frankly, people of goodwill and responsible people would develop the necessary policies. But policies are policies, and they can be changed, especially if there's no reference in legislation or regulation.

I appreciate the minister's comments on consultation, but, you know, we've sat in this House recently, and consultation has many different interpretations. I listened to the Minister of Agriculture define consultation as reading all the e-mails that come in, which I don't necessarily consider a good model for developing long-term investment plans or long-term strategic plans.

Notwithstanding that, if the members opposite wish to pass sections 30 and 31, I'm prepared to move on to section 32.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

On section 32.

[1740]

G. Heyman: Section 32 expands the scope of support provided to the Mayors Council beyond that of meetings but also for their operations. It does that by transferring money previously designated to the soon-to-be defunct commissioner's office, and it removes in part the ten-day limit on remuneration for attending meetings.

Given the knowledge that the lack of resources to participate meaningfully has been a sore point with the mayors, to say the least, as they have issues of time, issues of money, issues of research…. Elements, I think, here and comments by the minister will address that. Certainly, one would hope TransLink would participate significantly in providing research and other resources required by the Mayors Council to do their work in a meaningful fashion.

Could the minister say what cost he foresees TransLink bearing in this expansion of support beyond the simple transfer of the commissioner's budget? Is it an expectation, for instance, given the significant resources in TransLink of various staff and ability to do research, that if the Mayors Council required research, required support, perhaps even required some assistance with funding for an independent researcher, that would be made or could be made available by TransLink? Is that the expectation of the minister? Has he had that discussion with the chair of the board?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, in section 32, the intent here — as, I think, rightly pointed out by the member opposite — is to provide the resources necessary for the Mayors Council to assume these added responsibilities. We specifically, through these amendments, are increasing the budget for the Mayors Council from 0.02 percent of the authority's revenue to 0.07 percent. In actual dollar terms, we estimate that this will equate to roughly $1 million, which is not an inconsequential amount. Then again, we are asking the mayors to assume a significant amount of more responsibility.

In terms of the member's question in regards to if we have put a number on or done an estimate of the value of time and resources that TransLink is making available to the Mayors Council, the answer to that is no.

But I will say this. Through the TransLink chair, the board and the management of TransLink, I think, are very aware of government's expectation that they will make available every and any resource necessary — not just to facilitate the smoothest transition possible in terms of this transfer of responsibility to the Mayors Council in this interim period but to ensure that TransLink is providing whatever the Mayors Council needs as they assume these added responsibilities on a go-forward basis.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

G. Heyman: Section 33 eliminates the commissioner's office and repeals and changes sections and headings related to the commissioner's office. I'm curious whether the minister thinks anything will be lost in the absence of the commissioner's office?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, we're not contemplating the loss of anything through the transition of responsibility from the responsibilities that are carried out by the commissioner's office presently to having those responsibilities carried out by the Mayors Council. The intent here is to fully and completely transfer the responsibilities from the commissioner's office to the Mayors Council.

[1745]

I will say that it is completely and totally up to the Mayors Council as to how they wish to assume these responsibilities. They may determine in their infinite wisdom that it makes sense to contract the current commissioner or others in the commissioner's office. They may determine to completely bring these responsibilities in-house and hire new people to carry them out. At the end of the day, that will be the call of the Mayors Council.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.
[ Page 3405 ]

On section 35.

G. Heyman: My question with respect to section 35 to some extent applies to 36, 37 and 38, so I'll just ask it now.

Section 35 transfers responsibility for fare increases to the Mayors Council. Subsequent sections deal with responsibility for customer satisfaction surveys, responsibility for the complaints process, as well as responsibility for disposing of major facilities and assets.

These are fair responsibilities to have for a policy-making board. It's important to hear complaints. It's important to have responsibility for fare increases as an aspect of an annual operating budget, as a tool or mechanism to fund plans. It's important to know what both satisfaction and complaints are with respect to the system if one is planning priorities. But there actually is no role for the Mayors Council in the development of the annual budget — which, in effect, chooses the priorities for that year.

We've talked about the looseness of the consultation process, but they are in fact not the people who developed the plan they ultimately vote on. My question to the minister is…. If they're not a full policy-making board — they're a board with partial policy-making, loose consultation, no annual budget–making authority and the ability to simply approve plans — why were these responsibilities given to the mayors instead of to the policy-making board, if the minister, through this act, isn't prepared to make the Mayors Council a full policy-making board, as defined by the consultants' report?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, we actually view the Mayors Council as the policy-making board as a result of these changes.

The report that the member references in terms of the dimensions of good governance…. There are some very positive affirmations of the changes that Bill 22 is bringing about here. I mean, it says: "Will Bill 22 make the situation better?" Number 1, generally it should. The Mayors Council takes a stronger role.

Secondly, it says we'll need agreements and protocols to make it work. We believe that there's some heavy lifting but good work being done on that front. It makes reference to the TransLink board needing to be more of an operating board. We believe that the TransLink board is the operating board as a result of these changes and that the Mayors Council is the policy piece of the governance at TransLink.

Specifically with respect to the transfer of responsibilities related to those currently carried out by the commissioner's office, again, we believe that all issues relating to fare adjustments, customer service, customer complaints and disposal of assets are all responsibilities that, in this new structure, are best placed with the Mayors Council.

Sections 35 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

G. Heyman: Section 40 transfers inspector powers to an auditor. I'm just curious whether the minister can explain if there are any aspects that were within the power of the inspector that wouldn't be in the power of a performance auditor.

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no.

Sections 40 to 42 inclusive approved.

[1750]

On section 43.

G. Heyman: Section 43 repeals the requirement for the commissioner to keep information confidential and substitutes a section requiring the same of the Mayors Council. Are there any changes in this section that go beyond this simple swap?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer is no.

Sections 43 to 49 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 22, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.
[ Page 3406 ]

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
SOCIAL INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Sullivan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,529,819,000 (continued).

M. Mungall: Before I get started with my questions, I'll just say that it's great to be back in the little House, having a few days with the minister and being able to ask questions and go into some particular issues throughout the ministry that often don't end up on question period floor. We don't really have another opportunity, another venue or a legislative tool of the House to get that information out to the public.

I won't go on with a significant amount of comments, because we have a lot of material to go through. I'll start right away with just some general questions about some of the things going on in the ministry. So generally, just looking at asset sales and if there are any asset sales from the ministry budget…. Were there any ministry assets that were considered for sale but rejected — this budget?

Hon. D. McRae: Before I give the answer, if I may…. Pardon my lack of introductions here. Yesterday when we were here I introduced Sheila Taylor, my deputy minister of Social Development and Social Innovation, to my left. I also introduced Len Dawes, who is the acting ADM and executive financial officer, corporate services division. New to us today we have Molly Harrington, who is the ADM for research, innovation and policy division. I would like to thank her for attending.

[1340]

We're celebrating David Galbraith's first time here for Social Development and Social Innovation. He is the ADM for regional services division.

The member opposite asked about asset sales either considered or sold, and the answer is no.

M. Mungall: My next question just pertains to the core review and discretionary spending. As the minister knows, all ministries were asked to look at potential programs and services as part of the core review. Did the minister do this? What programs were identified for greater analysis under the core review?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite is aware, but just in case, for the viewing public, there are three phases of the core review process, leading up to the completion date on December 31 of this year. The first stage was mandate review, which was October to December, 2013. The phase that we are in now is the refinement stage of spring of 2014, and then implementation, which is ongoing to December 2014.

The refinement phase of core review is underway. Our ministry, like many others, is in the process of developing more detailed analyses and business cases. As these items will be referred back to the cabinet working group on core review, we will provide more information once decisions are made.

But just if the member opposite was looking for a bit more clarity, things that we presented on in general would be things like improved service delivery. For example, in the past in the ministry we celebrated the Lean initiative, where we found ways to deliver services in a more efficient means. That'd be sort of an example that is still underway.

M. Mungall: Just to be clear, then, the ministry hasn't made any program cuts or any program changes as a result of the initial phases of the core review?

Hon. D. McRae: No, there have been no changes or cuts.

M. Mungall: Just moving on, then, to staffing and staffing levels. What is the current number of FTEs working in this ministry, and how many vacant positions are there?

[1345]

Hon. D. McRae: Currently we have 2,004 FTEs within the ministry right now. As most people understand, this is a very large ministry. I think one of the members opposite commented that our budget is quite large, at $2.5 billion. Traditionally, we have a vacancy rate of about 5 percent. If you do the math, because it's such a large ministry, there are always postings coming through as people retire or find other jobs or things happen.

M. Mungall: I understand that there has been a government hiring freeze. What has been the impact on the ministry?

Hon. D. McRae: If we were to look at the number of people working, FTEs, in the ministry this year to last, it is about the same, approximately. One of the things is that we're very cognizant of maintaining the front-line
[ Page 3407 ]
services, that they are maintained.

Again, 2,004 FTEs today. Last year would be about the same, but again, there is about, like I said before, a 5 percent vacancy rate within the ministry. Front-line services, however, are the priority.

M. Mungall: Then, just to clarify, if someone retires or resigns from front-line service, for example, that person will be replaced? There is not a hiring freeze on that particular position? That's for front-line service but also going on to management positions, as well, throughout the MSD offices around the province.

Hon. D. McRae: One of the highest priorities, of course, is to maintain front-line services. As those individuals…. If a person were to retire, under almost every circumstance I can think of, they would be replaced. When there is a scenario, perhaps, with management, we would look at it. If we were doing things differently or there are more efficiencies or needs or other places, that may fluctuate a small amount.

Again, front-line services are a priority, and we want to make sure that those individual positions are staffed.

M. Mungall: Does the minister know the extent to which the hiring freeze then might impact the managerial level — for example, if there have been any FTEs that are going vacant? I know the minister said that the vacancy rate hovers around 5 percent. I'm just trying to get a picture of what positions are among that 5 percent.

If the hiring freeze is impacting the managerial positions and they're remaining vacant until the hiring freeze is lifted, I'm wondering if the minister knows the extent to which that is occurring.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: A recess is called.

The committee recessed from 1:50 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Chair, I'm sure the people at home enjoyed the small break we just had for the vote.

To member opposite, we were talking about hiring. For clarity's sake, I want to express to the member opposite that there is no hiring freeze within the ministry. There are approximately 2,004 FTEs within the ministry, a 5 percent vacancy rate. I haven't checked on line recently, but I'm sure if you go on line, it's very likely that there is a posting for a replacement position going forward.

That being said, you know…. Front-line services — we definitely want to maintain them. But with the management pieces, as needs arise, we may move things around the ministry. Again, there are job postings out there. If people are looking, there is always an opportunity.

M. Mungall: Yeah, I was just concerned if there is a hiring freeze, how that's impacting the ministry overall, at all levels of employment within the ministry.

I am wondering, though, about the turnover rate, particularly for front-line staff who are working with people applying for income assistance or working with clients of employment and assistance programs and so on. If the minister can please let me and the public know: what is the turnover rate?

Hon. D. McRae: There are 1,500 FTEs in the front-line worker role. I'm afraid we don't have the number for turnover in the last year in front of us. If we were to stand here and wait for the answer to come, it may take a while. If it's okay with the member opposite, we will endeavour to give the answer as soon as we get it.

M. Mungall: That's fine. Hopefully, we can get it by the time that the estimates are done for this ministry. If not, I'm sure the minister will follow up in writing.

[1405]

My next question is about advertising. I'm just curious as to what the overall advertising budget is for this year and compared to last fiscal year.

Hon. D. McRae: This year we've budgeted in Social Development and Social Innovation zero dollars for advertising. Last year there was a bit of advertising. We just didn't bring the numbers from the previous budget with us, but that money was targeted for the employment program of British Columbia. If the member would like, we'll do our best to bring those numbers at the same time we bring the numbers we offered to bring earlier.

M. Mungall: Yes, if the minister could bring those numbers forward, I would really appreciate it.

Just wondering if there have been fee increases or new fees imposed at all in this ministry. If so, for what?

Hon. D. McRae: The ministry doesn't charge fees for services. It would probably be detrimental to the people we work with to charge fees for the services that we provide.

M. Mungall: Well, one could argue that some of the things that happen within this ministry are kind of like a fee, but we'll get to that later. I'm sure the minister has been anticipating that.

Just curious, though, in terms of the transfers from the federal government. I do know that there's quite a large transfer — it says so right in the estimates booklet — of federal funds to the provincial government for employment programs. I'm also wondering if there are any other federal transfers that are not listed in the esti-
[ Page 3408 ]
mates document.

Hon. D. McRae: At this time I'd also like to take an opportunity to introduce a lady to my right. Nichola Manning has joined us. She's the ADM for employment and labour market services and the services to adults with developmental disabilities project.

In answer to the question about federal transfers, Social Development and Social Innovation receives, through the LMDA funding file, $301 million, which is for the employment program of British Columbia.

[1410]

M. Mungall: Just some general questions about the overall budget. This year's operating expenses, as stated in the estimates book on page 55, are $42.6 million above last year's budget, but yet this total falls below the rate of inflation. I'm just wondering if the ministry is looking to make any cuts anywhere due to that fact.

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite is correct. There is an increase of $42.6 million, but there are no cuts. We do continually, through this ministry, look for opportunities to do efficiencies.

A prime example the member opposite may be aware of is through the cheque process. Working with staff, we were able to reduce by 50 percent the number of steps it takes to actually have a cheque released through this ministry. That's an example of efficiency — better using our human resources within the ministry.

M. Mungall: The minister said that there are no cuts. However, if we look at the temporary assistance budget, that's been reduced by $38.4 million. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. D. McRae: There are less dollars in the temporary assistance program because there is less demand as the economy improves. People are able to find employment, so less demand on services. However, that being said, it's a statutorily driven process, so people's eligibility is fairly black and white. As people who need services come forward, they are provided service.

M. Mungall: I think we're going to get into that in a little bit. But for now I just want to come back to a few more general questions about the ministry. I see that the government is increasing the program management budget by $5 million. I'm just wondering why they're doing that in a time of austerity.

[1415]

Hon. D. McRae: One of the joys is that you get to learn lots of different aspects of life in this job. Now I'm going to, for a very short period of time…. It will be exposed quickly, if the member opposite wishes to press me on it, that I'm not an accountant.

This is not about a $5 million cash change. This is amortization that we're required to do for ICM. As we expense the project, which is quite substantial, just like we would with bridges and hospitals, the accountancy rules require us to record amortization for this project, as we go forward, for its life.

If I get continually pressed, I'm thinking I'm going to have to chat with my accountant.

M. Mungall: I understand that.

I also see that the minister is increasing his office budget by $4,000. It doesn't sound like a lot when we're dealing with a $2 billion ministry, but we are dealing with the ministry that supports people who are struggling every month just to feed themselves. I would like to know what that $4,000 is going to.

Hon. D. McRae: The $4,000 increase is budgeted in regards to benefits that we will perhaps have to pay, as the year goes forward, for our staff.

To the member's question as well, I think it's really important to understand that, yes, this ministry needs to make sure that the moneys that we spend we have very responsibly and are respectful of the people we serve. I'm pleased to say that last budget year we had a budget of $560,000 in this ministry. We came in at $390,000, so we were $170,000 under budget. I am very cognizant of that.

If the member wishes to come visit my office any one time, she will enjoy the TV from 1985 that I have in my office, the furniture that is probably older than I am and the window that doesn't close on a regular basis. I don't mean that in jest. The reality is that we are very aware that the people we serve are people of a vulnerable segment of our society. We live on very frugal means in our office.

M. Mungall: The minister mentioned that there is significant savings in last year's budget, that the ministry didn't spend as much as it had budgeted for. I'm just wondering, then. That surplus — where did it go?

Hon. D. McRae: Perhaps I should make sure I'm very clear on this too. While we didn't spend, in the minister's office, our full budget amount, that $170,000 was not a surplus for the ministry. The $170,000 was redistributed through the ministry for service delivery and other aspects, but that wasn't targeted to go any one place.

[1420]

M. Mungall: It sounds like the minister is not too sure where that $170,000 specifically went to, or it just was funnelled back into the overall ministry. Can he clarify a little bit?

Hon. D. McRae: This is a very large ministry, and there are many expenses throughout the ministry. Some
[ Page 3409 ]
things come in under budget; some things might creep up. Again, we're staying within the budget that we are allocated. But when there are extra moneys — in a case like, perhaps, this — it would go towards caseload pressures and disability assistance and CLBC.

M. Mungall: Then, just to be very specific, is that where this money went? I mean, we have to have a destination for where this money ultimately went to, some budget item. I just think the public needs to know, in a ministry such as this, where $170,000 finally met its costs in terms of delivering public service.

Hon. D. McRae: We don't follow each dollar, like with DA, around as it moves in the ministry. But we do budget to the bottom line to make sure that we do stay within our budget. We recognize that if there are extra dollars that go forward, there are caseload pressures in disability assistance and CLBC, and some moneys can get allocated to that place. But we actually don't follow the dollar as it goes in and through the ministry.

M. Mungall: Maybe I'm missing something here, but I find that a little bit disconcerting. We have $170,000, and the only thing I'm getting from the minister is a guess of where it may have gone. I think the public needs to get something a bit more specific out of this ministry on where that $170,000 ended up.

The minister said that he had a surplus in one of his budget line items. Where does it go? I think that's only good fiscal management. I would think that this government, which ran on that type of platform, would want to ensure and give the public confidence that they are following those dollars.

So I'm going to ask the minister again if he has any knowledge of where that $170,000 ultimately did end up. Did it go back to Treasury Board? It stayed within the ministry, the minister says. So which program, which budget line item, did we see it in?

[1425]

Hon. D. McRae: Again, we manage to the bottom line. We're making sure we live within our ministry budget. If there are savings — like, an example, this case — the money goes towards caseload pressures in disability assistance and CLBC. But if there are more detailed questions, the public accounts will be released later this year, and it will be exposed there.

M. Mungall: Is the best the minister can do is say, "Go look at the public accounts" — that he's not able to deliver that information here?

Sad day. Man, you expect a bit more clarity, a bit more transparency when government brags that that's exactly what they're going to be offering British Columbians.

Anyway, I'm looking from the minister for how much is recovered each year from child support clawbacks for income assistance and PWD recipients. Is that accounted for in the overall estimates total?

[1430]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Hopefully, I'm clear on this one. There are no family maintenance clawbacks. What we do is pay people up to the rate they're eligible for, less the amount they receive in family maintenance. If they receive more family maintenance than the rate, they receive zero dollars in assistance. The ministry has no dollar recovery from family maintenance.

M. Mungall: The minister can say it's a top-up. We all know it's a clawback. To suggest that every month when single parents receive their child support payments, they have to declare that to the ministry, and then the ministry deducts that dollar for dollar from their income assistance cheques…. To call it a top-up is just rhetorical mumbo-jumbo, and it's not right. The practice is wrong, flat out. I'm not going to stand here and go with the minister's rhetoric on that. We're going to continue to call it a clawback, because that is what it is.

My question, then, is: what is the annual revenue to government generated from children and their custodial parents each year under the government's child support clawback? How much is he taking through the family maintenance program?

Hon. D. McRae: I know this is a very important issue, not just to the member opposite but to many individuals. I think if the member looks at my answer, I did not use the word "top-up" in any answer I just gave you earlier. But there is no revenue to government for this program. If clients did not receive family maintenance payments, the ministry would have to pay an additional $17 million, approximately, every year.

[1435]

M. Mungall: So the ministry is taking, on average, about $17 million from B.C.'s poorest kids. Can the minister say what it was for last fiscal year?

Hon. D. McRae: For last year, if the clients did not receive family maintenance payments, the ministry would have had to pay approximately $17 million every year. It varies month to month.

M. Mungall: Let's play the minister's game here for a moment. The minister is saying that if people were not getting child support, the ministry would then be paying them $17 million. So the ministry is saving $17 million. That's another way to look at it. It's a clawback. If the ministry is saving $17 million, what is the budget to
[ Page 3410 ]
operate the family maintenance program for this year?

Sorry. Before I ask that question, what is the ministry budgeting this year in terms of savings from child support payments?

Hon. D. McRae: There are no savings because there's no budget line item for these dollars. There's nothing to save because it's never been accounted for.

M. Mungall: Clearly, it has been accounted for because we know — the minister has just said — it's about $17 million each year that the government anticipates it'll be saving itself by clawing back child support payments from people who are receiving income supports. We know that there's a number there, so that number has to be accounted for somewhere if we know that it even exists. It must be budgeted.

The question is: where is it being budgeted? Is it being budgeted annually? Do they look at it every year and say: "Okay, when we're looking at the costs of temporary assistance and we're looking at the costs of persons with disability assistance…"? When we're looking at those costs, is the government saying: "Okay, we know that about $17 million is going to be coming in to these families through child support, so therefore, we don't need $17 million in these budgets"?

[1440]

Hon. D. McRae: I think a way to answer this question, which is very simple, is: there are no savings. If policy were to change, it could cost up to $17 million more — $17 million which would have to be found either within the ministry's budget or other places in government.

M. Mungall: Talk about crazy wording. I mean, if there is $17 million that you're taking away from B.C.'s poorest kids and you decide to give it back and do the right thing, then it's going to cost $17 million. This desperate attempt to not admit to what's going on here is just pathetic.

Let me move on to a different question around the family maintenance program overall. What is the budget for the family maintenance program this year?

[1445]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the family maintenance program, to administer the program, there are 48 workers. It costs about $5.7 million a year.

I think the member opposite might ask this, so I'll break it down. Staffing is approximately $3.5 million, for the workers. Then, legal costs to support the clients are approximately $2.2 million.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering why the government makes it mandatory for a custodial parent to sign over their maintenance rights in order to be eligible for income assistance.

Hon. D. McRae: This program has been in place since 1997. That was before my time in government and before this government was in government. It was a long time ago. I wasn't part of the 1997 decision. That being said, income assistance is a payment of last resort, and it is important that we do our due diligence to make sure that we are spending taxpayer dollars in very efficient, effective and consistent means.

[1450]

M. Mungall: Is there any consideration given to the fact that somebody who is applying for income assistance — whose former spouse and father or mother of their child may have been abusive, therefore forcing them to sign over their rights to collect child support — may put them at danger?

Hon. D. McRae: Definitely, yes.

M. Mungall: Child support is the right of the child, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, and is not the right of the parent. The question then is: how is it that a parent is able to sign over these rights?

Hon. D. McRae: The family maintenance payment is made to the parent, and the parent is able to sign it over.

M. Mungall: I'm guessing that's the legal interpretation, since parents are able to seek child support on behalf of their child legally.

However, I just want to go back to the question I asked a moment ago about making allowances for people who are leaving abusive relationships and have concerns about any interaction with the abuser. The minister said that yes, allowances are made.

Can the minister explain how that process is? I've spoken with parents who, unfortunately, despite having had an abusive ex-spouse, were still required to sign over their rights to child maintenance.

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, safety is a high priority in the family maintenance process. Safety assessments are conducted on each case before maintenance action is taken, and maintenance action is not taken where a high safety risk is present for either of the parties in the matter.

Now, the ministry retains the right not to pursue maintenance if there are safety concerns. When a client still wishes to pursue support payments, the ministry may return the assigned rights to the client to seek maintenance on his or her own behalf.

If the individual fleeing violence does not feel they've been dealt with fairly, they are also welcome to apply into the reconsideration process as well.
[ Page 3411 ]

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering then. What is the range in dollars of child support that parents are claiming each month?

[1455]

Hon. D. McRae: The maintenance could be as little as a dollar and it could be in excess of $500, obviously depending on the situation of the parent and the number of children. For example, I was aware in the Comox Valley of a Christmas hamper to assist a family in need. In this particular circumstance, I believe there were nine children involved between the ages of two and 15. The top of the rate class is hard to define depending on how large the family is.

In terms of child support and such, obviously when we're dealing with society it could range to a lot more. There are individuals in British Columbia who pay many thousands a month in child support, depending on the income that they earn. A Hollywood movie star or an NHL star would pay much more than a person working in a restaurant job, perhaps.

M. Mungall: I am speaking, however, about parents who are receiving income supports from this government. Specifically, I'm looking at the range each month that the ministry sees parents claiming for their child support payments per child. I'm guessing the ministry…. The minister says he does not have that type of range. Does the ministry not collect that kind of data?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to maintenance amounts declared, we do have some stats, obviously. Again, these are individuals that we work with. For those declaring less than $50 a month — singles, couples, two-parent families and one-parent families — it would be 182 in total. Those exceeding $500 — again including singles, couples, two-parent families, one-parent families — it would be 657 for the year 2013.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering: how many children who are not getting their child support payments because the government is taking them away have custodial parents with disabilities? I'll just rephrase that in a different way so that it's crystal clear. How many parents who claim child support are people receiving persons-with-disabilities income assistance?

[1500]

Hon. D. McRae: The total number of families receiving disability assistance is 7,276. The children involved in these disability assistance cases or families would be 11,478.

M. Mungall: I'm just wondering: of that 11,478, does the ministry know how many are single moms? I'm assuming that the ministry does. The ministry does collect an awful lot of data on these families. So if the minister could give that information, please.

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies. We don't actually have those numbers, but we will get those numbers to you.

M. Mungall: In the 2012-2013 FMEP report, the family maintenance enforcement program, which is run out of the Ministry of Justice, it reads: "Just under $62 million was distributed to families who are or have been in receipt of income assistance. These are some of the poorest families in the province, highlighting the importance of child support and improving the lives of children and families."

I've already established many times in this House, this afternoon as well, that we know that the kids who are supposed to be getting child support in fact are not. The parents get roughly $1,000 a month to live off, and any child support that would further help those children and further help their parents buy them things like school supplies, food, pay for the luxury of playing soccer or going to a movie with friends…. They don't get to do that because the low rates but also because the child support is taken away.

We've identified $70 million per year. We've identified that $62 million was distributed to families since the FMEP was started, I believe, in that report. That's what I was getting out of its language. I'm just wondering: where does this money go?

[1505]

Hon. D. McRae: We might need some further clarity on the question, but the $62 million is distributed back to the families. If I've missed the question, then maybe we could rephrase it?

M. Mungall: The $62 million is distributed to the families, through the FMEP, the family maintenance enforcement program. The money that program receives from non-custodial parents definitely goes right to the custodial parents. However, we also know that this government then takes that off people receiving income assistance. It takes it off their cheques every single month. That $62 million, ordinarily, in my view and in British Columbians' view, should have gone to children, some of the poorest kids in our province, and it didn't. It didn't because it ultimately got taken off the parents' income assistance cheques.

So $62 million didn't go to kids. Where did it go?

[1510]

Hon. D. McRae: Sorry about the time. So $62 million was distributed to families who either are or were on income assistance. Approximately $17 million was for current families on income assistance and $45 million for the past clients. This is a program that benefits approximately
[ Page 3412 ]
12,000 families in British Columbia.

My apologies. It's 12,000 former clients who were on income assistance.

M. Mungall: Yes, I did notice. I went back to the report after I sat down and noticed $62 million, just last year from both former recipients of income assistance and current recipients of income assistance, that is dealt with through the FMEP. I do think it highlights the success of the FMEP that we are able to get families their child support.

The question with this ministry, though, is: do they get to retain it? Of course, that is something that the opposition has been working on, as well as single moms all around the province, and advocates as well. I'm going to have to move on here. But hopefully, the ministry will come to its senses shortly and see that it is a clawback and give that money back to B.C.'s kids.

My upcoming questions will continue on with the income assistance file. I'm just wondering if the ministry has conducted any analysis on the on-line application process to determine any possible problems that they did not foresee prior to the implementation.

[1515]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the on-line income assistance analysis. There is continual dialogue with stakeholders, obviously. For those people making an application, at the end of the process there is a questionnaire that is anonymous so that people can give feedback. As well, during the white paper consultation we heard many, many things, including some ways we could improve the service delivery as well through the ministry.

M. Mungall: What's the result of those surveys? What are people saying? I know I get a lot of calls into my office. I hear from a lot of people about the troubles they have with the on-line application process. If the ministry can say, what are the results of those surveys? What are people telling the ministry? What kind of feedback is the ministry getting about this on-line application process?

Hon. D. McRae: Like I mentioned earlier, when we do the on-line income assistance application, there is a survey now. The survey, I think, if you're a true statistician, is not going to meet the full test. That being said, I'll give the member opposite perhaps some highlights from the survey.

For example, of those people doing the on-line application — I'm rounding numbers here — 72 percent took less than an hour to complete the application; almost 96 percent were done within two hours.

If you look at the question: "I was satisfied with the amount of time it took to apply on line…." I'm going to do very fast math here. If I used "strongly agrees" to "neutrals," we're into the 85 percent ranges.

"It was easy to find the on-line application." If we were to, again, do the "neutrals" through "strongly agree," we're looking into 90 percent.

[1520]

"It was easy to get help on the on-line application." We're looking in the mid-80 percent ranges. The questions were "easy to understand" — again, through the neutrals and the strongly agrees, we're into the low 90s in terms of response to that.

M. Mungall: Those are the people who are able to complete the on-line application process, and obviously, the vast majority are okay with it. Has the ministry done any analysis of people who are struggling with the on-line application process, who are not able to complete that process, and what they are having to say about this on-line process?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, about 94 percent of people do apply on line. Yes, it's not perfectly successful — everybody who saw it in the survey. But it was actually a pretty good return. That being said, we constantly look at feedback about how we can make the process better.

The individuals may also, though, have face-to-face conduct through an office or by phone as well. Again, everybody might have their own subtle differences with a form and how they struggle — whether it's for themselves, whether it's working on behalf of an advocate or however means. There are multiple ways to receive services.

Again, we constantly look for feedback from individuals about areas where we could improve both the on-line process and through face-to-face and telephone conversation as well.

M. Mungall: My understanding, then, is that if people are having trouble with the on-line application, they can go to an MSD office directly and apply through the front-line services there. They could also do it over the phone.

If they're needing help with the application process, many people go to non-profits, various advocacy centres around the province, and they provide some support. But they don't get any funding, is my understanding, for that support. I'm just wondering if the ministry can confirm that.

Hon. D. McRae: We do encourage individuals, obviously, to use the on-line version, the phone or the face-to-face conversation. If individuals choose to go to a non-profit for some assistance — and by all means, there's nothing to prevent them from doing so — we do not provide funding to that non-profit.

[1525]

M. Mungall: Some of the non-profits that I just spoke about…. My colleagues and I all get regular complaints
[ Page 3413 ]
that people can't get through to the 1-800 line that the ministry has set up to support clients. In fact, when we've tried to get through the 1-800 line, we often find the same difficulties: being hung up on, being on hold for a very long time — essentially, not getting through.

I know that I've had constituents of mine who have sat on the 1-800 line on hold for well over an hour. Being on income assistance, they have a pay-as-you-go cell phone. Of course, that chewed up all their minutes for the entire month, and they were not able to make any phone calls for the rest of the month.

That's a huge concern to people, like that constituent of mine. It's a concern to me, and I'm sure it's a concern to the minister. I'm just wondering if the minister can disclose the problems that may be happening with the 1-800 line for clients and what the ministry has done looking into this and what they plan to do to fix it.

Hon. D. McRae: This is actually a program that I'm really excited about. It's called telephony. I think the member opposite would have heard about it as well. It is a toll-free automated telephone inquiry system that directs callers to a contact centre.

To the member opposite, by all means, the concerns that she's raised are concerns that I've heard both as an MLA and as just a citizen in my community. The idea of people on hold with a limited number of minutes is a challenge. Using those minutes up is an expense they do not need to entail. So starting earlier this year, on January 27, we began piloting enhanced telephone services, telephony services, in the Fraser and the north regions. In very short order — in fact, on May 12 — the system will go provincewide.

Now, I'm not going to be able to stand here and say it will go flawlessly, perfectly. It's still technology. But this is an opportunity for individuals to access information by far more efficient means.

Examples, as well. If a client were to call and was inquiring about a bus pass, it would best direct that client to an individual or a call centre where experts in that area are dealing with bus passes. So we're getting the individual to the right person who can help solve their problem as quickly as possible. It's saving minutes and is a more direct access to information. I think it's a good thing for everybody. It's just an example of some efficiencies within the organization in the use of technology.

[1530]

I'm really excited that on May 12 that we'll go provincewide. Again, very seldom do we see technology coming in where it's flawless, but I'm crossing my fingers.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

M. Mungall: Well, no doubt. I mean, many of us here are still trying to get the LCD projectors to work, after years. But I am wondering. I don't want to assume, and that's why I'm just going to ask this for the public record and to make sure that it is the case. I do assume that these services will also be available to people with hearing impairment.

Hon. D. McRae: The new system is going out on May 12. The program, from our end, has the ability to handle hearing impairment technology, but we're not quite ready for that yet. It would depend on the technology at the caller's end as well. So if they were to use a hearing-assist phone on their end, it may assist as they work through the phone system. That's a possibility, but it depends on the individual technology that they're using.

That being said, they could also access information either on line or in person. Again, there will be some limitations for hearing impairment when the new system does roll out — but one that we should be able to deal with as we evolve the system.

M. Mungall: I'm wondering if the minister has any projections on when they would be able to deal with that on their end.

Hon. D. McRae: My understanding is that if they call through a TDD line, they would get through.

[1535]

That being said, if it'd be okay with the member opposite — there's some technology that is beyond our ministry's control; you know, with Telus or other organizations — we need to get back to you. So we'll find that answer out as soon as we can and get it to you.

M. Mungall: I am glad that this issue is on the ministry's radar and they are working on it. I'm sure they'll let the public know as soon as they know when the public can expect the full range of services for people with hearing impairments to be able to call in to the 1-800 line.

In the Select Standing Committee on Finance report from this year from the 2013 consultation process, they ended up recommending that government "examine current social assistance rates, earning exemptions and the minimum wage and consider increases to meet rising costs."

However, the service plan doesn't make any mention of taking this recommendation on. I'm just wondering: what does the government plan to do with this recommendation?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to a rate increase, I think both myself and the Premier are on record that while we can't afford to do rate increases right now, when the province is in a different financial position, when we have more dollars, it's something we'd definitely like to consider.

M. Mungall: What about the earnings exemptions,
[ Page 3414 ]
looking at those? We've brought this up in the House. Single moms have brought this up around the province. I've already mentioned it in this budget estimates process — looking at the child maintenance and an exemption there.

As we know, Quebec has an exemption. That's one province that is an example. Previously in B.C. we've had that exemption as well. Is the ministry looking into this exemption at all, as recommended by the Select Standing Committee on Finance?

Hon. D. McRae: When it comes to policy reforms, we've made several in the past. Examples could be — say, for example, persons with a disability, with the $800-a-month earning exemption. There's also, on a smaller scale, the annualized earning exemption piece, which again, we're looking at to see its impact and some opportunities to expand the program.

The ministry will consider any changes to family maintenance policies, along with any other policy reform items. As per my mandate letter, which I know the member opposite has seen, it will be to implement them in a second phase of policy reforms and when the province's budget can accommodate such changes.

Again, like I said in the House, continually we look at income assistance and support programs and how we can evolve to better serve the citizens of British Columbia. While no system is perfect, we continually look at the way we serve these individuals. Can we do it by better means? Can we do it within the amount of moneys we have in our budgets? If we can do it in better ways, we constantly look at those as well.

M. Mungall: A cynical person might think that when the government says, "We'll do it when we can afford it," that will occur about, oh, the budget just before the election. I mean, that has certainly been the case in the past. That's a bit disconcerting.

[1540]

I do hope that it's not the case. I do hope that we can prove cynics wrong here and that we make these types of changes sooner rather than later. We are dealing with the welfare of children, of course, and they deserve nothing less.

Continuing on with my questions. On that note, it's been seven years since the ministry did increase income assistance. The last increase was about $50 per month for shelter and living allowances. Last July the minister said there was no plan to review the rates, despite inflationary increases and, of course, their own hydro rate increases that are above inflation, at 28 percent over five years. I'm wondering if that has changed.

Hon. D. McRae: The situation hasn't changed. That being said, we continue to work as a province to grow the economy of the province of British Columbia. We'll make investments in definite areas, by all means, across the government — Education, Health. Of course, as the economy continues to grow, I'd love to have the opportunity to discuss, with new revenues, where we could put those dollars.

M. Mungall: Earlier this week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and other groups released their annual report about the living wage. The living wage in this report is calculated as the hourly rate at which a family with two full-time earners and two young children can meet its basic expenses. That means rent, child care, food, transportation, utilities and so on.

Once government taxes, credits, deductions and subsidies have been taken into account, what we see for Metro Vancouver is that the living wage is $20.10 an hour. For Victoria it's $18.93 an hour, and for the Fraser Valley it is $17.02 an hour. This is a far cry from the current minimum wage, which is dealt with in another ministry, and an even further cry, of course, from income assistance rates.

Does the ministry consider these factors when determining the social income assistance rates?

Hon. D. McRae: I know the member opposite has lived in British Columbia for a period of time. We have just gone through some incredibly rough economic periods here, from 2008 through now. I know not just British Columbia but other jurisdictions across Canada were challenged fiscally, and this province was no different.

As we are moving to a better place, I believe, in this province, we know there are more jobs coming to British Columbians and fewer people on income assistance, although they're not at the rates I would like. But the key thing is that we need to continue to grow the economy to make sure there are jobs for individuals but also make sure there is more revenue for government.

[1545]

When there is more revenue for government to spend, one of the key areas I would like to have a conversation with my colleagues on is in regards to rates, especially for persons with disabilities. That being said, we are not in a position right now to raise rates.

M. Mungall: Pardon me, I wasn't asking about: will they be raising the rates? That was established in a previous question. I was asking: what's determined when government does decide to review rates?

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies. It's been two hours in a row. I didn't answer the question — not on purpose — there. It is one of the factors that we look at, by all means, but we also look at things like housing costs, nutrition costs, hygiene costs, etc. Again, we're looking forward to seeing the economy in a better place, government revenues in a better place and having this discussion.
[ Page 3415 ]

M. Mungall: There's a variety of different ways to measure these costs. I was particularly asking about the living wage and the research that's done around the living wage. Does the ministry do any analysis looking at these living wage reports and how they compare to what's being offered presently with income assistance?

Hon. D. McRae: When it comes to looking at the costs, we definitely look at many documents across the board, including the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. We were aware of this document and are aware of this document, and it does form part of our analysis as we look at what it costs to live in British Columbia.

M. Mungall: I'm assuming that the ministry does also, then, factor in inflation. I mean, that would be a natural. If the minister can just confirm that. I'm also wondering if the ministry considers various poverty measures.

For example, we have the most conservative measure, the Sarlo measure. It comes from a researcher of that name from the Fraser Institute, which has got a questionable reputation, so that's not the only measure to perhaps go with. It is a conservative measure. There's the market basket measure, more commonly used by provinces, which was actually developed between provinces and the federal government. There's also LICO, the low income cutoff, which is often considered the most realistic measure. I'm wondering if the ministry looks at those poverty measures and if it favours one over another. perhaps.

Hon. D. McRae: We do look at those, by all means, and at a range of other factors as well. Again, it's also important to know that…. I think the member opposite highlighted it. While some people may say the Fraser Institute is, if you're looking at the political spectrum, on the right side of it, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, by many people's measures, is on the other side of the spectrum.

That being said, we're pleased to see the work that's being done. In the end, it's about making sure that we have a good understanding of the situation that people are living with, and not just in this province but across Canada.

M. Mungall: I want to talk a little bit about some of the family rates here. I'm just wondering if the minister is aware that in constant 2012 dollars, social assistance incomes — this is social assistance in the expected-to-work category, not persons with disabilities — for single-parent households in B.C. have decreased from $17,508 in 2001 to $17,489 in 2012.

The peak for social assistance incomes for single-parent households was actually 1986. I think I was eight about then. No, I was six. Sorry, pardon me. I was saying that wrong. Since 1986 the peak — since then — was in 1994, at $19,400.

[1550]

I'm just wondering if the minister is aware of this situation that people on income assistance, when we're using constant dollars, are actually making less than they ever have before.

[1555]

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies for taking so long, but I actually have an update on a whole bunch of questions, if I may. So I will start with your last question first, if I may.

I do acknowledge that as time goes on, there are more costs to individuals for certain items, by all means. I wouldn't pretend otherwise. A prime example is the price of gas. In my community it's a buck-40 a litre, and if you go back ten years, it would have been less. That being said, as some costs go up, also government programs continue to evolve for supports as well.

We have programs that people have available to them. Just a list, although not comprehensive — things like the national child benefit program. We have the working income tax benefit, which could be up to $150 a month for individuals. There is the GST credit, the B.C. sales tax credit, the B.C. climate action credit, the universal child care benefit program. There's the healthy kids program, which provides basic optical and dental care to children in low-income families who qualify for MSP premium assistance.

In fact, this ministry alone has approximately 70 different programs that we provide to individuals either on income assistance or on PWD. There is a wide range of programs. Again, we continue to evolve these programs to best meet the needs of the vulnerable residents. That being said, there are always challenges, and we'll continue to try to make sure that the programs are to the benefit of the individuals who get them.

Two questions, if I may go back in time a little bit. Another question from the member opposite was: what was the front-line worker turnover? Last year it was approximately 9 percent. I think if we use FTEs, we have approximately 1,500 FTEs in the front-line services.

Then the other question was talking about telephony and people with hearing impairments. My apologies. I'm just going to go with the answer I was passed. Right now our hearing-impaired clients can all access the Telus hearing-impaired program. There are operators that can assist in connecting those clients with our front-line workers, and the process continues to be successful. Maybe we need to market it a little better, but we think we're meeting most of the needs of persons who are hearing-impaired.

However, that being said, if people have a hearing-impairment issue and are having trouble accessing, if they can contact us in some way, shape or form, by all means, we'll do our best to make sure that they're getting the services in a very timely manner and in a manner that can work for them.
[ Page 3416 ]

M. Mungall: Thanks to the minister for getting back to me with that information from earlier. Yes, there are programs out there that are attempting to alleviate some of the poverty that people receiving income assistance experience. But the reality is that they are living in poverty and that rates have not been keeping up with the cost of living by any stretch. If we look at constant dollars, people are actually getting less today than they were ten years ago.

That being the case, these rates are quite below the poverty lines. I had mentioned a variety of different measures. The most commonly used in the country, to the best of my understanding, is the market basket measure. The social assistance income rates for single-parent households that I just mentioned are actually below the market basket measure by $12,000 to $14,000 for all regions of B.C., and they're actually 73 percent of the low income cutoff, LICO, which I mentioned as what is considered the more realistic poverty line, so to speak.

I'm just wanting to make sure that the ministry is aware of this situation and that they are looking at it when they do review the rates.

Hon. D. McRae: Poverty has always, of course, been an issue in the province of British Columbia. Poverty rates were high in the 1990s, and they were high in the 1980s as well. There are lots of factors. Just because they're high doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to evolve supports that we have for individuals. I think the best thing we can possibly do for the individuals on income assistance is make sure that there's an opportunity for them to work and better themselves through employment either in their community or in the province of British Columbia.

[1600]

I know, as we come out of the recession of 2008 through now, there are opportunities that weren't there several years ago for many people. I just completed, as the member opposite knows and I'm sure many people know, a long consultation process across the province of British Columbia with persons with disabilities. One thing I heard loud and clear is that many individuals there wish to work. I also hear from companies that I talk to that they are looking for an opportunity to have individuals who are going to be hard-working, who are going to be good employees, who are going to be reliable employees, who are going to be stable in the community. The disability community would love to fill many of those jobs.

Again, income assistance is a temporary program. It is designed to assist people when they are in temporary need. The best thing people can do, as they find themselves in that bad situation, is make sure that they find themselves a job. What government can do is create a climate, hopefully, where jobs are available to individuals, and they don't need to go on income assistance, or they get off income assistance as fast as possible. I don't think anybody looks forward to actually being on the income assistance program.

M. Mungall: Nobody would dispute that those people who can work would like to do so. They would like to have a job that pays well, that offers them a decent standard of living. In fact, the fastest-growing group of people living in poverty, however, in this province and in this country are actually people who are working full-time jobs at minimum wage. But I've already pointed out that the issue around minimum wage is in another ministry, and we're talking about income assistance rates for when people are not able to find work.

We have explored this issue quite extensively in the Legislature over this session, about how the government's jobs plan hasn't been working, that we've actually lost tens of thousands of private sector jobs since the jobs plan was first initiated. So people who are looking for work aren't necessarily able to find it because that work doesn't exist.

That being the case, they find themselves on income assistance. Why would any government want to further spiral people into poverty and put them into a rut than they already are when they find themselves unemployed?

The minister spoke about people with disabilities who would like to work. Absolutely, people with disabilities — many of them are able to work a few hours a week, a few hours of the day. They're not able to carry on a full-time job, someone like myself or like the minister.

However, I think it's important to note that by the ministry's own analysis and by their own statistics, they've never predicted that the number of people receiving persons with disability income supports who would also be able to work any amount of hours in any given week be over 15 or 16 percent. That means 85 percent of people receiving persons with disabilities are going to rely 100 percent on social assistance for their income. I just wanted to make sure that those stats were on the record.

What we're dealing with here, at this moment in estimates, is we're looking at how people today receiving income supports are actually receiving less than they did previously, ten years ago, and most notably in the 1990s. Yes, there was poverty in the 1990s. However, it's important to note that single-parent families who were receiving income supports were living in 1994…. In 2012 constant dollars they were actually receiving $19,400 a year. Two-parent households in B.C. were receiving $25,357. By no means wealthy incomes, however, it is higher than what it is today, ten years later, where people now are receiving $22,386 if we're looking at 2012 constant dollars.

What we know from this type of data is that people are receiving less; meanwhile, costs are going up.

I just want to confirm with the minister that this information is taken into account when we're looking at the rates and how they impact people in their day-to-day lives and the poverty that they experience as a result.

[1605]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not going to read to the member opposite the list of credits and programs that are there. The issues that you did raise are taken into account.

M. Mungall: I just want to also ask if the ministry is aware that in the same time frame that we have seen income supports decrease in their overall value to people receiving them, we have also seen children's use of food banks increase from 25 percent to 30 percent.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, we do acknowledge that, and we are monitoring it.

M. Mungall: Since the ministry does acknowledge this, and they are monitoring it, I'm wondering if, then, they do recognize that there is a correlation between the increased food bank use and decreased value of income assistance.

Hon. D. McRae: Just to read into the record, we talk about children who are on income assistance, and we were able to track the numbers for the last 23 years.

[1610]

For example, in 1994 the number of children on income assistance in the province of British Columbia — I'll give you exact numbers — 120,725 or 13.2 percent of the population. In 2014 the number of children who are attached to the income assistance world is 34,074, less than 4 percent of the population.

One of the really important things is that…. Again, I know these are children, and we are very cognizant that we want to make sure they have the best chance. But the best thing that children can have are families who are able to do work and provide for their children. I think, looking at these stats, there are literally 75 percent fewer children on income assistance over the last 20 years, and it's because there is….

One of the factors is that employment is more available. I look forward as we go forward in this province to making sure that there is more employment available for their parents, to make sure that their children are best provided for in this province.

I know from my past life, through teaching, one of the things I'm very proud of is watching our education system take individuals who come from circumstances that perhaps are not always the best. The best can be defined in many different ways — this being an opportunity for young men and women to get a good solid education, get either some post-secondary training or an opportunity to go into a job. I've seen many young men and women have this opportunity, and I think it's a testament to the education system and the teachers and the supports that we have for young British Columbians.

M. Mungall: Surely the minister could have anticipated that I was going to get up in response to the statement that there are less children on income assistance now than there were in the 1990s, 20 years ago. To say that the reason why is because people are working….

I think that may be one of the possible reasons, but we can't forget that in 2001-2002, when this Liberal government came into power, they made sweeping changes to the income assistance eligibility rules. They made sweeping changes to many of the factors that determine whether or not families can be on income assistance. They made sweeping changes overall that forced many people to be ineligible for income assistance.

I think it's a mass oversimplification to suggest that it's just the good work of the Liberal government. In fact, many would argue that it's quite the opposite, that we're seeing an increase in homelessness, especially children who are homeless with their parents, as a result of those cuts and those changes in 2001 and 2002, and that B.C. actually has never truly recovered from that.

My question, then, is if the minister is aware that…. This is shocking, and every time I hear about it from somebody…. I remember hearing about it very frequently when I was coordinator for the Nelson Food Cupboard, which was a small food bank in Nelson. You hear all the time — and I still continue to hear it today — that clients of food banks are told to go to the food bank by income assistance workers. They go and look for a crisis grant. They go and look for greater support for food. They're not able to get it. They're not eligible for whatever reason, so they're directed to the food bank.

I'm just wondering if the minister is aware that this is a practice, that it is a common practice, and what he intends to do about it.

Hon. D. McRae: If possible, Chair, I'd ask for a short recess for some issues.

The Chair: Sure. With that, we'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Chair, thank you for allowing me a short recess to deal with some issues, and my stomach is now full.

Now to the member opposite's question: front-line workers do work with food banks, by all means. It is a practice that is acceptable, by all means. Sometimes food banks will also let front-line staff know of excess resources or resources that are family-specific that would be beneficial to certain clients. That's really helpful, and I thank them for that.

However, I do want to have on the record that no one is denied hardship and sent to a food bank as an alternative. They do play a role in our community, and we are thankful for the food banks that do exist.
[ Page 3418 ]

M. Mungall: If no one is denied hardship…. Well, it's debatable. I hear from people all the time that that is exactly the case they had, but more important is that people are directed to the food bank to be their regular source of food rather than just emergency food — that this is where they need to go for food.

Each food bank is very different with their policies. Some allow people to come as often as they need, and others say once a month and: "Here is the basket that you get." Of course, those baskets don't last all month. Each food bank is definitely providing services to the best of its ability.

It does really concern me, and I'm sure it would concern the minister as well to know that it's a very common practice that when someone is able to successfully apply for income assistance, they're told: "Yes, this won't be enough for you to live on. You're going to need the food bank, and here are the directions to it." Or that when someone does apply for hardship, they've been told: "No, you've maxed out your abilities to apply. You've maxed out, you're not eligible, so here are directions to the food bank."

[1625]

It does happen, Minister. I find it very disconcerting that it happens, and I think it's very indicative of the state of income assistance rates in this province that they're not even sufficient so that people can feed themselves with basic foods such as milk and bread.

Hon. D. McRae: Just a couple of things I would like to put on the record. The average person in British Columbia who goes onto income assistance goes on for approximately six months. Again, it is income of last resort. Our hope is that when they do come to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and they are in need, there is also an employment job search that does go on. Again, this is the average. I know there are individuals, for lots of circumstances, who would be on for longer.

However, when a client does present at an office with an immediate need for food, they're assessed and, once eligible, given a crisis grant for food. If they are assessed and they are not given a crisis grant, the person who comes to the office is also eligible, like almost all people who are turned down for resources, to apply for reconsideration. So there is a process that people can, basically, reapply to make sure that they have their time in front of staff to hear their case. But again, we want to make sure that a crisis grant is there when absolutely necessary.

M. Mungall: I think it's important to highlight at this point, though, that when someone is in crisis and they go to apply for a crisis grant, and it's determined that they are ineligible for that grant…. Then to go through the long process of reconsideration doesn't help them in that moment when they're hungry and they need to get food and they need to put something in the refrigerator or in the cupboards right away, particularly if there are children involved.

Of course — right? — the fastest remedy in such a situation is to give somebody directions to the local food bank. But I bring this up and I want to call the minister's attention to it because I think it is an issue that highlights the problem that exists in the rates and the levels of the rates. We're leaving people going hungry.

[1630]

It is a problem that exists in terms of determining peoples' crises. Sometimes they are left to remain in crisis and not able to do something as basic as feeding themselves, as a result.

[J. Sturdy in the chair.]

Particularly, this is concerning for somebody who may have some dietary restrictions and may not be able to eat what is available at the food bank. I want to just make sure that the minister doesn't walk away not taking that into consideration, because it is an issue. I hear about it frequently. I've been hearing about it for years, before I was elected as MLA for Nelson-Creston and to this day. It disturbs me greatly. I'm sure it will disturb the minister, and I'm sure that he will go away from this exchange thinking about that issue.

I did want to just move on and ask another question or two before I pass it off to my colleagues here. In the minister's mandate letter from the Premier, his sixth deliverable is to implement the next phase of the social assistance reform as presented to Treasury Board earlier that year. Can the minister discuss what was presented to Treasury Board in 2013 and what is considered the next phase, as discussed in the mandate letter, and if this next phase is the final phase and where the minister is at in implementing this particular phase?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you, Chair. Good to see you.

First of all, if I may…. I know the member is going to be leaving in a few minutes, but we talked earlier about food banks and hardship and crisis grants and stuff. One of the things that I do really enjoy in this ministry portfolio is the opportunity to assist people.

If you, as an MLA in your constituency, and, by all means, all MLAs…. When there is an issue that perhaps is not being resolved appropriately, it's really important that we, as a ministry, find out about it. By all means, my office is more than open to visits from yourself and letters from yourself in regards to clients. If they can sign a release that will assist us, that even helps us a bit more.

For example, let's say Bob Smith from Nelson is having a really tough time, and maybe there is a culture or a system in a community or an office that is not working
[ Page 3419 ]
well. Maybe it's a misunderstanding. One of the things we can do, as a minister's office, is try to resolve those differences to make sure that people are — I have used this before — treated with respect and dignity. That's what we really aim to do.

[1635]

I'm really proud as minister. I have a great staff who work in this building. Obviously, the ministry staff across the province of British Columbia work incredibly hard. Again, we're all just people working with people, and so there are possibilities that errors are made. That's human nature.

I'd like to say that my staff here in this building and the staff I work with in Social Development and Social Innovation are trying really hard to work with individuals to make sure that the right people are getting the right resources to make sure that they can avoid or get out of crisis when it does occur. That being said, there obviously are over 4½ million British Columbians, and we will never have perfection. But again, please know that not just one side of the House is available to contact our office; both sides of the House are welcome in our ministry office here.

Back to the second question. We talk about phase 1 of reforms that came out. I'm sure the member opposite is aware of them. We talk about the $800-a-month earning exemption for persons with disability, $200 a month for persons on income assistance, the annualized income for persons with disabilities, asset increases. They were all part of phase 1 as it went through Treasury Board and cabinet, though I was not Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation.

Phase 2 is not defined to have an end date. I know the member opposite is very much aware that the white-paper process, which will bring us some really good information as to the next phase as we go forward, is something we're looking forward to working on and seeing how we can continue to evolve the supports for persons with disabilities and for persons on income assistance. That being said, the next phase will require myself and the ministry to go forward to Treasury Board and cabinet for approvals, and we aren't ready to do that yet. I know the information from the white paper will be coming out fairly soon.

The other piece is that, as Minister of Social Development, I don't think there's any final phase of reform for income assistance and programs. We continually look at these things. There will be various phases, perhaps, as we go forward, but we are cognizant of living within our budget. Again, we always can do a little bit more for persons we serve in this province. Resources are what they are. One day there will be more resources. I'm very hopeful for that. But that being said, we want to make sure, as well, that certain pieces, like the annualized earning exemptions for persons with disabilities…. It has a really, really good impact on people. I look forward to seeing that program, if it's able, to expand.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the critic.

I have a number of questions, hon. Chair, which I've written down, that I'd be delighted to submit through you to the minister, if that's possible, with the minister's consent to provide responses at a later date. These aren't urgent or timely. Therefore, I could just wait for a response that will come in writing. I'm assuming I'll get a response from the minister on that.

Hon. D. McRae: One thing I really do appreciate is that the member opposite always asks thoughtful questions, and we want to make sure we give answers that are respectful of these questions. By having them in advance, although not hugely in advance, if it's okay with member opposite — is it three questions and sub-questions that you asked? — we definitely will do our best to get you a timely answer to these as soon as we can.

J. Kwan: As I was mentioning to the minister yesterday, there is a set of questions that I'd like to ask the minister around the Giving in Action family fund, which actually falls in different parts of government agencies but certainly falls within the minister's realm. As the minister knows, the Giving in Action family fund was established in 2006, and it was funded by the province of British Columbia and administered by the Vancouver Foundation.

[1640]

The fund essentially, since 2006, helped 1,200 families, and this contributed towards purchases, renovations and a variety of different projects to help people with various disabilities, developmental disabilities or otherwise. The fund, the minister may well know, is distributed across the province of British Columbia, and about 30 percent of the funding went to low-income families, 22 percent to single-parent homes and 85 percent to families caring for a child under 19.

The fund allows for the families to continue to live together, to care for children with a disability or family members with a developmental disability. It was first established with CLBC with a $30 million contribution and $10 million from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In 2009 there was an additional $1 million that went into the system, and then in 2013 another $2 million for Social Development. So it was a range of government ministries that sort of invested into this fund. On average $5.2 million was granted annually.

The moneys, of course…. It's not just government money per se, because it leveraged dollars as well from families and elsewhere to make their money go further to provide the assistance. In terms of job creation, about $42 million went into economic benefits to 150 different contractors and vendors — more specifically, $23.5 million to home renovations and $18.7 million in vehicle
[ Page 3420 ]
purchases or modifications. As you can see, the program is valuable socially and economically as well.

The outcomes for this program are quite astounding, probably unrivalled in this sense. The outcome of the program…. It is reported that 99 percent of the families say that it relieved stress in the family; 98 percent said it was an improved quality of life for the family. Ninety-three percent of families say that because of that fund, it allowed them to stay together, which I think is very, very important. Eighty percent said it improved their health, and 33 percent said there was an increase in family members' ability to work.

So the multiplier of the effect of this fund is significant, and I'm not even sure if all of those aspects have been quantified in such a way to really see the value of the fund.

Now, that said, the challenge here is this — and hence will be my series of questions to the minister around this fund. The fund now has all been subscribed. That is to say, there is no more money for any new applicants who want to come in to access this fund. There are currently about 150 families who are on the wait-list to access this fund. I know of clients who received this fund, who are cases that have arrived at my desk as an MLA in working with individuals, sometimes in my riding and oftentimes because of the critic role that I play for people outside of the riding. So I've seen firsthand how this fund has actually helped the very people that I know the minister and this ministry provide support to.

Now we have in the province of British Columbia approximately 11,000 families that have children with developmental or physical disabilities. About 12,000 B.C. families include somebody, a child or adult, with a developmental disability. The Giving in Action fund has served 5 percent of the eligible population. The sad fact is that without this fund, there are few alternatives to which families could go to get access.

With a growing wait-list, with the fund having ended, I know letters have gone out to ask for the government to consider ongoing support to this fund. I know that MLAs on both sides of the House, both on the government side and on the opposition side, have written letters in support of this fund, in an attempt to do this in such a way that is non-partisan, that is in the best interests of the community.

[1645]

Having said that, I am wondering whether or not the minister could commit to revisiting the decision in not further investing in this fund, knowing the value of it, knowing that it has support from both sides of the House and knowing that the effect of this fund has been so tremendous for so many families and that the need is so great and still exists in our community.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much for the member opposite's question. I have had an opportunity as minister to visit homes, obviously, that were recipients of Giving in Action and communities across the province. The 1,200 individual families with special needs — children with special needs and adults — did benefit.

That being said, and I know the member opposite knows this, the program falls outside of our regular funding model and is supported through one-time-only grants. Given the current situation in this ministry, we didn't have the capacity to provide further funds for the program at this time.

I would like to have on the record that the B.C. government has contributed $43 million to the Vancouver Foundation for Giving in Action, which included recently a $2 million boost from the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation in March of 2013, last year.

Like the member opposite said, one-time-only grants are not just from this ministry. They have come from other areas as well. That being said, we will explore an agreement with the Vancouver Foundation should funding become available in the future.

J. Kwan: I'm just going to pause for a minute on the questions around this fund and yield the floor to my colleague the member for Kootenay West to ask her questions, and then we'll resume.

K. Conroy: Thank you so much for the indulgence of everyone.

I just have a few questions. My first one is around the health services division of Social Development. It puts timelines on appliances and prosthetics for disabled people when they don't work and when the timelines don't work. It seems to be a one-size-fits-all policy, and it certainly doesn't work for some of my constituents.

There's one in in particular. The timeline's usually about two years. I have a constituent who suffers immensely for several months before getting what she needs. She applies and has to wait for the timeline. Our office has been working on her case off and on for a number of years now. She applies months in advance to get her prosthetics changed because they wear out. She needs them. She gets denied. She has to go through a reconsideration process, and then she wins.

In the meantime, it's a real hardship for her to get anywhere because she walks everywhere. She lives in the Trail area. She can't afford a computer. She can't get on the Internet, so she walks to the SD office to get any of that support. She has five paper routes to keep herself, to get a little bit of extra money. She really needs her ankle braces desperately.

She's just been turned down again and is applying again for reconsideration. She went through this for her shoe supports. The ankle braces wore out while she was waiting for her shoe supports, and she was wrecking the ankle braces because she was walking on them in the wrong manner because she was waiting for the
[ Page 3421 ]
other support.

She's in constant pain. It's a crazy system. If she could get the replacements regularly, she would have a much healthier life. She would not be in constant pain. She wouldn't be constantly dealing with the bureaucracy, with the ministry. Our office is helping her all the time to try to get them.

It seems like there is something wrong with the system that a disabled person who is on disability pension…. She's trying to work to a make little extra money. She's got five paper routes, so she has to walk. She needs her braces. She needs her shoe supports. I just think there has to be something that the ministry can do about this. We're advocating all the time, and it's not working.

[1650]

Hon. D. McRae: Believe it or not, we are actually aware of a number of individuals around the province of British Columbia, and we are working with some of those individuals. In this particular case, though, I'm afraid I'm not personally aware of the issue.

If you have written a letter to myself, through my office, my apologies. I don't remember that. In this particular case circumstance, if I could ask the indulgence of perhaps either a letter or a conversation we could have about the individual, we'll look into this situation and find out why the timelines are so long for the individual.

Of course, with a situation where there's a long time frame, the reconsideration process and then further damage being done to other pieces that they're needing, there's got to be a better way. Without knowing the circumstances or the individual, the more information you can provide us, we'll do our best to look into it and get you an answer, that individual answer, in a very satisfactory time.

K. Conroy: Thanks to the minister. I certainly will do that. It has been an ongoing issue with a number of ministers. We will make sure that we will bring it. I think there's been a letter to the current minister also. We will keep working on it, and I will bring it back again next week so that we can work on it, because it continues to be an issue. It's a policy that's hurting this particular constituent.

The other issue in our region is staff shortages for the office in our region, the West Kootenays. Last summer there were actually closures, so that the offices were only open two days a week. We had considerable complaints at our offices about it, and we're hoping that this does not happen again this summer.

People have to travel some distance to get to the Social Development office in our region, and when they get there and find that the office has been closed off, and with no notice, because of staff shortages, it's very difficult for people.

As you can imagine, in our area the travel is difficult. There's one bus that goes from community to community. If you get it in the morning, you have to wait until the night to get it back. Or people are hitchhiking, which is not a good thing.

We want to make sure when people are going to the office that the office is open, that it's staffed, that people can access the people they need to access. We're really hoping that we will not have the same situation this summer that we had last summer.

[1655]

Hon. D. McRae: By all means, we try our very best. I'm by no means an expert on the West Kootenays, like yourself, but I do know the communities are often smaller, and isolation is a piece of it. Our offices are often not staffed in large numbers, like they would be in larger urban areas.

When we know there is anticipated…. Whether it's a holiday or upcoming illness and we know the offices are going to be short-staffed and have to be closed, we try our best to let the staff know. But sometimes unanticipated staffing issues arise — perhaps an unexpected illness. Perhaps a person finds a new job. But again, we'll always try to do our best to inform the individuals we work with that if there's going to be a closure, we give it to them in advance.

That being said — I know you weren't here earlier — there also are about 1,500 frontline FTEs in the province. We have a turnover of FTEs in Social Development and Social Innovation of about 9 percent. Some transfer to other jobs in the government. Some just find other jobs; perhaps retirement as well. So there is a turnover of staff, and we can't always anticipate this.

We were talking earlier, as well…. Starting on May 12, I think I said, the telephony system is coming in where people can phone in and work through our call centres to get better services. We're working on a new system of technology where people do not have to wait on hold forever and will actually be able to leave numbers and call back with individuals. That will be an opportunity for people to receive services.

I was also going to say, as the member opposite probably well knows, there's also the on-line ability to contact us. That being said, I was just recently in the Kootenays, and it is a different place in terms of not everybody having access to broadband service and Internet. I realize that there are certain clients, in terms of geography but also in terms of resources they have available, that may not be able to access this.

If there is a particular office or offices in the area that you know we've had some trouble with in the past…. By all means, I'm not condemning the individuals that work there. I'm sure they work very hard, but these are often smaller offices. If there is an office that you have had multiple concerns about, by all means, you can please let us know, and we'll do our best to flag it and be aware going
[ Page 3422 ]
forward that there has been trouble in the past.

K. Conroy: It's not an issue with the staff. The staff are usually really excellent. It's an issue with the shortage of staff and clients that have to repeat their story every time they talk to a different person. People have used the call-in or have tried to use on-line, and like you said, we don't have computer systems throughout the region. A lot of people don't have access to computers except during certain hours of the day, and they have to come to town.

It is an issue, and people comment that every time they speak to somebody, they have to tell their story all over again. It's a frustrating position. I've just raised it to bring it to the minister's attention. I appreciate that and appreciate the time and turn it back to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: In the spirit of the continuity, I think, I'm actually going to just add on to what my colleague just raised around the 1-866 number issue, or access to offices, because I've had numerous complaints — the office difficulties from constituents who cannot access their workers, having to repeat stories over and over again and so on.

The issues that people raise, as my colleague identified…. I just want to add a few more words to that effect. Many of the MSD interventions are when people have no telephone. As the minister may know, in my riding many of my constituents actually don't have a telephone.

Some of them sometimes do have a cell phone, but they can afford a pay-as-you-go, minute-by-minute arrangement. Often when they do phone, they are put on hold, waiting for very many minutes and, obviously, spending money that they don't have. Oftentimes they're unable to make contact.

There have been times when people are so frustrated that when they phone, they wait, and then they get cut off, right? We've all done that before. You just sit there. You wait for 20 minutes, and then you want to say things that would be inappropriate in this House when that happens. That happens quite regularly with constituents in this situation.

To add to that, now in the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant area in these offices there are no phone numbers for any of the local offices which they can phone into. Instead, all of the inquiries are routed through the 1-866 number, the call centre that the minister referred to.

When individuals with PWD or income assistance recipients go into the office to ask the local office person, presumably some person in there, a simple question, they're often told to phone the 1-866 number instead.

[1700]

Even when they're physically in the office, they can't actually access a person to ask a simple question. You can imagine the frustration of that for those individuals.

I actually have a letter from an outreach worker, who's helped many constituents and many individuals in and around the Vancouver area trying to access support. Here's what she writes. I thought that the minister would appreciate the situation better if he heard it from this individual. It says:

"I have to point out the absolute failure that is the 1-866-866-0800 number. As if the ministry wasn't becoming less and less human, the complete and utter centralization of ministry communications to one single number for the entire province is the best example of the shortsightedness of this ministry, who furthermore has the shameless idea of adding to its name 'Social Innovation.'

"When a client goes to his or her office to ask about their file or talk to a worker, they're immediately, in most cases, told to call this number and given a small piece of paper listing all offices in the Lower Mainland, all with the same number, and they will kindly circle the one for their respective office, even though it's all the same — illusion of personalized service.

"I hope you have never had to call the 1-866 number. As an outreach worker, I have to call multiple times a week. When you get to the option to talk to a human being — because, let's face it, the menus don't tell you anything — 50 percent of the time you get the message that their workers are so busy that you should call back later and are hung up on. The other 50 percent of the time you're told that their lines are extremely busy, and you may have to wait up to 15 minutes. Realistically, you get a response soon, or you wait 20 to 30 minutes. Individual experience may vary.

"The ministry's latest insult is this. A client shows me a single-page, cardboard-printed letter he received with little cutout cards at the bottom with the 1-866 number printed on it with a personalized ID number to call them. The letter introduces their new revolutionary inquiry line, in case you need to call and learn the amount of your next cheque, which I'm sure you know hasn't changed in a decade."

The individual is saying: "When will the government stop shooting itself in the foot with repeated stupidities like this?"

I think the language used really just simply exemplifies the level of frustration with this system. I would really urge the minister to look at this system. The centralized system, frankly, does not work, no matter how much we wish for it to work. It simply doesn't work. I don't know, frankly, if it really saves the government any money at the end of the day. You're paying for a service that is ineffective and that's deficient. At the end of the day, the very people who it's supposed to serve…. It only causes greater frustrations for them and then with very little results to show for it.

Anyway, I share this with the minister, in conjunction with what my colleague was raising, for purposes of continuity. I'll leave this with the minister. I don't know if he wants to make a comment about that, and then I'm going to get back to the Giving in Action program.

Hon. D. McRae: It is a large ministry with many, many employees. You know what? By all means, I have not met every single one of them.

I have had the opportunity to visit your community and talk with outreach workers. I was really impressed with the dedication they have to their profession. One of the things I noticed, as I've had the opportunity to have this discussion, is there's a range of ages. One of
[ Page 3423 ]
the things that surprised me is the number of individuals who'd actually worked in the community for upwards of 25-plus years. Then there is another large number of individuals who'd worked for a lot less. Oftentimes you meet people who are in senior roles, and they've been working for the ministry for five or six years, or sometimes perhaps even fewer years.

I also have heard, including in my office, from organizations that they want an improved telephone system. So on one hand we have individuals saying it's an unfeeling system that's not working for people. On the other hand, they're saying: "Please, if you can do anything for us in this ministry, please don't let me burn my cell phone minutes when I'm calling the ministry looking for services. I have a limited amount of resources. I can't spend the time on the phone. If we could have a modern telephone system, that would allow me better to access service."

When telephony comes on line for the province in the next couple of weeks, one of the things, again, it will allow individuals to do is not be on hold for 20 or 30 minutes. If there's an issue and there's not someone available right away, a phone number can be left. That person can be contacted and, hopefully, dealt with in a reasonable period of time.

[1705]

The other thing is…. We would love to say that everybody's going to stay in their position for 30 years. It doesn't work that way. Sadly, when people go for assistance, they may meet different individuals.

One of the things that we're working with…. I'm sure we'll canvass this. If not today, we'll be canvassing it on Monday. ICM is an opportunity, when there are interactions with staff, that they are logged and that we do have an understanding of the information and we don't need to have redundancy, going forward. There are places, I think, in our society and in this ministry to use technology in a very valuable way.

Lastly, the other thing I was very impressed with, when I was in your community, with the outreach workers was the number of outreach workers who don't stay in the office. There are clients — obviously, I'm sure you know them as well or better than I do — who aren't comfortable being in an office or aren't comfortable being on the phone. They want to be talked to in their place. Their place might be on the street; it may be in a shelter environment. But the outreach workers are going out and talking to individuals on a regular basis.

They know these individuals. They've known them for a long period of time. They know the needs, and they know their personalities. They know, when things are not going well, where they might be found.

I was just really impressed with the individuals that I was able to meet who work for Social Development and Social Innovation to make the lives of individuals better in areas where they're vulnerable.

One of the things I did purposely was went back to the same group of individuals twice. I said: "Well, you've met me once, but I want to hear how we can do a job and what's working, what's not working so well." I heard good and bad.

Yes, this individual you're going to quote today in the paper obviously has some concerns about telephony. It will not be a perfect system. There's always going to be a time and place for face-to-face contact in this ministry.

However, the world does evolve, and I think there are as many people for whom — whether they're on PWD, whether they're on income assistance, whether they're just in a challenging situation — the on-line or the phone system will work for them. But there are also those individuals, we recognize, who need that face-to-face contact. I'm proud to say we have some amazing men and women working in the province of British Columbia doing just that.

J. Kwan: The information that I quoted on record is actually a letter written to me from an outreach worker to my office. It was not quoted from a newspaper or anything like that, just to be clear.

The other thing is that the outreach workers…. There is no question about the value and the dedication and commitment of the outreach workers and what they do in the community.

Once upon a time, very many, many years ago I was one of those outreach workers in the community. I would often go with an individual, a client, to the income assistance office. I would go to their homes, do whatever I could to assist them because of mobility issues and all of those kinds of things.

There is no question that people in this sector dedicate their lives to this because they want to make the lives of other people better, and that continues to exist today. As my colleague said, it's often not even the offices and the workers that are there that's problematic. It's just that the system in which it's set up creates the problems.

Maybe this phone system works well for some people, but I can tell the minister that we have had numerous complaints from constituents around this, from workers in the system around it.

When we talk about efficiency, it's not efficient when you phone up a 1-866 number, talk to a worker to tell them what your problems are and what you're looking for and then for the person to take this information and often it is the case that nobody gets back to them. It is often the case. Somehow the information gets lost. Nothing happens. The person has to go and phone again and has to repeat the story again, and this goes on and on and on. Sometimes the issues are complex; sometimes it's not even complex. It becomes a problem all over again. So it's not really as efficient.

We've all experienced it a lot in our own lives when we talk about…. Good grief, I phoned B.C. Hydro the other day trying to set up stuff, and I swear to you I was
[ Page 3424 ]
going to get the phone and just hit myself on the head a whole bunch of times because it was very difficult going through the system, waiting for a very long time, then finally connecting with someone and then not quite getting the information, having to phone back again and do it all over again — over and over again.

That's frustrating, so imagine, if you are one of those clients who are in a stressed situation because of their financial situation, what that would mean.

In any event, I'm going to park that with the minister. If the minister is interested in meeting with other outreach workers, I can arrange for outreach workers to meet with the minister or his staff so that they can better learn and understand what the issues are and how better to address those concerns in the system to better serve British Columbians. I'd be very happy to facilitate that.

[1710]

I'm going to go back to the Giving in Action program, the family fund program. The minister says that they haven't got the fund. It was meant to be a one-time funding initiative. I get that, because that was what their announcement was about. Before the election there were additional dollars found and put into the system, and even with that, it was meant to be one time.

I'm wondering whether or not there's been any analysis on the savings of these one-time funds to this program. One of the key issues, aside from quality of life, that this program provides for is that it enables the person with the developmental disability or disabilities to stay at home as opposed to having to live in a long-term-care facility or a care facility of some sort, which usually costs a lot more money to taxpayers and therefore to the government treasury than what this option provides.

I wonder whether or not there has been any analysis that the ministry might have done on the cost-effectiveness of this program.

Hon. D. McRae: No, we haven't done any analysis, but at the same time, we're not in any dispute. We know there are some great benefits through Giving in Action and the long-term benefits it can provide.

For example, I had the opportunity to be in a community in northern British Columbia not too long ago and to a house where moneys were spent to allow a young person to stay living at home. I believe it was somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 that was given to the family, to the home. The opportunities that provided that family, that individual, were quite substantial.

That being said, we do know there are lots of programs out there that have long-term benefit. In fact, this year, though some people may say they wish we could have done more.

With one-time-only funding, I was able to find some money to expand the dental program. In fact, we actually went to the member opposite's community, at the Strathcona Elementary, and there was a dental clinic in there. Some of the dollars we were able to give would assist them to deliver services to needy individuals' children to make sure that their dental health is better.

There will be huge long-term benefits — to make sure that people have better dental health. We didn't do an analysis there, but we do know that there are huge benefits with that program.

But there are limited resources, and it is one-time-only funding that provided it. Last year Social Development, in 2013, was able to provide $2 million, but it has come from other areas. This year in the ministry we just didn't have the luxury of having extra dollars to put towards this program.

J. Kwan: Yes, I know the Strathcona dental program very well. It was a program that was initiated under the NDP when we were in government. I'm very proud of that achievement and very proud, in fact, that successive governments have continued to fund that program, because it is cost-effective and it's very valuable to the lives of the people in our community.

Now, I'm aware that there was a previous GIA evaluation that was commissioned by the Vancouver Foundation and Community Living B.C. on this very program. There is currently research underway with the Centre for Inclusion and Citizenship and UBC Okanagan, where they are doing a cost-benefit analysis of the family fund.

That was supposed to be done, actually, in mid-March, but it's not yet finished. I'm anticipating that that result should be coming out any time now. So I would be very interested if the minister could go back and check to see where that evaluation is at and, once the cost-benefit analysis is completed, to share a copy of that with me.

[1715]

Hon. D. McRae: As the member opposite pointed out, it is not being done by Social Development and Social Innovation. It's being done by the Vancouver Foundation and CLBC. I'm sure that when it is done, we'll be made aware of it. We'll make sure, if the member opposite hasn't heard of it already, that she's aware that it is out. We look forward to that information, by all means.

That being said, I think it's also an opportunity for me to stand and talk about another program that is similar in nature that provides some services for individuals. If the member opposite is not aware, the province has also partnered with the federal government for the Home Adaptations for Independence program, which provides up to $20,000 to eligible homeowners and landlords to pay for home modifications. These funds can help provide safe, accessible and independent living for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, including children and youth.

Again, we're not putting the Giving in Action program in question here. We know it's a good program. We were
[ Page 3425 ]
honoured to support it for a long period of time. It was done with end-of-year dollars. This year this ministry did not have the end-of-year dollars to contribute.

But there are programs that will provide, perhaps, similar services that, if the member opposite is not aware of or individuals are not aware of, they should look into. Again, that is the Home Adaptations for Independence program, which provides for up to $20,000.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm well aware of that program and so are the people in the system, often trying to access the kinds of support they need for qualification eligibility and a variety of different things that people have to meet for these programs. Some of them work for them, and some of them not so much.

It's difficult, that adaptation program that the minister talks about. I've helped many people — who are actually, incidentally, not constituents of mine — trying to access those kinds of funds for them to make the modifications that they require for them to stay at home.

In any event, getting back to this program. I know we're in Social Development estimates. Of course, this minister, as it happens, as life goes, is also the minister responsible for CLBC. There's crossover, right? There's crossover in terms of where this program falls — both within this ministry and within the agency for which the minister is responsible, that being CLBC. And there's crossover, as well, with MCFD. I'm not discounting that.

I do want to, finally, put this last bit on the record, around this program, and then I'm going to move on to some other issues. I'm also aware that in 2010 there was a GIA evaluation that attempted to do some cost analysis on this program. Now, it's not as fulsome as, I think, the review that's going to come forward, but it does give you this preliminary set of numbers to evaluate and consider.

For the relatively small sample analyzed in this report, the investment in one-time grant costs of…. At that time, they evaluated $608,686, and it prevented estimated annual expenditures on residential care of $1.191 million. If these results were extrapolated to the entire group of grant recipients on the basis of $25.1 million in grants, the savings over five years would be to the tune of $135 million.

Now, as I said, the study itself has some limitations, but you can sort of imagine the value of this program and the cost savings within the system across government if this program was funded and able to continue to provide its services to British Columbians.

With that, I'm going to urge the minister to…. You know, you never know. At the end of the fiscal year maybe there will be some unspent dollars somewhere around government that they might be able to scrape together for this program. And $3 million would actually service close to an additional 100 families. Then, if you are able to somehow come up with $4 million each year for a period of five years, you're looking at being able to reach 600 to 800 families, in terms of making that difference.

If you can do the cost analysis of the savings that could result from that, in terms of other government agencies that would have to provide for, let's say, residential care or other options — how much savings that would be for the provincial treasury overall.

[1720]

I would argue that this is a good investment in many ways and deserves not just a one-time grant but an ongoing investment. It's good for the people. It's good for the provincial treasury, and — you know what? — it'll give the minister a good name, too.

I'll leave it at that, and then I'm going to move on to another set of issues, noting that we don't have that much time.

I do have here some individual cases that I want to bring to the minister's attention. I have authorization signed by the individuals for me to raise their cases. This is an individual who has great difficulties in accessing funds for their appropriate power wheelchair, and the loss of the equipment assistance technology initiative…. This is a PWD recipient in receipt of disability benefits from the ministry since he turned 19.

This individual requires a new power wheelchair, and his current wheelchair is having some huge problems, including trouble with the tilt and with the battery and so on. That has curtailed his daily living activities, because he's afraid of what could happen if his wheelchair falls while he's alone and out and about. He says that he's had regular visits from an in-home care assistant, but generally speaking he lives alone.

He had submitted the request for a new wheelchair, for what's called a Quickie 646 power wheelchair base on or about December 17. The request included all of the items usually required for eligibility, including a written assessment, justification from the occupational therapist, a doctor's prescription and a quote from the provider.

Then on April 15 he had not heard back about this decision. He called his local office to inquire about the status of it. Then he had no response. On April 17 he was able to confirm that he had spoken with the staff, that the request was pending and that it had been open for 122 days since he applied. Then he was advised this is a "pretty typical wait," for a medical device request at the present, and the ministry office advised that they were going to try and expedite the request.

Then the individual followed up to say that his wheelchair provider received a call from the ministry to say that they would need a quote for a different model of wheelchair than what he had requested. He said that no approval or denial was received but that the provider agreed to send a quote for the power wheelchair that the ministry had specified. This specific wheelchair that the ministry has specified is one that is not recommended by his occupational therapist, and in fact, there is docu-
[ Page 3426 ]
mentation here from his therapist to say that it would not meet his needs.

This is an outstanding issue, and it continues to be an outstanding issue. This individual needs his wheelchair and has, I believe, met all of the requirements and submitted all of the papers. He's waited 122 days now and still with no response except for the ministry to try to urge his provider to give him a different chair, which his occupational therapist says will be of no use to him.

I wonder if the minister could commit his staff to working with my staff and with this individual to resolve this issue. I hope that the person could actually get their wheelchair so that they can get their life back on track.

Hon. D. McRae: Just a question to the member opposite before I answer. Have you contacted the ministerial office in this building before on this particular issue? Is this a new one for us?

J. Kwan: I don't know if it's new or not. I'm not sure what the minister means. Is it a new…?

[1725]

Hon. D. McRae: We're not familiar, and I'm not familiar, with this particular individual's request, but by all means…. The reason I did ask is that if it was in process and we were already working with it, I'd liked to have found that out for you. It doesn't ring a bell with me; however, thank you very much for raising this issue with us. Staff will be happy to work with the individual to see if we can resolve the issue.

J. Kwan: I don't know what stage it is at, at the moment. I do have a note here to say that the individual had noted that the last time, he was approved for the same Torque SP chair but was able to access funds through the Equipment and Assistive Technology Initiative to upgrade to a model that he's been using. However, that program closed to new applications last year, in June, and he now cannot access that alternative funding source and must rely solely on the Ministry of Social Development to purchase this needed equipment.

He finally also says that he has asked for a request-for-reconsideration package through his local office and that he was told he could not appeal the approval of the Torque SP chair. He's been told that he has to take this chair. However, he says that his worker has spoken with someone in Victoria who stated that the item is eligible for appeal under the regulations.

In any event, I'm hoping that maybe we don't need to go through a whole bunch of appeals or whatever and that the ministry is not going to make him take a chair that is not really suitable for him and that he gets the chair which his occupational therapist states and has written to advise that he should be getting.

I'll pass this information at the end of the debate over to the minister's staff to follow up.

I'll move on to another case. This is another individual who's given me authorization. There are a series of cases that have to do with the Work B.C. program. Right now, in this instance, this person is living in stable housing and is trying to get back into the workforce. He is working through a temporary agency and got five weeks' worth of work, which is good news. Now, because of this, he was hoping to be able to apply for the annualized earnings exemption so that his regular levels of PWD assistance would not be impacted by his earnings, which are not always predictable due to the nature of his employment situation.

Exemption is currently only available to a small number of PWD recipients who were invited to be part of the pilot program, as the minister knows. This was done for 2013, but now for 2014 only the same group of people is able to access this program. The ministry has confirmed that it would not be available for Mr. Byron. He's frustrated by this, of course, because without the ability to access this program, he says that he would very likely end up having a clawback if he should complete the five-week temporary work.

He said that he's happy to be working again but that there "doesn't seem to be much point" in making a return to work of this kind if it means that he's "going to end up working for free" part of the time.

Mr. Byron had signed the consent here, and I'm really hoping that there's some way for individuals such as him to be able to access this annualized earnings exemption that's in place. I know it's a pilot program, but is there not any way to actually extend this for those individuals? If the pilot only extends to the very people who've been in it, there's no option for anyone else to get into it. Clearly, it's an important incentive and, as well, makes practical sense for people who are able to attain employment.

Hon. D. McRae: I think the member was here earlier when we were talking about some of the phase 1 policy reforms that were beneficial. Obviously, the $800-a-month earning exemption was something that was quite well received.

The member opposite is correct. The annualized earnings exemption is a pilot project. What will happen in the near future is that we'll be analyzing the data from that. Assuming that it does meet its test and it is being helpful to individuals with disabilities and allowing them to enter the workforce and retain some earnings, I look forward to seeing it expand.

It won't be in the very near future, so I'm afraid I'm not able to commit to saying that this person would be able to be part of the pilot program. However, I'd like to see, if the analysis comes back in a positive manner, that we do expand the program as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: I wonder, in any event, if the minister would
[ Page 3427 ]
take a look at this case to see whether or not there's anything that could be done for this individual. If he could do that, I would appreciate it.

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

[1730]

J. Kwan: I'd like to raise another issue with the ministry, and, again, this is related to Work B.C. This individual's complaint is about the difficulty in accessing tuition fee assistance. Here's the scenario, just so that the minister can see what the situation is and how to better improve the system and, hopefully, assist individuals like this person that has come to my office. Right now, as it stands, it is impossible to find the general tuition fee assistance program and general eligibility criteria.

The individual was employed for a number of years after graduating from a diploma program in 2002 but was laid off in 2011. She insists that it seems that the jobs in her field have not recovered since the financial downturn, and she has not been able to find work in her rather specialized field. She was hoping that she could access some tuition fee assistance through Work B.C. to aid in meeting the costs of retraining so that she can re-enter the workforce.

She is in receipt of EI benefits, and she would meet that portion of the criteria. However, our office could not find a more complete description of the eligibility criteria or program eligibility for tuition fee assistance, and we wonder where we could obtain this information.

After trying to reach a Work B.C. supervisor to no avail, we contacted the minister's office on March 5. The reply from the minister's office was that the individual should just go to Work B.C.'s office and apply for the tuition fee assistance to see if she's eligible. We explained to the minister's office that her question was not to determine whether or not she's eligible but as to what the general eligibility criteria is, as it could have some bearing on her final choice of program if she finds that she can fund all or a portion of her retraining.

She was aware that the application was quite lengthy, and before undertaking the lengthy application she wanted to have some idea of the likelihood of the approval. That was explained, and again the answer that came back stated that she needs to visit the Work B.C. office.

Now, the tuition fee assistance program definitely has the criteria. We know this from our office because it was once attached to the backgrounder of a November 19, 2012, announcement by the then minister, who is now the Minister of Health, which lifted the funding cap from $4,000 to $7,500. The only reason we didn't have it at hand anymore is that the ministry updated the website, and the link that we had bookmarked didn't work anymore in our office on our computer. We even cited the date of the press release to the minister's staff, but they could not produce the program's general eligibility criteria.

Really, how can the ministry offer a program without even making the eligibility criteria readily available and transparent? Given that there is that lengthy, involved process, how could a potential applicant feel confident that there would be administrative fairness in assessing their application if they do not know on what basis it is being assessed? I think that creates, as the minister could imagine, the kind of difficulties that people are faced with.

I would be very grateful if the minister could assist us and perhaps have his staff provide us with the eligibility criteria so that when people come into our office, we know how to assist them and say, "Here it is. This what the criteria looks like, and you go over here to make the application," and so on and so forth. I wonder if the minister could provide that information to us and then, likewise, I would be happy to pass this case along for the ministry's office to work with this individual.

[1735]

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite raises a very good question, obviously. In this ministry we really endeavour to be as transparent as possible, so through a hard copy and definitely, if we can, through a link, we'll give you the criteria.

That being said, Work B.C. has a wide range of opportunities and programs for individuals. When a particular individual has a question like this — it's a very good question — and they're asking for the criteria sheet, it's definitely not wrong.

It's really important that we encourage individuals to visit the Work B.C. office and talk to a caseworker. Perhaps there's a program that this individual is not aware of that could better serve them getting to their goals. There's a wide range of programs that could be possible or that perhaps they're eligible for. By all means, we'll provide the criteria sheet as soon as we can. I'll make that available, so please contact us that way.

The other piece, of course, is that we really want to encourage individuals to go to Work B.C. and work with somebody who's really dedicated. Staff there are aware of a wide range of services that will better enable individuals to meet some of their employment goals going forward.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate it if the minister could pass on the information.

Another Work B.C.–related situation. I have this individual who basically had great difficulties in accessing Work B.C. services and, again, great frustrations in that process. The situation is such that he visited the office last July and tried to access tuition fee assistance. He's been working in jobs related to the film industry, many of them low-waged, and was seeking some additional training. He had been accepted into a program in the Vancouver Film School in June of 2013.

He says that he actually learned about Work B.C. from
[ Page 3428 ]
a jobs plan ad, and he said he learned that there was tuition fee assistance and thought that his needs and experience made him a good fit for the program. He advises that he attended the Work B.C. Vancouver midtown office and went through the process of applying for the tuition fee assistance, which was an intensive program. He completed the forms and included a list of 30 jobs in his field that he applied for and did not get interviews with people in the field.

Now, the application was submitted in whole in July. He said that in the process of completing and submitting the application, his worker and supervisor both said to him in meeting with him that they were not supportive of his application. The individual characterized their comments as saying that it was pointless to get a diploma when people with higher qualifications and degrees could not get a job.

He says that they also encouraged him to apply as a volunteer at the Vancouver International Film Festival, an organization where he was once a seasonal employee and did exactly the kind of job that he's trying to break out of.

Then in September he got a reply to his application by letter saying that the only reason he was denied was because he had an outstanding student loan payment which needed to be addressed or in good standing.

The individual then, at our advice, rehabilitated his B.C. and Canada student loans. He brought proof to our office, and we forwarded this proof to the minister's office in March and asked how we could make his application for the tuition fee assistance up to date and get the approval because now he had settled his student loan.

The reply from the minister's office was that they could not advise as to whether or not this could change the status of Mr. Seff's application and that he could go back to his Work B.C. office to speak with them.

[1740]

The minister's office said:

"The only way Mr. Seff will be able to know if he's eligible for any funding is to return to his Work B.C. office and restart the application process now that he has the necessary outstanding items sorted out. Since Mr. Seff has the appropriate documentation to confirm that the student loans have been taken care of, he can present them when he returns to his caseworker, and they can then move forward with another application."

I guess you can see the frustration here, right? He was denied with an issue that was identified to him. He went to fix it and then fixed it, only to be told: "I'm sorry. You've got to go and reapply all over again." I mean, I don't know what the purpose of that would be, other than to duplicate more work for everybody concerned and, of course, enhance the level of frustration in this exercise.

I'm hoping that I have all of the documentation here regarding this case, along with the consents and so on. I'm hoping that the minister will commit to looking into this and, hopefully, resolving this issue without yet another process of application.

Hon. D. McRae: Just a question, and the member can answer it if she chooses to later. I have a fairly decent memory, though it's not perfect by any stretch, as my wife will attest to. You refer to letters being received at the minister's office. I try to make sure I remember most letters, and this one seemed in such detail that I….

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: Oh, it was a phone call. Okay. So I probably didn't talk to the person in person.

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: Okay. Just for the sake of…. I was just a little confused there. If it was to me directly as a letter, I didn't remember it, and I was going to apologize. But it didn't come to me directly that way.

That being said, a couple of pieces, if I may. If an individual has gone through a Work B.C. office, has worked on an application for a process and was unsuccessful, there is a complaints resolution process within the office. I encourage the individual to, obviously, go through that process. Failing that, through the Social Development and Social Innovation there are reconsideration processes available to individuals as well.

However, knowing that there are these programs within the organization to deal with reconsiderations or concerns as they go, evolve, in terms of services, by all means, please provide us the information. We will do our best to look into it and get back to the individual.

J. Kwan: I think in this instance it's a little bit different. It's not really a complaint process per se, right? He's been denied. He was told: "You've got to go fix this thing." So he went and fixed the thing and then was told, "You've got to apply all over again," which kind of…. It's not really a complaint. He addressed the issue that was brought to him.

One would think that there's a more efficient way of dealing with it than having the person go through the whole process again. I think it's kind of, I guess, a system failure in that sense. I'm sure that there might be others that are in that situation, and maybe we can fix that problem for everybody concerned, including for this individual. I'll pass that information along to the minister.

I am noting that I only have two minutes to raise three cases, so I'm going to plow through it really quickly.

I have an individual — again, this is a Work B.C. situation — who is receiving EI, worked for 20 years in the trades as an automotive painter. He lost his job because he did not have certification, and now he cannot get a new job without certification. He's currently, actually, without a fixed address, and he says that he tried once to write the ITA automotive painter exam but did not succeed.
[ Page 3429 ]

He would like to know how Work B.C. can support him through this process of obtaining the required certification, including meeting the fees while he's still on EI. He says that he's been to Work B.C. as recently as April 16 but has not gotten any clear advice as to how he could best proceed.

I'm going to leave this with the minister. If somebody from the minister's office could assist with the individual, that would be great.

[1745]

Then I'm going to move right on to another issue here. This is with the B.C. bus pass program. This has been an angst for me for so many years, because it is an angst for my constituents and many others in British Columbia for so many years.

This is a former PWD recipient who transitioned to receiving CPP disability pensions, after which they lost the eligibility for the B.C. bus pass program because the B.C. disability recipient makes just a little bit more than the PWD cutoff.

Currently this individual is homeless, is a former PWD recipient, applied for the CPP disability, as required by the legislation, and his application was approved. His monthly income is just a little too high to qualify for the PWD top-up, and therefore, he lost his eligibility for the bus pass.

Now this, of course, impacts him greatly. He's only 55, and it'll be some time before he's eligible for OAS and GIS. His CPP disability amount is $1,038 a month, therefore making him not eligible.

I don't know if the minister can solve this problem at this moment, but I do want to flag it with him. I wonder whether or not he can talk with his colleagues about this. So often when people reach a certain age, they're made to go off, right? They have to go and apply for CPP. And by that process, it disqualifies them from a whole range of other services or access to supports that they may otherwise have.

Most often the bus pass issue is a big, big deal, because it is actually costly and expensive for people to get the monthly bus pass. Annually, depending on where you are, it ranges from $972 to $1,872 if you're, for example, in the Lower Mainland. That number would vary depending on, again, where you are.

I wonder whether or not the minister will work with his colleagues to review the eligibility criteria and, especially for cases like this, to make changes to allow for these individuals to be qualified for the bus pass. It is a big, big deal for people in our community. I'm going to leave that with the minister.

I'm already over, so I'm going to finish this last one here. This person doesn't actually need action, but I want to bring this issue to the minister's attention in the hope that these are the kinds of things that the system could fix to eliminate frustrations and problems for people.

This individual applied for PWD and was accepted. He got a letter from the ministry which advised: "You are only required to complete this stub if you have any changes in information or circumstances." His first cheque as a PWD recipient was to be direct-deposited on Wednesday, April 23. However, there was no direct deposit that morning, so he went into the MSD office. The cheque had been flagged because no stub was received. The worker's verbal advice was "fill out a stub for the next few months."

By the time he got back home with his cheque, he had a letter in the mail from the ministry advising him that his cheque has been flagged because he hadn't completed a stub. He opened his cheque, and it is printed right in the front, on the cheque, that he only has to complete a stub if there are changes.

So at the end, he was able to sort it out, with much frustration and many trips back and forth — and for someone who's a PWD individual, travel is not easy. You can imagine the silliness of the situation in our system. Maybe we can fix the system, not just for this individual but for others, as well, where somehow clearly there is a communication breakdown, shall we say, on the stub and the cheque and the message that is being given to those individuals.

Hon. D. McRae: Just to make closing remarks today, because I know we are coming back.

I want to thank the member opposite and the other members who have proposed questions today. Staff will do our very best to respond in a timely manner, though some questions may take a little longer than others.

That being said, I also want to just raise one more point. When it comes to dealing with individuals — and the member opposite today has raised several cases of individuals on a broad range of services that this ministry provides — we want to make sure that people are treated in a timely manner. If there's an opportunity to resolve an issue to everyone's satisfaction, I want to do that in as quick a time as possible.

[1750]

I just want to extend an invitation to not just the member opposite but all members in the House. It's really important that if you have a constituent who is struggling to deal with this ministry, we would like to have that information as soon as possible. We don't need to wait till estimates to deal with it, though sometimes it's obviously just apropos. It's the time. If there is an issue that you have with a constituent that you would like us to assist with, we may not get the answer that is what the client is looking for, but we can look into the issue, and we can resolve it as quickly as possible for all parties' knowledge.

So for these issues, as they come up, by all means, please, if I could just ask one favour…. As they come forward, we look forward to getting more information, more
[ Page 3430 ]
questions, not only from the critic opposite but also from members on both sides of the House, knowing that we have individuals who are vulnerable in all our communities across British Columbia. We want to make sure that we respond in a timely manner to these people. If there are questions that need to be answered or more information that needs to be gathered, we would like to assist in that process as well.

I just want to have that on the record, and we look forward to getting questions and constituency work from across the province of British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 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